ML20269A408
| ML20269A408 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Surry  |
| Issue date: | 06/02/2020 |
| From: | Effinger T Dominion Energy Services, Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO) |
| To: | Bryan J Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of VA, Dept of Environmental Quality |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20269A409 | List: |
| References | |
| 20-298 | |
| Download: ML20269A408 (185) | |
Text
{{#Wiki_filter:Dominion Energy Services. Inc. 120 Tredegar Street, Richmond, VA 23219 Dominion Energy.com BY ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION June 2, 2020 Mr. Joseph B. Bryan Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Piedmont Regional Office 4949-A Cox Road Glenn Allen, VA 23060 joseph.bryan@deq.virginia.gov RE: Dominion Energy Surry Power Station VPDES Permit No. V A0004090: Application for Permit Reissuance -316(b) 40 CFR §§122.21(r)(2)-(13)
Dear Mr. Bryan:
Enclosed for Dominion Energy's Surry Power Station is the applicable information required to satisfy the 40 CFR § 122.21 (r) application requirements for facilities with cooling water intake structures. This information, in the form of submittals consistent with§§ 122.21(r)(2)-(13) of Part 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, is being timely submitted consistent with Special Condition I.E.3 of the subject Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit issued by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Please note that Dominion Energy will be preparing an addendum to supplement the attached (r)(I3) submittal by providing additional responses and clarifications to comments made by the peer reviewers. The addendum will be submitted on, or before, the deadline for submittal of the permit renewal application and will also include revisions to the (r)(l 0)-(12) reports, as appropriate, based on the peer reviewer comments. Please feel to contact Ken Roller at kenneth.roller@dominionenergy.com or at (804) 273-3494 should you have any questions about this information. Sincerely, ~v\\.fff Thomas Effinger Director, Environmental Services
Enclosure:
Surry Power Station 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(2)-(13) Submittal Page 1 of 2 -1
Dominion Energy Services. Inc. 120 Tredegar Street. Richmond VA 23219 Dominion Energy.com Serial No. 20-298 Ecc: Ray Fernald (DGIF, Manager, Environmental Programs): Rav.Femald@'dgif.virginia.gov Amy Ewing (DGIF, Manager, Fish & Wildlife Information Services) am,*.e,, ing(ll d2.if.,*ir2.inia.2.o, Bettina Rayfield (DEQ Environmental Impact Review Program Manager) benina.rayfield~1 deg., ir2.inia.2.o, Tony Watkinson (VMRC ChiefofHabitat Management) TONY.\\\\'ATKJNSONw MRC.VIRGJNIA.GO\\' Randy Owen (VMRC Environmental Engineer) RANDY.OWENICI MRC.V!RGINIA.GOV Rachael Peabody (VMRC Habitat Management Staff) RAC! IAEL.Pl:.ABODY(a MRC.\\'IRGll\\!A.GO\\' Lyle Varnell (VIMS - Associate Director for Advisory Services) LMVARN (i1 \\\\'M.EDU Page 2 of 2
Surry Power Station 40 CFR§122.21 (r)(2)- (13) Submittal June 2020 Certification Statement Serial No. 20-298, Page 4 of 1631 I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate. and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submittingfalse information. including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations. Fre Mladen, Site Vice President
Serial No. 20-298, Page 5 of 1631 1-)~ Clean Water Act §316(b} Compliance Submittal §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Prepared for: Dominion Energy, Inc. Prepared by: HDR Engineering, Inc. February 15, 2019
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Table of Contents Serial No. 20-298, Page 6 of 1631 1-)~ Executive Summary...................................................................................................................................... 1 1 Introduction............................................................................................................................................. 4 2 Source Water Physical Data [§122.21 (r)(2)].......................................................................................... 7 2.1 Description of Source Waterbody [§122.21 (r)(2)(i)].................................................................. 7 2.1.1 Dimensions and Other Physical Characteristics................................................................. 7 2.1.2 Temperature and Salinity Regime...................................................................................... 7 2.2 Characterization of Source Waterbody [§122.21 (r)(2)(ii)]....................................................... 1 O 2.2.1 Hydrology.......................................................................................................................... 10 2.2.2 Geomorphology................................................................................................................. 12 2.2.3 Determination of Area of Influence................................................................................... 12 2.3 Locational Maps [§122.21 (r)(2)(iii)]......................................................................................... 18 3 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data [§122.21 (r)(3)]............................................................................ 20 3.1 Description of CWIS Configuration [§122.21 (r)(3)(i)].............................................................. 20 3.2 Latitude and Longitude of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(3)(ii)]................................................................. 23 3.3 Description of CWIS Operation [§122.21 (r)(3)(iii)].................................................................. 23 3.4 Description of Intake Flows [§122.21 (r)(3)(iv)]........................................................................ 24 3.5 Engineering Drawings of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(3)(v)]................................................................... 27 4 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data [§122.21 (r)(4)]............................................ 28 4.1 List of Unavailable Biological Data [§122.21 (r)(4)(i)]............................................................... 28 4.2 List of Species and Relative Abundance in the vicinity of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(4)(ii)]................ 28 4.2.1 Historical Entrainment Studies.......................................................................................... 36 4.2.2 Historical Impingement Studies........................................................................................ 37 4.2.3 Historical Ambient Fish Sampling..................................................................................... 38 4.2.4 Recent Entrainment Studies............................................................................................. 42 4.2.5 Recent Impingement Studies............................................................................................ 44 4.3 Identification of Species and Life Stages Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment [§122.21 (r)(4) (iii)]..................................................................................................................... 48 4.4 Identification and Evaluation of Primary Growth Period [§122.21 (r)(4)(iv)]............................. 53 4.4.1 Reproduction..................................................................................................................... 53 4.4.2 Larval Recruitment............................................................................................................ 53 4.4.3 Period of Peak Abundance for Relevant Taxa.................................................................. 54 4.5 Data Representative of Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of CWIS [§122.21(r)(4)(v)]..................................................................................................................... 56 4.6 Identification of Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment at CWIS [§122.21 (r)(4)(vi)]..................................................... 62 4.7 Documentation of Consultation with Services [§122.21 (r)(4)(vii)]........................................... 74 Dominion Energy J i
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 7 of 1631 1-)~ 4.8 Methods and QA Procedures for Field Efforts [§122.21 (r)(4)(viii)].......................................... 7 4 4.9 Definition of Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data [§122.21 (r)(4)(ix)]...... 74 4.10 Identification of Protective Measures and Stabilization Activities [§122.21 (r)(4)(x)................ 75 4.11 List of Fragile Species [§122.21 (r)(4)(xi)]................................................................................ 75 4.12 Information Submitted to Obtain Incidental Take Exemption or Authorization from Services [§122.21 (r)(4)(xii)].................................................................................................................... 75 5 Cooling Water System Data [§122.21 (r)(5)]......................................................................................... 76 5.1 Description of Cooling Water System Operation [§122.21 (r) (5)(i)]......................................... 76 5.1.1 Operation of Cooling Water System................................................................................. 78 5.1.2 Temporal Characteristics of Cooling Water System Operation........................................ 78 5.1.3 Proportion of Design Flow Used in the Cooling Water System........................................ 79 5.1.4 Distribution of Water Reuse.............................................................................................. 79 5.1.5 Description of Reductions in Total Water Withdrawals..................................................... 79 5.1.6 Description of Cooling Water Used in Manufacturing Process......................................... 79 5.1. 7 Proportion of Source Waterbody Withdrawn.................................................................... 80 5.2 Design and Engineering Calculations [§122.21 (r)(5)(ii)]......................................................... 81 5.3 Description of Existing Impingement and Entrainment Reduction Measures [§122.21 (r)(5)(iii)] ................................................................................................................................................. 81 6 Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard [§122.21 (r){6)].................... 82 7 Entrainment Performance Studies [§122.21 (r)(7)]............................................................................... 82 8 Operational Status [§122.21 (r)(8)]........................................................................................................ 83 8.1 Description of Operating Status [§122.21 (r)(8)(i)]................................................................... 83 8.1.1 Individual UnitAge............................................................................................................ 83 8.1.2 Utilization for Previous 5 Years......................................................................................... 83 8.1.3 Major Upgrades in Last 15 Years..................................................................................... 83 8.2 Descriptions of Consultation with Nuclear Regulatory Commission [§ 122.21 (r)(8)(ii)]........... 84 8.3 Other Cooling Water Uses for Process Units [§122.21 (r)(8)(iii)]............................................. 84 8.4 Descriptions of Current and Future Production Schedules [§122.21 (r)(8)(iv)]........................ 84 8.5 Descriptions of Plans or Schedules for Any New Units Planned within the Next 5 Years [§122.21 (r)(8)(v)]..................................................................................................................... 84 9 Entrainment Characterization Study [§122.21 (r)(9)]............................................................................. 85 9.1 Entrainment Data Collection Method [§122.21 (r) (9)(i)]........................................................... 85 9.1.1 Sampling Gear.................................................................................................................. 85 9.1.2 Sampling Location............................................................................................................. 85 9.1.3 Sample Collection Period and Frequency........................................................................ 87 9.1.4 Laboratory Analysis........................................................................................................... 87 9.1.5 Identification of Species Susceptible to Entrainment........................................................ 88 Dominion Energy I ii
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 8 of 1631 1-)~ 9.1.6 Identification of Protected Species.................................................................................... 90 9.2 Biological Entrainment Characterization [§122.21 (r){9)(ii)]..................................................... 90 9.2.1 Species Abundance.......................................................................................................... 91 9.2.2 Spatial Characteristics...................................................................................................... 95 9.2.3 Temporal Characteristics.................................................................................................. 96 9.3 Analysis and Supporting Documentation [§122.21 (r)(9)(iii)]................................................. 100 9.3.1 Representative Operational Flows.................................................................................. 100 9.3.2 Latent Mortality................................................................................................................ 101 9.3.3 Total Entrainment............................................................................................................ 101 1 O References......................................................................................................................................... 112 List of Appendices Appendix A-Surry Power Station §122.21 (r)(2) - (9) Submittal Requirement Checklist......................... A-1 Appendix B - Engineering Drawings of Cooling Water Intake Structures................................................. 8-1 Appendix C - Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) and State-Threatened or Endangered Species Query Results............................................................................................................ C-1 Appendix D - Engineering Calculations of Through-Screen Velocity....................................................... D-1 Appendix E - Surry Power Station 2015-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study Report.................... E-1 Dominion Energy I iii
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station list of Tables Serial No. 20-298, Page 9 of 1631 1-)~ Table 1-1. Facility Flow Attributes and Permit Application Requirements.................................................... 4 Table 1-2. Summary of 40 CFR §122.21(r)(2)-{9) Submittal Reports........................................................... 5 Table 2-1. Estimated Arc Radii (in feet) at Various Arc Angles for Threshold Velocities of 0.1 and 0.3 fps15 Table 3-1. Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Pump Characteristics............................................. 20 Table 3-2. Surry Power Station Monthly Average Pump Run Times (in Days) by Unit during 2013-2017. 23 Table 3-3. Unit-combined Total Monthly Averaged Daily Withdrawal (MGD) of Surry Power Station from James River in 2013-2017........................................................................................................ 24 Table 3-4. Surry Power Station Monthly Averaged Daily Withdrawal (MGD) by Unit from James River in 2013-2017................................................................................................................................. 24 Table 4-1. Master Species List for Fish Taxa Collected During Impingement, Entrainment, and Ambient Studies Conducted at Surry Power Station............................................................................... 29 Table 4-2. Initial Impingement Survival of each Assessed Individual by Taxa at Surry Power Project during 2015-2016 Impingement Sampling................................................................................ 44 Table 4-3. Most Abundant Fish and Shellfish Species Collected by Unit at Surry Power Station during 2015-2016 Impingement Sampling (HOR 2018b)..................................................................... 46 Table 4-4. Entrainment and Impingement Potential for Fish Taxa Known to Occur near the Surry Power Station....................................................................................................................................... 51 Table 4-5. Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of the Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Structure.............................................................................................................. 59 Table 4-6. Federal and State-threatened and Endangered Species with the Potential to Occur within Surry Power Station Action Area............................................................................................... 67 Table 5-1. Percent {%) of Surry Power Station Design Flow vs. Actual Intake Flow used in Cooling Water System during 2013-2017......................................................................................................... 79 Table 8-1. Capacity Factors at Surry Power Station during 2013-2017..................................................... 83 Table 8-2. Annual Gross Generation at Surry Power Station during 2013-2017........................................ 83 Table 8-3. Surry Power Station's Relicensing Status and Approved Uprates............................................ 84 Table 9-1. Sampling Depths Relative to Mean Sea Level at Surry Power Station..................................... 86 Table 9-2. Surry Power Station Entrainment Sampling Details, 2015-2017............................................... 87 Table 9-3. Master Species List of All Distinct Taxa Collected during Entrainment Sampling at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017.................................................................................................................... 88 Table 9-4. Total Number of Fish by Taxa and Life Stage Collected at Surry Power Station during 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling...................................................................................................... 92 Table 9-5. Monthly Density {#/100m 3) of Finfish and Shellfish by Depth Stratum Excluding lmpingeable Organisms at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017......................................................................... 99 Dominion Energy I iv
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 10 of 1631 1-)~ Table 9-6. Excluded lmpingeable Finfish and Shellfish at Surry Power Station based on 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling Study................................................................................................... 104 Table 9-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment Based on Year-specific Densities with Sampling Year-specific Flows and Rule-defined AIF.................................................................................................... 108 list of Figures Figure 2-1. Aerial Photo of Surry Power Station and its Environs................................................................ 8 Figure 2-2. Monthly Average Specific Conductivity and Temperature Data during Entrainment Study at Surry Power Station, 2015-2016................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-3. Monthly Average Specific Conductivity and Temperature Data during Entrainment Study at Surry Power Station, 2016-2017................................................................................................. 9 Figure 2-4. Location of Surry Power Station within the James River Watershed....................................... 11 Figure 2-5. Illustration of Various Arc Angles at Different Tidal Phases and Extent of Entrainment AOI... 17 Figure 2-6. Locational Map of Area near Surry Power Station................................................................... 19 Figure 3-1. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Intake Structure.................................................. 21 Figure 3-2. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Intake Structure................................ 21 Figure 3-3. Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level Intake............................. 22 Figure 3-4. Seasonal Variation of Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Flows Based on 2013-2017 Operation................................................................................................................................... 25 Figure 3-5. Surry Power Station Water Balance Diagram.......................................................................... 26 Figure 4-1. Impingement Species Composition at Surry Power Station 197 4-1983.................................. 37 Figure 4-2. Seasonal Impingement Variation for Top Ten Species............................................................ 38 Figure 4-3. Historic Ambient Fish Sampling Locations............................................................................... 39 Figure 4-4. Percent Composition Comparison of Two Sets of Seine Data Collected near Surry Power Station....................................................................................................................................... 41 Figure 4-5. Percent Composition Comparison of Two Sets of Trawl Data Collected near Surry Power Station....................................................................................................................................... 42 Figure 4-6. Depth-averaged Total Entrainment Density (#/100 m3) for Finfish and Shellfish Life Stage Combined at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017.......................................................................... 55 Figure 4-7. Average(+/- Standard Error) Impingement Sample Density (#/100,000 m3) of all Taxa by Sample Date.............................................................................................................................. 56 Figure 4-8. Service-Defined Action Area.................................................................................................... 63 Figure 4-9. Information, Planning, and Conservation Database Search Area............................................ 64 Figure 4-10. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System Database Search Area.................................. 65 Figure 5-1. Simplified Flow Diagram of Steam-electric System of Generating Unit at Surry Power Station76 Figure 5-2. Simplified Flow Diagram of Heat Dissipating System at Surry Power Station......................... 77 Figure 5-3. Illustration of Tidal Excursion Volume in CWA §316(b) Phase I Rule...................................... 80 Dominion Energy I v
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 11 of 1631 Figure 9-1. Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration................................................................ 85 Figure 9-2. Design of Intake Piping for Entrainment Sampling at Surry Power Station............................. 86 Figure 9-3. Entrainment Density (#/100 m3 or 0.0264 million gallons) by Depth Stratum Excluding lmpingeable Organisms at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017.................................................... 95 Figure 9-4. Average Entrainment Density during Four Diel Periods (0400, 1000, 1600 and 2200 hours) at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017............................................................................................... 96 Figure 9-5. Average Entrainment Density (#/100 m3) During Four Diel Periods (0400, 1000, 1600 and 2200 hours) at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017....................................................................... 97 Figure 9-6. Monthly Average Actual Intake Flows by Unit at Surry Power Station, during 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling............................................................................................................. 100 Figure 9-7. Summary of the Step-Wise Process Used to Estimate Entrainment based on the Rule and Existing Screens Installed at Surry Power Station.................................................................. 102 Dominion Energy I vi
Serial No. 20-298, Page 12 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ Acronyms and Abbreviations oc AIF AOI BTA CFR cfs cm CWA CWIS DIF Director DPS DO Dominion Energy El. EPRI ESA feet msl fps gpm IPAC m MGD mm µm µS MW MWe MWt NMFS NOAA NPDES NVE Services SPS ppt QA QA/QC RAO/ Rule TWS degrees Celsius actual intake flow area of influence best technology available Code of Federal Regulations cubic feet per second centimeters Clean Water Act cooling water intake structure design intake flow National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit Director Distinct Population Segment dissolved oxygen Dominion Energy, Inc. elevation Electric Power Research Institute Endangered Species Act feet above mean sea level feet per second gallons per minute USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation System meter million gallons per day millimeter micron microSiemens megawatt megawatt electric megawatt thermal National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System non-viable eggs U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service Surry Power Station parts per thousand quality assurance quality assurance/quality control radius of the area of influence CWA Section 316(b) rule for existing facilities traveling water screens Dominion Energy I vii
Serial No. 20-298, Page 13 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ USEPA USFWS USGS VAFWIS VDGIF VEPCO VPDES U.S. Environmental Protection Agency U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Virginia Electric Power Company Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Dominion Energy I viii
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Executive Summary Serial No. 20-298, Page 14 of 1631 1-)~ The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Final Regulations to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structure at Existing Facilities (the Rule), which became effective October 14, 2014, established requirements under the Clean Water Act (CWA) for existing power generating facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons per day (MGD) of water from Waters of the United States and use at least 25 percent of that water for cooling purposes. Those requirements, implemented through Natural Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, apply to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) that reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. There are two main components of the Rule for existing facilities such as Surry Power Station (SPS). The first requires the owner or operator of the facility to choose from one of seven options for meeting BTA requirements for reducing impingement. The second component requires that the facility conduct site-specific studies and provide data to the permitting authority to aid in the determination of whether site-specific controls would be required to reduce entrainment and, more specifically, which controls, if any, would be necessary. This report addresses the submittal requirements at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.21 (r)(2)-(9)1. SPS is a two-unit nuclear generating facility located on the estuarine portion of the James River, approximately 44 miles southeast of Richmond, Virginia. Cooling water is drawn from the James River through a Low-level intake and continuously rotating Ristroph traveling water screens (TWS). The TWS have 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch smooth mesh panels with a fish bucket at the base of each screen panel and a low-pressure wash and fish return system to maximize survival of impinged organisms. The fish community that inhabits the James River reflects a highly variable estuarine environment with a mix of freshwater, diadromous, and estuarine species with some marine strays. The species that appear relatively consistently throughout the years in various studies as the most dominant species consist of Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchi/11), Atlantic Croaker (Micropogon undulatus), Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia), Naked Gaby (Gobiosoma base), and Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). Blue Catfish (lctalurus furcatus) are a more recent addition to the fish population; this species was introduced as a sportfish in the James River from 197 4 through 1989 (VIMS 2017) and is characterized as an invasive species (MDNR 2018). 1 Refer to Appendix A for a summary of the specific requirements under each of the §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) and a checklist summary for how each is addressed in this report or why it is not applicable to SPS. The following submittal requirements are being developed and will be submitted separately from this report: §122.21 (r)(1 O) - Comprehensive Technical Feasibility and Cost Evaluation Study; §122.21(r)(11)- Benefits Valuation Study; §122.21 (r)(12) - Non-water Quality Environmental and Other Impacts Study; and §122.21 (r)(13) - Peer Review. Dominion Energy I 1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 15 of 1631 1-)~ The most current, representative data on the existing fish community in the vicinity of SPS were collected during Dominion Energy, lnc.'s (Dominion Energy) recent entrainment and impingement studies. A two-year entrainment study was conducted using a pump sampling system with 94 by 102-centimeter (cm), 335-micron (µm) mesh hoop plankton nets, and samples were collected at three depths (i.e., near-surface, mid-depth, and near bottom) twice a month for 24 consecutive months from August 2015 through July 2017. A total of 243,611 organisms were collected during the first year of entrainment sampling and included 61,272 fish (excluding non-viable eggs [NVE]) distributed among 23 distinct taxa and 182,339 shellfish distributed among 14 distinct taxa. The total number of organisms collected in entrainment samples during the second year was 557,882 and was comprised of 83,298 finfish (excluding NVE) distributed among 22 distinct taxa and 474,584 shellfish distributed among 14 distinct taxa. Entrainment densities were highest during late spring to summer months of May, June, and July. Samples were dominated by post-yolk sac larvae of Gobies (Naked Gaby and Naked/Seaboard Gaby [Gobiosoma sp.]) and post-yolk sac and juvenile Anchovies (Bay Anchovy and Common Anchovy [Anchoa spp.]). Winter finfish densities were dominated by spawning activities of Atlantic Croaker while early spring finfish entrainment densities were dominated by juvenile Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus). Shellfish entrainment densities were highest during late spring to late summer months of May through September and were dominated by Mud Crab (Panopeidae) and Fiddler Crab (Uca spp.) zoea and megalopae, Mysid Shrimp (Mysidae), and juvenile Tellin Clams (Tellinidae). Overall, mid-depth and near-surface samples accounted for the majority of entrained organisms; however, the contribution of each varied by year. Considering each group separately, finfish followed the trend of higher densities at mid-depth while shellfish were collected in higher densities in near-surface samples. Finfish entrainment densities were highest at night during the first year of sampling and highest at mid-morning followed by at night during the second year of sampling. Shellfish entrainment densities were highest at pre-dawn and at night and the pattern was consistent with depth. A one-year impingement monitoring study was conducted at SPS from August 2015 through July 2016 and samples were collected in the fish/debris return troughs of the TWS in front of the combined Unit 1 and 2 intakes twice a month for 12 consecutive months. The one-year impingement sampling effort resulted in the collection of a total of 316,163 organisms, comprised of 285,868 fish distributed among 61 distinct taxa, and 30,295 shellfish distributed among 6 distinct taxa. Bay Anchovy was the most common taxon in the samples accounting for 75 percent of all organisms collected during the study. Grass Shrimp (Pa/aemonetes) dominated the shellfish collection. Overall, collection densities were highest in October and lowest in November and December. To characterize inter-annual variability in entrainment, the two years of entrainment data were treated separately to estimate annual total entrainment based on specific intake flows as Year 1 (August 2015 - July 2016) or Year 2 (August 2016 - July 2017), as well as the Rule-defined actual intake flows (Al F) over the most recent five-year period (2013-2017). The estimated annual total entrainment based on the two years of entrainment data and the five years of actual intake flows ranged from 6.1 to 7.4 billion finfish and 20.5 to 49.1 billion shellfish. The estimated Dominion Energy I 2
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 16 of 1631 1-)~ annual total impingement during actual 2015-2016 plant operations was 1.1 million fish and 0.4 million shellfish. Seven finfish and four shellfish taxa were identified as potentially susceptible to entrainment or impingement. The finfish taxa were Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Croaker, Gobies, Atlantic Silverside, Atlantic Menhaden, American Eel, and White Perch (Marone Americana). The shellfish taxa were Mud Crabs, Palaemonid Shrimp, Blue Crabs and Fiddler Crabs. The susceptibility of these taxa to entrainment or impingement reflects their abundance in the James River in the vicinity of SPS, and in the Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries as a whole. These taxa are among the most abundant organisms inhabiting Virginia's tidal systems, and collectively accounted for 75.4 percent of the entrainment (2015-2017) and 79.3 percent of the impingement (2015-2016) at SPS. Information on federally listed species and critical habitat under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) jurisdiction, as well as Virginia state-listed species either known to occur or with the potential to occur in the vicinity of SPS, was reviewed. The only federally listed aquatic species with the potential to occur in the Action Area, as defined by the USFWS and NMFS, were the Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) and Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum). Both species are also state-listed as endangered. The potential for entrainment and impingement of both species is considered to be low because early life stages are not likely to occur in the Action Area. Further, direct and/or indirect effects to Atlantic Sturgeon critical habitat in the vicinity of the SPS CWIS from cooling water discharge are considered to be insignificant. Critical habitat has not been designated for Shortnose Sturgeon. Dominion Energy has reviewed the impingement mortality compliance alternatives in 40 CFR §125.94(c) and proposes to implement §125.94(c)(5), modified traveling screens, as BTA for reduction of impingement mortality. In accordance with §125.94(b)(1), Dominion Energy's finalization of its chosen method for compliance with the impingement mortality BTA standard will be synchronized with the establishment of entrainment BTA and will be determined after issuance of a final NPDES permit that establishes the site-specific entrainment requirements for SPS under §125.94(d). Compliance with the establishment of the impingement mortality BTA standard will be accomplished thereafter as soon as practical. Dominion Energy I 3
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1 Introduction Serial No. 20-298, Page 17 of 1631 1-)~ Section 316(b) was enacted under the 1972 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Clean Water Act (CWA). which also introduced the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program. Certain facilities with NPDES permits are subject to §316(b) requirements, which mandate that the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures (CWIS) reflect best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Water entering a CWIS may contain early life-stage fish and shellfish, which are drawn into and through cooling water systems (entrainment), or juvenile or adult fish may become trapped against the screens at the opening of an intake structure (impingement). On August 15, 2014, the final §316(b) rule (the Rule) for existing facilities was published in the Federal Register. The Rule applies to existing facilities that withdraw more than two million gallons per day (MGD) from Waters of the United States, use at least 25 percent of that water exclusively for cooling purposes, and have an NPDES permit. The Rule became effective on October 14, 2014. Facilities subject to the Rule are required to develop and submit technical material, identified at 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) §122.21 (r)(2)-(13), that will be used by the NPDES permit Director (Director) to make a BTA determination for the facility. The actual intake flow (AIF) and design intake flow (DIF) at a facility determine which submittals will be required under the Rule. As shown in Table 1-1, facilities with an AIF of 125 MGD and less have fewer application submittal requirements and will generally be required to select from the impingement compliance options contained in the Rule. For such facilities, the Director must still determine BT A for entrainment on a site-specific basis and the applicant may supply information relevant to the Director's decision. Facilities with an AIF in excess of 125 MGD are required to address both impingement and entrainment and provide specific entrainment studies which may involve field studies and the analysis of alternative methods to reduce entrainment (40 CFR §122.21 (r)(9)-(13)). Table 1-1. Facility Flow Attributes and Permit Application Requirements Facility and Flow Attributes Existing facility with DIF of 2 MGD or less, or less than 25 percent of AIF used for cooling purposes Pennit Application Requirements Best Professional Judgment of Director Existing facility with DIF greater than 2 MGD and AIF less §122.21 (r)(2)-(B) than 125 MGD Existing facility with DIF greater than 2 MGD and AIF greater than 125 MGD §122.21 (r)(2)-(13) Dominion Energy, lnc.'s (Dominion Energy) Surry Power Station (SPS) is subject to the Rule, and based on its current configuration and operation with an AIF of greater than 125 MGD, is required to develop and submit each of the 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(2)-(13) reports with its next permit renewal, in accordance with the Rule's technical and schedule requirements. The current Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit for SPS (Permit No. VA0004090) is effective from March 1. 2016 and expires on February 28, 2021. Special Dominion Energy I 4
Serial No. 20-298, Page 18 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ Condition I.E.3 of the VPDES permit requires submittal of the information described in 40 CFR §122.21 (r) no later than 270 days prior to the permit expiration date; therefore the SPS permit renewal application will be due June 3, 2020. The following sections of this report provide information under 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(2}-(9) (Table 1-2). The reports required by 40 CFR §122.21(r)(10)-(13) are being developed separately from this report. Appendix A provides a checklist summary of the specific requirements under each of the 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(2}-(9) reports and documents how each is addressed in this report or why it is not applicable to SPS. Table 1-2. Summary of 40 CFR §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Submittal Reports Submittal Requirements at §122.21(r) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Source Water Physical Data Cooling Water Intake Structure Data Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data Cooling Water System Data Chosen Method of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard Entrainment Performance Studies Operational Status Submittal Descriptions Characterization of the source waterbody including intake structure area of influence. Narrative description of the configuration of each CWIS and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column; includes drawings and narrative description of operation; water balance. Characterization of biological community in the vicinity of the intake structure (species or relevant taxa, relative abundance); life history summaries (primary periods of reproduction larval recruitment, peak abundance of relevant taxa, seasonal and daily activities); susceptibility to impingement and entrainment; must include existing data; identification of missing data and efforts made to identify sources of the data; threatened and endangered species, any pertinent consultations or field studies, and designated critical habitat summary for action area; identifies fragile fish and shellfish species list (<30 percent impingement survival). Narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to CWIS; proportion of design flow used; water reuse summary; proportion of source waterbody withdrawn (monthly); seasonal operation summary; existing impingement mortality and entrainment reduction measures; flow/MW efficiency. Provides facility's proposed approach to meet the impingement mortality requirement (chosen from seven available options); provides detailed study plan for monitoring compliance, if required by selected compliance option; addresses entrapment where required. Provides a summary of relevant entrainment mortality studies (latent mortality, technology efficacy); can be from the facility or elsewhere with justification; studies should not be more than 10 years old without justification; new studies are not required. Provides operational status for each unit; age and capacity utilizations for the past five years; upgrades within last 15 years; descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled uprates and NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) relicensing status for nuclear facilities; decommissioning and replacement of units plans; current and future operation as it relates to actual and design intake flow. Dominion Energy I 5
Serial No. 20-298, Page 19 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station I Submittal Requirements at §122.21(r) Entrainment (9) Characterization Study Submittal Descriptions Provides complete documentation of the data collection period and frequency of entrainment characterization, and an identification of the organisms sampled to the lowest taxon possible; the data collection must be representative of the entrainment at each intake; sufficiently characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment. including variations related to climate, weather, spawning, feeding, and water column migration. Facilities may use historical data that are representative of current operation of the facility and conditions at the site with documentation regarding the continued relevance of the data. The study must include analysis of the data to determine total entrainment and entrainment mortality. Dominion Energy I 6
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 20 of 1631 1-)~ 2 Source Water Physical Data [§122.21 (r)(2)] 2.1 Description of Source Waterbody [§122.21 {r)(2)(i)] SPS is located on the estuarine portion of the James River on the Hog Island peninsula in Surry County, Virginia, on a point of land called Gravel Neck which juts into the James River from the south approximately 25 miles upstream of the river's confluence with the Chesapeake Bay. SPS is located approximately 44 miles southeast of Richmond, 4.5 miles west-northwest of Fort Eustis, 7 miles south of Colonial Williamsburg, and 8 miles east-northeast of the town of Surry. Jamestown Island, part of the Colonial National Historical Park, is to the northwest of SPS on the northern shore of the James River. The two nuclear power-generating units at SPS use a once-through cooling water system. Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the James River through a common Low-level CWIS oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River. The SPS Low-level CWIS for the two units is located on the east side of the peninsula. An aerial photograph of SPS and its environs is shown on Figure 2-1. 2.1.1 Dimensions and Other Physical Characteristics The James River is approximately 3 miles wide at the SPS location. The land surface is generally flat with steep banks sloping down to the river. Land surface elevations at SPS range from sea level to approximately elevation {El.) 39 feet above mean sea level (feet msl). Water elevations at SPS are affected by tides with a mean low tide water level of El. -1.0 feet and a high tide level of El. 1.1 feet msl, resulting in a mean tidal range of 2.1 feet and a mean spring tidal range of 2.5 feet. The average water depth in front of the SPS intakes is 26 feet. A navigation channel is maintained at a depth of 24.9 feet and generally courses through the middle of the river. In the vicinity of the SPS CWIS, the river has an abbreviated littoral or shoreline zone as a result of the steep bank gradient and the channelized river bottom. The river bed in the vicinity of SPS is composed of soft mud, clay, sand, and pebbles with no single bottom type predominating. 2.1.2 Temperature and Salinity Regime A two-year entrainment study was conducted at SPS to support entrainment-related determinations required by the Rule (HDR 201 Ba). As part of the entrainment study, water temperature and specific conductivity were monitored at entrainment sample locations (surface, mid-depth, and bottom depths) from August 2015 through July 2017 (HDR 201 Ba). The monthly average water temperature and specific conductivity collected at SPS during the two-year entrainment study are presented in Figures 2-2 and 2-3. During the first year of entrainment sampling, monthly average water temperatures ranged from 6.4 degrees Celsius (°C) (in February 2016) to 29.1 °C (in July 2016). The lowest single temperature reading was 3.6°C in January 2016, while the highest was 32.0°C in July 2016. Monthly average specific conductivity ranged from a low of 2,816 microSiemens per centimeter (µSiem) in March 2016 to a high of 21,138 µSiem during September 2015. Individual specific conductivity readings were as low as 273 µSiem and as high as 23,444 µSiem. Dominion Energy I 7
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Source: Google Earth Retrieved 10/2/2018 Figure 2-1. Aerial Photo of Surry Power Station and its Environs, Page 21 of 1631 1-)~ Dominion Energy I 8
Serial No. 20-298, Page 22 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station -.-Near-bottan _,. Mid-depth --Near-surface 25 ~---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*-- 0 +--- .kll-2015 Sep-2015 Nov-2015 Jan-2016 Mar-2016 May-2016 .kll-2016 35 -*--**---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------*-------- 30.,. ______________ - --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ~ 25.._ ______________ - ----------------------------------------------------------------------- CD !; 20 --***----------------- CD 15 -,.------------------------ --------- 1:&. i 10... ------------------------------------------- 5.._ ____ ______ --------------------------------------J. ------ - - ------ - - - ------ -- - -------- -- ------------- - -*--*- 0 .kll-2015 Sep-2015 Nov-2015 Jan-2016 Mar-2016 May-2016 .kll-2016 Figure 2-2. Monthly Average Specific Conductivity and Temperature Data during Entrainment Study at Surry Power Station, 2015-2016 -.-Near-bottan -. Mid-depth Near-surface 25 ------------*-****---**-**----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- f 20... ______ -* ------ 1$ ~ = -6 ~ 15.,. ______ - ----------- _:_ _______ * *-:.:;-----~ C,c g E u ~ 10 --------------------------------------------------------- !E (I) u-= g_ 5 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (I) o----~----------~---~-----~-- .kl1-201s Sef>2016 Nov-2016 Jan-2017 Mar-2017 May-2017 .kll-2017 35 --******-**-***-*-****-*-****-*-********-**********************-****--********-***-***-*******************- 30...... __ ~ 25....... _________ _ ~ 20 ->---**-----------------*--
*------ ~ ---
! 15... ------------------------------
- ---------------------- ~-----------
1:&. i 10 ------------------------------------- - ------ _ ----.z,,- -a 5....... _ ------------------------------------ ------ - ---------------------------------------------**------***- 0 Jul-2016 Sep-2016 Nov-2016 Jan-2017 Mar-2017 May-2017 .kll-2017 Figure 2-3. Monthly Average Specific Conductivity and Temperature Data during Entrainment Study at Surry Power Station, 2016-2017 Dominion I 9
Serial No. 20-298, Page 23 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ Based on the specific conductivity data, salinity was estimated, and the monthly average surface salinity values ranged from 1.5 parts per thousand (ppt) in March 2016 to 12.5 ppt in September 2015. Individual salinity data ranged from a low of 0.1 ppt (March 2016) to a high of 14.1 ppt (September 2015). During the second year of entrainment sampling, monthly average water temperatures measured at the sampling location ranged from 6.9°C (in January 2017) to 30.5°C (in August 2017). The lowest single temperature reading was 4.4°C in January 2017, while the highest was 32.7°C in August 2017. Monthly average specific conductivity ranged from a low of 4,231 µSiem in May 2017 to a high of 20,769 µSiem during September 2016. Individual specific conductivity readings were as low as 1,824 µSiem and as high as 22,659 µSiem. Monthly average surface salinity values ranged from 2.3 ppt in May 2017 to 12.3 ppt in September 2016. Individual readings ranged from a low of 1.0 ppt (May 2017) to a high of 13.6 ppt (September 2016). 2.2 2.2.1 Characterization of Source Waterbody [§122.21 {r)(2)(ii)] Hydrology The James River watershed encompasses approximately 10,000 square miles, which makes up almost 25 percent of the state of Virginia, and covers about one-third of the Chesapeake Bay drainage area in Virginia. The river flows approximately 340 miles from the Allegheny Mountains of western Virginia to the Chesapeake Bay. The watershed is comprised of three sections: the Upper James River watershed begins in Allegheny County and continues through the Allegheny and Blue Ridge Mountains to Lynchburg, Virginia; the Middle James River watershed extends from Lynchburg to Richmond; and the Lower James River watershed stretches from Richmond to the Chesapeake Bay (Figure 2-4). SPS is located on the Lower James River section in the Coastal Uplands Physiographic Province. The James River is formed by the junction of the Cowpasture and Jackson Rivers in Botetourt County, Virginia, and flows easterly 340 miles before emptying into Hampton Roads at Newport News, Virginia. The flow of water in the James River near SPS consists of three components (NRC 2007):
- 1. Fresh water discharge (unidirectional) from the James River watershed.
- 2. Flow (multidirectional) due to the ebb and flood of the tide.
- 3. Flow due to the circulation pattern caused by intrusion of saline water into the James River Estuary.
The drainage area of the James River above the SPS is 9,517 square miles. The drainage area above the nearest stream gage on the main stem of the James River near Richmond is 6,757 square miles. An additional 1,638 square miles of drainage area of tributaries between Richmond and the plant site is gaged, leaving 1,122 square miles ungaged (NRC 2007). The 85-mile stretch of the James River between Richmond and the mouth of the river is subject to tidal cycles and is hence a tidal estuary. SPS is located in the transition region between the fresh water tidal river and the saline waters of the James River estuary. Dominion I 1 O
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §1 22.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 24 of 1631 James River Watershed Upper, Middle and Lower Roundtable Watershed Boundaries 40 E3 0 brf '>' ."' ~ ~ Lm1,cr James 40 80 120 160 Miles Source: Middle James Roundtable 2018 Figure 2-4. Location of Surry Power Station within the James River Watershed The maximum James River flow at SPS is approximately 420,000 cubic feet per second (cfs), with a monthly mean range of 857 cfs to 39,778 cfs. At a James River discharge of about 10,000 cfs, the upstream portion of the station is in a freshwater environment and the salinity at the downstream side of the SPS is about 1.0 ppt. For James River discharges less than 10,000 cfs, a condition occurring approximately 60 percent of the time (NRC 2007), based on flow records for the gaged tributaries below Richmond and estimated discharge flows from the ungaged areas, the water on both the upstream and downstream sides of the SPS intake has varying concentrations of ocean-derived salts, depending on river discharge. Within the estuary proper, the salinity decreases in a more or less uniform trend from the river mouth towards the station and at any location increases with depth. Superimposed upon the oscillatory tide, there is a net non-tidal circulation in which the upper, less saline layers of water move seaward, while the deeper, more saline layers of water move upstream in the estuary. The net non-tidal seaward-directed flow is stronger and, in the vicinity of the SPS, extends to greater depths on the southern side of the estuary (looking downstream) than on the northern side. The volume rate of flow associated with this net non-tidal circulation pattern, while small compared to the oscillatory tidal flows, is several-fold larger than the discharge of river flow. In general, the higher the salinity, the larger the ratio of the discharge of seaward flow in the surface layers to the fresh water discharge. Consequently, since the salinity at any given location increases with decreasing river discharge, the volume rate of flow associated with the net non-tidal circulation does not decrease directly with respect to the river discharge (NRC 2007). Dominion Energy I 11
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 25 of 1631 1-)~ The U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey tidal current tables show that the ebb current lasts longer and is stronger than the flood current near SPS at Hog Point in the James River. The average of maximum ebb currents is 1.3 knots (2.2 feet per second [fps]) and the average of maximum flood currents is 1.0 knots (1.7 fps). During spring tides, the ebb currents reach a maximum of 1.9 knots (3.2 fps) and the flood currents a maximum of 1.6 knots (2.8 fps) (NOAA 2014). 2.2.2 Geomorphology SPS lies wholly within the Coastal Plain on a peninsula of land bounded on the east and west by the James River, the south by the upland interior of Surry County, and the north by the marsh-wetlands complex of the Hog Island State Wildlife Refuge. In Virginia, the Coastal Plain has a stair-step character composed of a series of moderately flat plains or terraces that become successively lower (in elevation) from west to east and are separated from one another by scarps, which are gentle slopes of a few degrees. In the SPS vicinity, four plains are recognized. From the highest to the lowest they are the 120-foot plain, 90-foot plain, 70-foot plain, and 45-foot plain. Also, three prominent scarps are present; the Surry scarp, the Peary scarp, and the Chippokes scarp. The surface of the Coastal Plain slopes gently in an eastward-to-southeastward direction from about El. 200 feet msl at the Fall Line to the coast and continuing out onto the continental shelf. The average slope in the vicinity of the SPS is about 1.5 feet per mile. The ground surface at SPS is generally flat with steep banks sloping down to the river. Surface and near-surface soil types include brown and mottled brown sand, silty sand, silt, and clay. These soils are included in the Norfolk Formation, an estuarine deposit of Pleistocene age. 2.2.3 Determination of Area of Influence Reference to the "area of influence" (AOI) of a CWIS appears in three of the §122.21 (r) sections of the Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule for existing facilities2: §122.21 (r)(2) Source Water Physical Data requires information on "the methods used to conduct any physical studies to determine the intake's area of influence in the waterbody and the results of such studies." §122.21 (r)(4) Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data says: "The study area should include, at a minimum, the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure." §122.21 (r)(11) Benefits Valuation Study says: "The study would also include discussion of recent mitigation efforts already completed and how these have affected fish abundance and ecosystem viability in the intake structure's area of influence." Although the Rule does not provide a definition of AOI, the §316(b) Phase I Rule for new facilities states that: 2 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2014-08-15/pdf/2014-12164.pdf (Accessed 5/15/2015) Dominion Energy I 12
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 26 of 1631 1-)~ "The area of influence is the portion of water subject to the forces of the intake structure such that a particle within the area is likely to be pulled into the intake structure. " While neither a formal definition of the AOI nor guidance for its estimation is provided within the Rule, AOI, for purposes of this report, is that area of the source waterbody from which organisms are potentially drawn into the intake structure and either entrained or impinged. Impingement AOI As a compliance option for impingement reduction, the Rule offers an intake through-screen velocity of 0.5 fps3 or less based on the assumption that at velocities below this threshold most impingeable sized organisms can avoid impingement. Based on this assumption, a conservative definition of AOl 4 for impingement is the area encompassed by the 0.5 fps velocity contour at the CWIS. At this boundary and beyond it, the potential for impingement is approximately zero; within this boundary, the potential for impingement increases with increasing proximity to the intake. However, because juvenile and adult fish have differing swimming abilities and differing preferred habitats including those that involve velocities above 0.5 fps (Leonard and Orth 1988), the area contained by the 0.5 fps velocity threshold is not an area of direct impact. Because the CWIS is located at the shoreline, the radius of the impingement AOI (RAoi) for an arc angle of 180° (i.e., a shoreline intake structure) is estimated from the continuity equation: Qi = TT x RAoi x d x V.......................................................................... Eq. 1 where, Qi= Intake Flow RArn = Radius of Area of Influence d = Water depth at RA01 V = Threshold velocity (i.e., 0.5 fps for impingement AOI) Rearranging terms in Eq. 1 gives: RA01 = Qi /(TT x d x V)......................................................................... Eq. 2 Entrainment AOI The threshold velocity for entrainment should reflect the velocities induced by the intake that are greater than ambient velocities, such that plankton may be drawn into the intake rather than transported away in the ambient flow. Conservative threshold values can be developed for river and tidal river systems by basing them on minimum natural conditions found in a lake or at slack tide in a tidal system. Using the assumption that the wind induced surface drift velocities are typically 2 to 3 percent of the average wind speed (Wiegel 1964), the surface drift velocity would be 0.2 fps to 0.5 fps under conditions of a gentle breeze (average wind speed of 8-12 miles per hour). The mean ambient velocity (i.e., velocity averaged over the water column) is less than the 3 As per the §316(b) Final Rule, the design through-screen velocity less than 0.5 fps meets the impingement mortality reduction standard through Compliance Alternative 2 (§125.94(c)(2)). 4 This approach, in fact. was proposed to Ohio EPA by Dayton Power & Light in their Proposal for Information Collection for their Stuart Generating Station on the Ohio River. Their approach was accepted by Ohio EPA and also recommended as a model for other facilities on the Ohio River (EPRI 2007). Dominion Energy I 13
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 27 of 1631 1-)~ surface drift velocity (typically 40 to 60 percent of the surface drift) although the relationship may depend on the speed and duration of the wind and water depth. Hence. at a location where the intake induced velocity is less than 0.1 fps to 0.3 fps, the ambient wind-induced currents likely will dominate the flow patterns and the "hydraulic influence" of the intake will no longer be significant (Golder Associates 2005). As a result. in the analysis that follows the entrainment AOI will be delineated by both the 0.1 and 0.3 fps velocity contours induced by the CWIS. These threshold values are consistent with those used in other AOI studies. For example, the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) used threshold velocities of 1.0, 0.5, and 0.1 fps in their desktop analysis in "Cooling Water Intake Structure Area-of-Influence Evaluations for Ohio River Ecological Research Program Facilities" (EPRI 2007), and Golder Associates (2005) used 0.1 and 0.3 fps in their desktop analysis of AOI for the Crystal River Energy Complex. For an organism to become entrained, it must enter the entrainment AOI of a CWIS. Physical and temporal factors that influence the entrainment AOI of a CWIS include the (EPRI 2004a): a) speed, direction, and distribution of flow in the waters that surround the CWIS; b) bathymetry of the waters that surround the CWIS; c) intake flow rate and variability of flow to the intake; and d) design of the intake. Other factors include the effect of predominant winds and the stratification of the surrounding water (i.e., salinity and temperature gradients). For a condition where the ambient flow does not change with the time, the entrainment AOI can be determined by identifying streamlines of flow that enter the CWIS. However, when a CWIS is located on a waterbody where the direction of flow changes with time, as in the tidal environment of the SPS, the AOI of the CWIS can no longer be visualized with steady streamlines (EPRI 2004b). One can gain insights into the characteristics of the AOI for tidal rivers from the results of Computational Fluid Dynamics modeling studies performed on freshwater rivers and tidally influenced rivers by EPRI (2004a and 2004b). These studies indicated that most of the water containing entrainable organisms was withdrawn from the side of the river on which the intakes were located and the lateral extent of the AOI gradually increased with distance upstream from the CWIS when the river flows were in the downstream direction and vice versa when the direction of flow was reversed. Waterbody sampling and entrainment studies conducted by Marcy (2004) and Massengill (2004) on the Connecticut River also suggest that greater quantities of water are withdrawn from the side of the river where the CWIS is located, thus supporting the findings of EPRl's numerical modeling studies. For the purpose of this analysis, the three phases of tidal flow (ebb, flood, and slack) were considered independently when calculating the extent of the AOI assuming the river currents are steady at each tidal phase. Although the velocity field within the AOI of the CWIS changes continuously, the flow streamlines that enter the CWIS can be illustrated under the assumption that the current flow and direction are steady at any time during the tidal cycle. Based on the findings of EPRI (2004b), in the case of the ebb and flood phases, the water entering the intake comes predominantly from a relatively narrow band of river width adjacent to the shore on which Dominion Energy I 14
Serial No. 20-298, Page 28 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ the facility is located. During slack tide the ambient flows are no longer unidirectional and are influenced by other conditions such as wind, but for purposes of the AOI calculation flow can be considered to come from all directions with equal probability. The entrainment AOI during various tidal phases can be calculated based on the angle of the arc over which radial flow enters the CWIS. As shown in Figure 2-5, this angle restricts the incoming flow to a band along the shore, consistent with the findings of model and field studies discussed above. The radius of AOI (RA01) for various arc angles for a shoreline CWIS can be estimated from the continuity equation: Qi = n x RAOI x d x V x (9/180)........................................................... Eq. 3 where, Qi = Intake Flow RA01 = Radius of Area of Influence d = Water depth at RA01 V = Threshold velocity (i.e., 0.1 or 0.3 fps for entrainment AOI) 9 = Arc Angle (i.e., 15° for maximum running tides, 30°, 45°, 90° for less than maximum running tides and 180° for slack tides) Rearranging terms in Eq. 3 gives: RAOI = QJ(TT x d x V x (9/180))........................................................... Eq. 4 Figure 2-5 illustrates the arc angles at different tidal phases and shows the extent of the entrainment AOI. After the arc radius at various angles is obtained using Eq. 4, the longitudinal and lateral extent of entrainment AOI can be calculated as follows: Longitudinal extent of entrainment AOI = 2 x RAo1 for tidal rivers................. Eq. 5 Lateral extent of entrainment AOI = RAoi x sine (9) for 9 :s; 90°...................... Eq. 6 Results At SPS, the design flow is 2,534.4 MGD (i.e., 3,921.3 cfs) and water depth at the extreme low water elevation is 21.14 feet. Based on the impingement AOI threshold velocity of 0.5 fps, the calculated radius of the impingement AOI is 118 feet. Applying these data, the impingement AOI can be represented as a semi-circle with a radius of 118 feet centered at the CWIS. As discussed above, the entrainment AOI was calculated at each tidal phase assuming the flow is steady during the running and slack tides. The intake flow would enter with approximately equal probability from all directions during slack tides; therefore, the arc angle would be 180°. For the maximum running tides, a minimum arc angle of 15° was used. Table 2-1 presents the calculated arc radius at various arc angles for threshold velocities of 0.1 and 0.3 fps. Table 2-1. Estimated Arc Radii (in feet) at Various Arc Angles for Threshold Velocities of 0.1 and 0.3 fps Arc Angle (degrees) >> Dominion Energy I 15
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Threshold Velocity 0.1 fps 0.3 fps 7,085 2,362 Arc Radius (feet) 3,543 1,181 Serial No. 20-298, Page 29 of 1631 2,362 787 1,181 394 590 197 Dominion Energy I 16
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station ff: // I 1.. (.---....--~) "!: C> \\ \\\\... Lateral EatmtofEllll*-tADI 'b. Serial No. 20-298, Page 30 of 1631 1-)~ t Flow Clrec:1ion cluing Rood Tide Figure 2-5. Illustration of Various Arc Angles at Different Tidal Phases and Extent of Entrainment AOI Dominion Energy I 17
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 31 of 1631 1-)~ As shown in Table 2-1, the maximum arc radius of the entrainment AOI is calculated to occur when flow entering the intake is limited to an arc angle of 15 °. Based on these results, for a threshold velocity of 0.1 fps, the overall entrainment AOI at SPS can be conservatively represented as a rectangular area 14,170 feet long (using Eq. 5) and 1,834 feet wide (using Eq.
- 6) centered at the CWIS. For a threshold velocity of 0.3 fps, the overall entrainment AOI at SPS can be conservatively represented as a rectangular area 4,723 feet long and 611 feet wide centered at the CWIS.
The above analysis provides conservative estimates of the AOI (i.e., they err on the side of overestimating the size of the AOI) that can be used to support the specific requirements in the Rule. These AOI estimates should not be interpreted as the area of direct impact or the area in which organisms have a high probability of being withdrawn by the intake because actual entrainment and impingement at the facility will be the product of physical and biological factors that vary over space, time, and species. Based on the approach described above, the SPS AOls for impingement and entrainment were conservatively calculated as follows: AOI for Impingement was calculated based on a threshold velocity of 0.5 fps and can be conservatively represented as a semi-circle with a radius of 118 feet centered at the CWIS. The threshold velocity of 0.5 fps is associated with motile fishes, where it is generally assumed that fish subject to 0.5 fps and lower velocities are able to swim freely and avoid impingement. For example, the Rule assumes impingement is minimized at intakes with 0.5 fps through-screen velocities. AOI for Entrainment was calculated based on velocity thresholds of 0.1 fps and 0.3 fps. At locations where the intake-induced velocity is less than 0.1 fps to 0.3 fps, the ambient wind-induced currents and/or tidal drift currents likely will determine the flow patterns and, thus, the movement of the non-motile and limited mobility life stages (e.g., eggs and larvae). Under these assumptions, the overall AOI for entrainment is represented as a rectangular area ranging from: ~ 4,723 feet long and 611 feet wide centered at the CWIS using a velocity threshold of 0.3 fps; ~ 14,170 feet long and 1,834 feet wide centered at the CWIS using a velocity threshold of 0.1 fps. 2.3 Locational Maps [§122.21 {r)(2)(iii)] Figure 2-1 presents an aerial photo of SPS and its environs in Section 2.1. Figure 2-6 presents the locational map (U.S. Geological Survey [USGS] topographic map) in the vicinity of the SPS. Dominion Energy I 18
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Source: USGS Topographic Map of Williamsburg. VA; Map ID #37076-Al -TB-100 Figure 2-6. Locational Map of Area near Surry Power Station, Page 32 of 1631 1-)~ Dominion Energy I 19
§316{b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21{r)(2)-{9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 33 of 1631 1-)~ 3 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data [§122.21 (r)(3)] 3.1 Description of CWIS Configuration [§122.21 (r)(3)(i)] Cooling water for both units is withdrawn through a common Low-level CWIS oriented parallel to, and flush with, the western shore of the James River on the east side of the peninsula (Figure 2-1 in Section 2.1). The Low-level CWIS is the §316(b) compliance point at SPS. The Low-level CWIS consists of eight reinforced-concrete screen bays (each 15.3 feet wide) and is equipped with eight Ristroph traveling water screens (TWS). Each bay houses one of the eight circulating water pumps for the two units. These pumps are each rated 220,000 gallons per minute (gpm) (i.e., 316.8 MGD) at 28 feet total dynamic head when running at 220 rpm. Each pump is driven by a vertical, solid-shaft, 2000-horsepower, induction motor. The total maximum design capacity is 2,534.4 MGD (Table 3-1). One hundred percent of the flow withdrawn from the James River is used for cooling water purposes. Table 3-1. Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Pump Characteristics 11111 1 2
- of Pumps 4
4 Pump Capacity 316.8 MGD (220,000 gpm) 316.8 MGD (220,000 gpm) Surry Power Station Design Intake Flow Maximum Design Flow per Unit 1,267.2 MGD (880,000 gpm) 1,267.2 MGD (880,000 gpm) 2,534.4 MGD (1,760,000 gpm) Plan and section drawings of the Low-level CWIS are provided on Figures 3-1 and 3-2, respectively. The exposed deck of the structure is at El. 12 feet msl. The invert of the intake structure is at El. -25.25 feet msl. Trash racks extend across each of the eight intake bays to prevent debris from entering the Low-level intake. Each trash rack has 1/2-inch-wide fiberglass reinforced plastic bars with 4.0-inch spacing, providing a 3.5-inch opening. The trash racks have a 1 H:12V (horizontal: vertical) slope and are 18 feet wide. A curtain wall extends down to El. - 8.5 feet msl, approximately 3.8 feet below the minimum water level, approximately 6 feet downstream of each trash rack. The Ristroph TWS are located approximately 17 feet downstream from the bottom of each trash rack. The Ristroph TWS contain 2 foot-high and 14 foot-wide baskets with 1 /8-inch by 1 /2-inch rectangular smooth mesh openings with a low-pressure wash and fish return system to maximize impinged organism survival (Figure 3-3). The spray wash has 12 spray nozzles. Each screen basket has a steel fish bucket and the screens are designed for continuous operation. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens can be rotated at fast speed, reducing impingement time to approximately 1.5 minutes or less. A single return trough is located upstream of the screens that transports organisms and debris back to the James River approximately 1,000 feet south of the intake structure and approximately 300 feet from the shore. Returned organisms are therefore discharged away from the hydrodynamic zone of influence of the Low-level CWIS. Dominion Energy I 20
Serial No. 20-298, Page 34 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station it SLUICE FLUME~--+~0+--~~,I ~ JAMES RIVER ~ HINGED GRATING (3 SECTIONS) (TYP.) ~ itTRAVELING SCREEN~---+~-t--~~......,.--r-i-~--1t--t-~--it-1t--~,t---t-~ -'t--t-~--1t--1t~~t--,t--~-t--t-~--i SCALE IS APPROXJMATE MODIFIED FOM ALDEN 2003 TO INTAKE CANAL Source: Provided by Dominion Energy Figure 3-1. Plan View of Surry Power Station Low-level Intake Structure 'El,..._, +-,l C lh~Ata: c...,., iUH-1 6 ttll't'l'T UOOIFIEll FROM Al.OU < 2003 ~ TRAVU "'G SCREE.I< nSk'IJE8RIS su,a I RAS>< SllACE .---n..25.90* Source: Provided by Dominion Energy 1-)~ Figure 3-2. Typical Section View of Surry Power Station Low-level Intake Structure Dominion Energy I 21
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Source: VEPCO (1980) Serial No. 20-298, Page 35 of 1631 1-)~ Figure 3-3. Surry Power Station Ristroph Traveling Water Screen at Low-level Intake Dominion Energy I 22
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 36 of 1631 1-)~ 3.2 Latitude and Longitude of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(3)(ii)] The latitude and longitude (in degrees, minutes, and seconds) of SPS cooling water intake structure are: Latitude Longitude 37° 9' 21.89" N 76° 40' 16.06" w 3.3 Description of CWIS Operation [§122.21 (r)(3)(iii)] SPS and its CWIS are intended for year-round, 24 hours/day operation, with the exception of down time for planned refueling outages. During refueling outages, intake flow is reduced but the Low-level intake structure is utilized to some degree at all times, particularly for safety related systems. Circulating water pump operation is seasonally variable in response to generation demand and maintenance activities. Unit refueling outages are generally scheduled for the winter, late fall. and/or spring months. Daily recording log of pump run time hours for all eight (four pumps per unit) circulating water pumps were obtained and processed for monthly total pump hours for each unit. Table 3-2 presents the monthly average pump run times in days by unit from 2013 through 2017. Table 3-2. Surry Power Station Monthly Average Pump Run Times (in Days) by Unit during 2013-2017 Month Monthly Average Number of Days in CWIS Pump Operations Unit 1 Unit2 January 24.9 27.4 February 20.1 24.8 March 24.4 26.7 April 23.7 23.8 May 22.1 22.1 June 29.3 27.2 July 30.8 30.2 August 30.8 29.4 September 30.0 28.4 October 27.8 21.6 November 22.3 20.8 December 27.0 25.8 Annual Total 313.2 308.2 As shown in Table 3-2, the number of days of circulating water pump operations by unit over the last five years ranged from 20 to 31 days each month during 2013-2017. The pump operations during the summer (June to September) are closer to 24/7 operation and higher than the rest of Dominion Energy I 23
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 37 of 1631 1-)~ the year. Pump run times during April-May and October-November months are lower because of the typical planned unit refueling outage schedule. 3.4 Description of Intake Flows [§122.21 (r)(3)(iv)] The monthly average flows from 2013 to 2017 are considered Al F, which is defined by the Rule as the average volume of water withdrawn on an annual basis by the CWIS over the previous five years for station permits that expire after October 14, 2019. Tables 3-3 and 3-4 present the daily actual withdrawal (two units combined) from the circulating water pumps and monthly average daily withdrawal by unit from 2013 through 2017, respectively. Table 3-3. Unit-combined Total Monthly Averaged Daily Withdrawal (MGD) of Surry Power Station from James River in 2013-2017 Month January 1,971.0 1,814.7 February 1,904.8 1,830.1 March 1,955.1 1,846.0 April 1,874.6 1,674.3 May 1,974.9 1,568.4 June 2,207.6 2,197.0 July 2,263.5 2,296.3 August 2,093.4 2,254.0 September 2,214.8 2,220.9 October 1,746.5 1,970.7 November 1,528.8 1,777.3 December 1,821.5 1,997.4 Annual Average 1,963.0 1,953.9 Year 1,947.3 1,996.2 1,741.4 1,792.9 1,895.3 1,900.4 1,724.1 1,892.9 1,408.3 1,901.0 2,115.0 2,149.2 2,189.8 2,304.0 2,272.0 2,274.3 2,289.6 2,254.2 1,663.7 1,858.2 1,094.8 1,867.6 1,914.7 2,089.7 1,854.7 2,023.4 2017 1,989.4 1,907.1 1,903.2 1,946.9 1,348.7 2,188.4 2,277.1 2,288.3 2,242.1 1,934.3 2,001.9 1,989.6 2,001.4 2013-2017 Average 1,943.7 1,835.2 1,900.0 1,822.6 1,640.3 2,171.4 2,266.1 2,236.4 2,244.3 1,834.7 1,654.1 1,962.6 1,959.3 Table 3-4. Surry Power Station Monthly Averaged Daily Withdrawal (MGD) by Unit from James River in 2013-2017 Month Unit 1 (MGD) Unit2(MGD) Total (MGD) January 925.7 1,018.1 1,943.7 February 824.0 1,011.3 1,835.2 March 906.6 993.4 1,900.0 April 910.4 912.2 1,822.6 May 820.6 819.7 1,640.3 June 1,126.2 1,045.3 2,171.4 July 1,144.8 1,121.3 2,266.1 August 1,143.0 1,093.4 2,236.4 September 1,152.0 1,092.3 2,244.3 October 1,032.8 801.9 1,834.7 Dominion Energy I 24
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Month November December Annual Average Unit1 (MGD) 854.6 1,003.6 987.0 Serial No. 20-298, Page 38 of 1631 Unit2 (MGO) 799.5 959.0 972.3 1-)~ Total (MGO) 1,654.1 1,962.6 1,959.3 Figure 3-4 presents the average of monthly circulating water intake flows from 2013 to 2017 with monthly minimum and maximum flows. As shown on Figure 3-4, the water withdrawal during the summer (June to September) is higher than the rest of the year, and flows during April-May and October-November months are highly variable because of the typical planned unit refueling outage schedule. Figure 3-5 presents the water balance diagram for SPS. 0 C) ~ - 2,500 2,000 1,500 3 0 ii: 1,000 500 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 Note: Vertical bars represent daily maximum and minimum. 10 11 12 Figure 3-4. Seasonal Variation of Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Flows Based on 2013-2017 Operation Dominion Energy I 25
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Settling Pond
- 4 Storm Drain Unit 1 Discharge Tunnel 001 981 MGO Dl9charge
- 3 Storm Drain CC HX Canaf ------------..-----11 BC HX Brid 11 Storm Drain Subsurface Dewatering Stm Surry Power Station 0.0216 MOD
,~i 104 U2 Reclrc Spray Heat Exchanger U1 Aecirc Spray Heat Exchanger Surry Power Station Waste Water Flow Diagram
- Only \\Med -1ng Ol*9M U 1 (121) & U2 (122) Hydrollnoe James River
.. No Dilcflerge In 2008, 2009, 2010 Figure 3-5. Surry Power Station Water Balance Diagram, Page 39 of 1631 U2 Hlah Level Intake cw Chemical Treatment U1 HiQh Level lnlake James River Low level Intake Intake 1-)~ D Swamp Gas Turbine Dike Dominion Energy I 26
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 40 of 1631 3.5 Engineering Drawings of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(3)(v)] The engineering drawings of SPS CWIS showing plan and section views of eight intake bays with details of trash racks, traveling screens, and circulating water pumps are provided in Appendix B. Drawing No. 11448 FC-9E: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 1 Mat Plan Drawing No. 11448 FC-9F: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 2 Plan at Elevation -5' -6" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9G: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure - Plan at Elevation 12'-0" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9J: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 5 Elevation West Wall & Sections Drawing No. 11448 FC-9K: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure, Trash Rack, Seal Plate & Details Drawing No. 11448-FM-SSA: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure Drawing No. 11448-FM-55B: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure Dominion Energy I 27
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 41 of 1631 1-)~ 4 Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data [§122.21 {r)(4)] 4.1 List of Unavailable Biological Data [§122.21 (r)(4)(i)] The data needed to prepare 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(4) are available. 4.2 List of Species and Relative Abundance in the vicinity of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(4)(ii)] Table 4-1 presents a master species list for entrainment. impingement, and ambient fish studies conducted at or near SPS. Methods and results from the individual studies are discussed in greater detail in the sections that follow. While recognizing that each study differed in scope and objectives, some general trends are evident. The fish community that inhabits the James River reflects a highly variable estuarine environment with a mix of freshwater, anadromous, and estuarine species with some marine strays. The species that appear relatively consistently throughout the years in various studies as the most dominant species consist of Bay Anchovy (Anchoa mitchil/J), Atlantic Croaker (Micropogon undulatus), Atlantic Silverside (Menidia menidia), Naked Gaby (Gobiosoma base) and Spot (Leiostomus xanthurus). Additional species that were commonly collected throughout most studies include American Eel (Anguilla rostrata), Atlantic Menhaden (Brevoortia tyrannus), Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis), Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), Hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus), Silver Perch (Bairdiella chrysoura), White Perch (Morone americana), Striped Bass (Marone saxitilis), Weakfish (Cynoscion regalis), Summer Flounder (Paralichthys dentatus). and Inland Silverside (Menidia beryllina). Blue Catfish (lctalurus furcatus) appear to be a more recent addition to the fish population in the James River; it was introduced as a sport fish in the James River (Schloesser et al. 2011) and is characterized as an invasive species (MDNR 2018). The presence of Blue Catfish has rapidly expanded into nearly every major tributary in the Chesapeake Bay watershed (NOAA 2017). Long-term monitoring data (since 1990) in Chesapeake Bay tributaries showed the first appearance of Blue Catfish in 1992 and numbers began to increase in 2005. Invasive species such as Blue Catfish are thought to negatively affect native fish and shellfish as predators or competitors for resources. Schloesser et al. (2011) found that periods of Blue Catfish peak abundance in 1996 and 2003 were concurrent with declines in abundance of native White Catfish (lctalurus catus). Invasive catfish prey on native forage fish such as American Shad (Alosa sapidissima), Blueback Herring, Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus), Atlantic Menhaden, and Blue Crab, and are likely to negatively affect these species (Schloesser et al. 2011 ; NOAA 2017). Blue Catfish first appeared in fish sampling programs conducted for SPS in 2005-2006 when they accounted for 24.4 percent of the ambient fish collections. Dominion Energy I 28
§31 6(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 42 of 1631 1-)~ Table 4-1. Master Species List for Fish Taxa Collected During Impingement, Entrainment, and Ambient Studies Conducted at Surry Power Station Common Name Scientific Name Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus Alosa Species Alosa spp. American Eel Anguilla rostrata American Sand Ammodytes Lance americanus American Shad Alosa sapidissima Anchovy Species Anchoa spp. Atlantic Butterfish Peprilus triacanthus Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulates Atlantic Cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic Needlefish Strongylura marina Atlantic Silverside Menidia Atlantic Spadefish Chaetodipterus faber Spanish Mackerel Scomberomorus maculatus Atlantic Sturgeon Acipenser oxyrhynchus Banded Killifish Fundulus diaphanous Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X X X X X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X X X X X 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X X X X X X 2015-2016 Impingement (HDR 2018b) X X X X X X X X X X X X X I 2015-2017 Entrainment 1 (HOR 2018a) X X X X X X Dominion Energy I 29
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Bay Whiff Black Crappie Black Drum Blackcheek Tonguefish Blennies Blueback Herring Blue Catfish Bluefish Bluegill Blue-spotted Sunfish Bowfin Bridle Shiner Brown Bullhead Chain Pickerel Channel Catfish Common Carp Common Shiner Conger Eel Cownose Ray Scientific Name Citharichthys spilopterus Pomoxis nigromaculatus Pogonias cromis Symphurus plagiusa Blenniidae Alosa aestivalis lctalurus furcatus Pomatomus saltatrix Lepomis macrochirus Enneacanthus gloriosus Amia calva Notropis bifrenatus Ameiurus nebulosus Esox niger lctalurus punctatus Cyprinus carpio Luxilus comutus Conger oceanicus Rhinoptera bonasus 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X, Page 43 of 1631 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X X X X 1-)~ 2015-2016 Impingement (HOR 2018b) X X X X X X X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X X X Dominion Energy I 30
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Creek Chub Crevalle Jack Dorosoma Species Drums and Croakers Dusky Pipefish Eastern Mud minnow Silvery Minnow (Eastern) Feather Blenny Flier Fourspine Stickleback Gizzard Shad Gobies Goby Species Golden Shiner Grass Carp Gray Snapper Green Goby Harvestfish Scientific Name Semotilus atromaculatus Caranx hippos Dorosoma spp. Sciaenidae Syngnathus floridae Umbra pygmaea Hybognathus regius Hypsoblennius hentzi Centrarchus macropterus Apeltes quadracus Dorosoma cepedianum Gobiidae Gobyspp. Notemigonus crysoleucas Ctenopharyngodon idella Lutjanus griseus Microgobius thalassinus Peprilus alepidotus 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X X X X X X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X X X, Page 44 of 1631 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X 1-)~ 2015-2016 Impingement (HOR 2018b) X X X X X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X X X Dominion Energy I 31
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Herrings and Anchovies Herrings Hickory Shad Hogchoker Inland Silverside lroncolor Shiner Johnny Darter Ladyfish Sea Lamprey Largemouth Bass Longnose Gar Lookdown Marsh Killifish Minnow Mosquitofish Mummichog Naked Goby Naked/Seaboard Goby Northern Pipefish Scientific Name Clupeiformes Clupeidae Alosa mediocris Trinectes maculatus Menidia beryllina Notropis chalybaeus Etheostoma nigrum Elops saurus Petromyzon marinus Micropterus salmoides Lepisosteus osseus Selene vomer Fundulus confluentus Cyprinidae Gambusia affinis Fundulus heteroclitus Gobiosoma bosc Gobiosoma sp. Syngnathus fuscus 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X X X X X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X X X X X X, Page 45 of 1631 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X X 2015-2016 Impingement (HDR 2018b) X X X X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X X X X X X X Dominion Energy I 32
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Northern Searobin Pinfish Pumpkinseed Orange Filefish Rainbow Trout Rainwater Killifish Redbreast Sunfish Redfin Pickerel Rough Silverside Sand Perch Satinfin Shiner Searobin Species Seaboard Goby Sheepshead Minnow Shorthead Redhorse Silver Mullet Silver Perch Silvery Minnow (Mississippi) Silverside Species Scientific Name Prionotus carolinus Lagodon rhomboids Lepomis gibbosus A/uterus schoepfii Oncorhynchus mykiss Lucania parva Lepomis auritus Esox americanus Membras martinica Diplectrum formosum Cyprinella analostana Prionotus spp. Gobiosoma ginsburgi Cyprinodon variegatus Moxostoma macro/epidotum Mugil curema Bairdiel/a chrysoura Hybognathus nuchalis Menidia spp. 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X I 1974*1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X X, Page 46 of 1631 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X 1-)~ 2015-2016 Impingement (HOR 2018b) X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X Dominion Energy I 33 , Page 4 7 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports L.:), Surry Power Station ~, Common Name Scientific Name Silverside Family Atherinopsidae Skilletfish Gobiesox strumosus Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Southern Kingfish Menticirrhus americanus Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Spotfin Killifish Fundulus /uciae Spotfin Mojarra Eucinostomus argenteus Spottail Shiner Notropis hudsonius Spotted Hake Urophycis regia Spotted Seatrout Cynoscion nebulosus Striped Anchovy Anchoa hepsetus Striped Bass Morone saxitilis Striped Basses Morone spp. Striped Blenny Chasmodes bosquianus Striped Killifish Fundulus maja/is Striped Mullet Mugil cephalus Summer Flounder Para/ichthys dentatus Sunfish Species Lepomis spp. Bass and Sunfish Centrarchidae 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006) X X X X X JI I 11, X X 2015-2016 Impingement (HOR 2018b) X X X X X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X X X X X Dominion Energy I 34
§31 6(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name I Swallowtail Shiner T esselated Darter Threadfin Shad Three-spined Stickleback Tidewater Silverside Warmouth Weakfish White Catfish White Mullet White Perch Yellow Bullhead Yellow Perch Scientific Name Notropis procne Etheostoma olmstedi Dorosoma petenense Gasterosteus aculeatus Menidia peninsulae Lepomis gulosus Cynoscion regalis Ameiurus catus Mugil curema Morone americana Ameiurus natalis Perea flavescens 1970-1978 Ambient Fish (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X X X X 1976-1978 Entrainment (VEPCO 1980) X X X X X X 1974-1983 Impingement (VEPCO 1985) X X X X X X X X 2005-2006 Entrainment (EA 2006) X 2005-2006 Ambient lchthyoplankton (EA 2006), Page 48 of 1631 2005-2006 Ambient Fish (EA 2006) X X X X 1-)~ 2015-2016 Impingement (HOR 2018b) X X X X X X X 2015-2017 Entrainment (HOR 2018a) X X Dominion Energy I 35
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 4.2.1 Historical Entrainment Studies Serial No. 20-298, Page 49 of 1631 1-)~ Virginia Electric Power Company (VEPCO) conducted ichthyoplankton entrainment sampling at SPS from January 1976 through December 1978 (VEPCO 1980). An additional year of entrainment sampling was conducted from 2005 to 2006 by EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA) (2006). The results from these two studies are summarized in the following paragraphs. It should be noted that estimates of entrainment made as part of these studies were not adjusted for "converts". Converts are organisms that are entrainable through 1/4 x 1/2-inch or 3/8-inch square mesh, but would be impinged on finer mesh. As impinged organisms that are washed from the screens and returned to the source water, converts are not counted as entrained organisms under the Rule (see Section 9.3.3). In the case of VEPCO (1980), converts were not addressed because 3/8-inch mesh screens were in place at the time. In the case of EA (2006). the 3/8-inch mesh screens had been replaced with 1/8 x 1/2-inch mesh screen, however the concept of converts was not fully developed at the time. The 1976 to 1978 ichthyoplankton samples were taken by paired conical nets, 0.5-meter (m) diameter equipped with SOS-micron (µm) mesh. The nets were towed at three depths (surface, mid-water, and near bottom) in the low-level intake forebay and mid-channel in the discharge canal. Samples were collected at 1000, 1400, 1800, 2200, 0200, and 0600-hours each sample day. Tow duration was 10 minutes per depth at the low-level intake and 5 minutes per depth at the discharge canal. A total of 1,080 ichthyoplankton samples were collected, yielding 39 distinct taxa (see Table 4-1 ). The composition of the ichthyoplankton varied with environmental conditions such as salinity, and included freshwater species, estuarine species, and marine strays (VEPCO 1980). Eggs of 15 distinct taxa were collected. Bay Anchovy and Naked Gaby were the most abundant species collected during each sample year; together these two species comprised approximately 91.1 percent of all ichthyofauna collected during the three-year study (VEPCO 1980). Entrainment data were also collected at SPS from June 2005 through June 2006 (EA 2006). Sampling was collected with paired 0.5-m diameter plankton nets set from a boat anchored in front of the SPS CWIS. The sampling program included four sample periods in 24-hours and samples were collected at three depths (near bottom, mid-depth, and near surface) on a bimonthly schedule. Finfish comprised only 3.2 percent of the total entrainment estimate with 18 distinct taxa (Table 4-1 ). Four taxa accounted for 78.9 percent of the finfish component. Bay Anchovy eggs and Gaby spp. post-yolk sac larvae comprised 25.8 and 25.3 percent of the finfish component. respectively. Post-yolk sac larvae and juvenile Naked Gaby comprised 15.6 and 6.8 percent of the finfish component. respectively, and juvenile Atlantic Croaker comprised 5.4 percent of the finfish component. Invertebrates comprised 96.8 percent of the total entrainment estimate. Unidentified shrimp (66.5%) and unidentified crab zoea or megalopa (24%) were the most abundant taxa collected, together comprising 90.5 percent of total entrainment estimate. Unidentified shrimp are believed to be primarily mysid shrimp, since this was the only shrimp taxa identified to species. Other crab zoea (24%) and bivalves {5.4%) were the only other invertebrate groups comprising more than 1 percent of the total entrainment estimate. Blue Crab mega Iopa (second stage larvae) and Blue Crab juveniles together comprised only 0.15 percent of the total invertebrate entrainment estimate. Dominion Energy I 36
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 4.2.2 Historical Impingement Studies Serial No. 20-298, Page 50 of 1631 1-)~ Prior to 197 4, SPS had conventional traveling screens at the High-level intake structure and no screens at the Low-level intake structure. Starting in 197 4, the Low-level intake was fitted with modified Ristroph TWS with 3/8-inch mesh screen to maximize fish survival potential. Impingement studies were conducted at SPS from May 1974 to May 1983 (VEPCO 1985). Each unit's TWS were sampled for two consecutive five-minute periods by diverting screen wash water to an in-ground holding pool. Sampling took place in the holding pool by collecting fish in a D-frame dip net while the pool was drained. The total count was recorded by fish taxa and the data was extrapolated to daily, weekly, and annual estimates of impingement. A total of 76 distinct taxa were collected over the nine-year sampling period (Table 4-1). The estimated annual total number of fish impinged ranged from 1,338,280 in 1980 to 5,932,031 in 1975. The most abundant species collected were Spot, Atlantic Menhaden, White Perch, Bay Anchovy, Blueback Herring, and Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma petenense); together these six species comprised 76. 7 percent of all fish impinged (Figure 4-1). Of note, most alosid and shad species showed a strong trend of decreasing abundance during the nine-year sample period. Seasonal impingement rates varied with Spot and Atlantic Menhaden occurring in the samples primarily in summer and early fall, and White Perch, Blueback Herring, and Threadfin Shad primarily collected in the late fall and winter months (Figure 4-2). Bay Anchovy were dominant only in the spring while catfish were impinged at a relatively constant level throughout the year. Atlantic Croaker showed highest impingement rates between March and May. 6.000.DDO 5,000,000 4,000,000 1 I
- 3,000.000 0
.! I 2,000.000 1,000,000 Year Source: Data Provided by Dominion Energy 1111 All others
- White catfish
- Atlantic croaker D Hogchoker
£J Gizzard shad
- Threadlin shad D Blueba::k Hlning l::l.l Bay archovy a White perch DAllantic menhaCB!l D Spot Figure 4-1. Impingement Species Composition at Surry Power Station 1974-1 983 Dominion Energy I 37
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station C 60% E 8 C: I 40% 20% Month Source: Data provided by Dominion Energy Serial No. 20-298, Page 51 of 1631
- Ameiurus catus
- Micrqiogonias urd.Jlatus C T rinectes maculatus
- Dorosoma cepecianum a Dorosoma petenense
- Alosa aestivalis 0 Anchoa nitchilli 0 Morone americana
- llrevoortia tyrannus
- Leiostomus xanlhurus Figure 4-2. Seasonal Impingement Variation for Top Ten Species 4.2.3 Historical Ambient Fish Sampling Information on the fish community in the vicinity of SPS is available from studies conducted from 1970 to 1978 (VEPCO 1980) and 2005-2006 (EA 2006).
Ambient Fish Study, 1970-1978 Monthly haul seines and otter trawls were conducted starting in 1970. Additional special seine hauls were started in 1973 to supplement and enhance the existing data. Both programs continued into 1978. The objective of the fish sampling programs was to characterize the fish populations of the near shore littoral zone (beach seine hauls) and near bottom areas (otter trawls) of the James River in the vicinity of SPS in terms of species diversity and relative abundance and to relate the effects of the station's operation on these populations (VEPCO 1980). The additional seine hauls initiated in 1973 targeted fish populations inhabiting the shore zone waters between the power station intake and discharge. Seven beach seine sampling stations and six otter trawl sampling stations were established between Jamestown Island and slightly downstream of the low-level intake structure (Figure 4-3). Dominion Energy I 38
Serial No. 20-298, Page 52 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station
- I t I * * -
- 7*--:-..._ Hog Poinl Hog Pooni North ' Intake North '\\ DiocharVe North /
- ~
- A.,
- 1 *
~ - ' I HogP0011w.11 j '* * *,. ' I -, ~~-' l Dlsct18flleM1ddle -.- '- - -- :....:.:~..:..=.,.,... ;,.~ -- ----l ~-- / I r ~\\ i Source: Provided by Dominion Energy 1-)~ Legend
- Suny Power Station A
Seine Stations Trawl Stations Miles 0 0.5 1 SCALE IS APPROXIMATE 2 Figure 4-3. Historic Ambient Fish Sampling Locations A total of 70 distinct taxa were collected by the combined beach seine and otter trawl sampling program (Table 4-1). Over nine years of sampling, the beach seine sampling resulted in a total of 133,382 fish with 63 distinct taxa and 27 families. Five species comprised 75 percent of the total number of fishes collected during the study; Atlantic Menhaden (26. 7%), Blueback Herring (14.1 %}, Tidewater Silverside (Menidia beryllina; 13.1 %}, Bay Anchovy (13.1 %}, and Spottail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius; 8.4%) (VEPCO 1980). Many species were collected at low levels of occurrence and/or infrequently; 11 species were represented by a single individual and 8 species were collected in only one year. Several species exhibited notable fluctuations in relative abundance. White Perch was most abundant in 1970 when it contributed 8.2 percent to the seine collection, but was collected at low numbers up through 1978. VEPCO (1980) noted that a major fish kill of White Perch occurred in the James River in 1971, prior to the operational startup of the SPS. Blueback Herring and Alewife experienced several poor year-classes during this period that were unrelated to the operation of the SPS (Hoagman and Kriete 1977, as cited in VEPCO 1980). Over the nine years of sampling by otter trawl, a total 37,332 fish were collected, with 44 distinct taxa and 22 families. Five species comprised 80.4 percent of the total collection and reflect a different fish capture selectivity, compared to seine hauls, with Hogchoker (26.9%), Spot (22.3%), Channel Catfish (lctalurus punctatus; 13.4%), Atlantic Croaker (9.5%}, and Bay Anchovy (9.1 %) as the most commonly collected taxa. Similar to the catch for the monthly haul seines. many species occurred in low abundance or infrequent occurrence with 8 species Dominion Energy I 39
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 53 of 1631 1-)~ represented by only 1 individual and 25 species collectively comprised approximately 1.0 percent of the total catch (VEPCO 1980). Similar to the seine data, several species exhibited large year to year fluctuations in abundance. Not evident in the seine data, the trawl collection data for White Perch indicate numbers were trending higher for the last three years of data (1976 to 1978). A number of species exhibited fluctuations in abundance associated with salinity levels. The Atlantic Silverside was generally more abundant during years of high salinities during sampling while Tidewater Silverside was more dominant during years of lower salinities (VEPCO 1980). Similarly, Channel Catfish exhibited a trend of higher abundance when salinities were low. The special seine haul program resulted in the collection of 76,819 fish over nine years of sampling, representing 50 distinct taxa and 20 families. Collectively, five species comprised 83.0 percent of the total catch and consist of Atlantic Menhaden {49.6%}, Atlantic Silverside (12.9%), Bay Anchovy (7.8%), Spot {6.7%}, and Tidewater Silverside {6.0%). Most species individually accounted for less than or equal to 0.1 percent of the total catch. Ambient Fish Study, 2005-2006 Quarterly sampling events in the James River were completed in 2005-2006 at sites upstream, adjacent to, and downstream of the SPS intake by otter trawl and beach seines (EA 2006). A total of 1,800 individuals representing 25 distinct finfish taxa were collected over the four sampling efforts (September, November, January, and June). The taxa list is presented in Table 4-1. The four most abundant species were Blue Catfish {24.4%), Bay Anchovy (16.1 %), Atlantic Silverside (13. 7%), and Spot (11.1 %). Other common species collected consisted of Hogchoker (9.9%), Inland Silverside (7.5%). and White Perch (7.4%). Together these seven species comprised 90.1 percent of the total collection. Atlantic Silverside was the most dominant species collected by beach seine while Blue Catfish dominated the trawl samples. Dominant species collected by beach seine represent pelagic, forage fish that congregate along the shoreline in large schools. In comparison to historical fish data (197 4-1983), Blue Catfish have exhibited an increasing abundance. This trend is consistent with studies that have documented the increasing abundance of Blue Catfish following their successful introduction as a sport fish in the James, Rappahannock, and Mattaponi rivers from 197 4 through 1989, and decreasing abundance of White Catfish (Ameirus catus) and Channel Catfish (Connelly 2001; NOAA 2014). A comparison of historical (197 4-1983) and more recent (2005-2006) seine and trawl data was made using percent composition. For the seine data, 1 O species showed similar catch levels (Figure 4-4). Blueback Herring and Atlantic Menhaden comprised a larger percentage of the 1974-1983 catch (6.2% for Blueback Herring and 10.4% for Atlantic Menhaden) than they did in the 2005-2006 collections {0.2% for Blueback Herring and 0.0% for Atlantic Menhaden). This comparison tracks with recent data compiled for these species by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission that also report recent reductions in abundance for these two species (ASMFC 1999; 2000; 2001). Additionally, the relative abundance of silversides (Inland and Atlantic Silversides) and Bay Anchovy increased substantially (Figure 4-4). Dominion Energy I 40
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 10.00 9.00 8.00 7.00 C 0 6.00 E.. 0 t 5.00 0 u i I:! 4.00 G>
- a.
300 2.00 Source: Data provided by Dominion Energy Serial No. 20-298, Page 54 of 1631 IJ 1970 - 1983
- 2005 -2006 Figure 4-4. Percent Composition Comparison of Two Sets of Seine Data Collected near Surry Power Station Based on trawl data, Blue Catfish is a more recent addition to the catch (Figure 4-5). This difference is apparently due to the successful introduction to Chesapeake Bay as a sportfish in the James, Rappahannock, and Mattaponi rivers from 1974 through 1989, and decreasing abundance of White Catfish (Ameirus catus) and Channel Catfish (Connelly 2001 ; NOAA 2014).
Species exhibiting increased abundance consist of Bay Anchovy, Silver Perch, Atlantic Menhaden, and White Perch while species exhibiting declines consist of Channel Catfish and Atlantic Croaker (Figure 4-5). Ambient lchthvoplankton Study, 2005-2006 lchthyoplankton sampling was conducted concurrent with entrainment sampling that was conducted from June 2005 to May 2006 at locations upstream, downstream, and adjacent to the CWIS (EA 2006). Samples were collected with a single 0.5-m diameter plankton net fitted with 505-um netting. Plankton tows were made at mid-depth for 4.5 minutes. A total of 18 distinct finfish taxa were collected (see Table 4-1 ). Atlantic Croaker, Atlantic Silverside, Bay Anchovy and Naked Gaby dominated the finfish collection. In addition, four distinct shellfish taxa were recorded, Blue Crab, crab species, bivalve, and shrimp. Dominion Energy I 41
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 10.00 9.00 - 8.00,-- 7.00 C 0 6.00
- 2 0...
E 500 0 (.) C.. !:? 4.00 I
- 11.
3.00 l 2.00 1.00 fl. r11 I J1.. - ,.
- l"tlJ
- rl Source: Data provided by Dominion Energy Serial No. 20-298, Page 55 of 1631 rl -
[J 1970 - 1983
- 2005 -2006 Figure 4-5. Percent Composition Comparison of Two Sets of Trawl Data Collected near Surry Power Station Recent Ambient Studies Virginia Institute of Marine Science biologists have conducted monthly juvenile fish trawl surveys in the lower Chesapeake Bay and select tributaries, including the James River, on an annual basis since at least the 1960's. In the 2016 to 2017 period, biologists documented below average abundance for American eel, Bay Anchovy, Blue Catfish (James River), Channel Catfish (James River), Spot, Summer Flounder, Weakfish, White Catfish, and White Perch juveniles (James River). Silver Perch exhibited above average abundances and average abundances were observed for Atlantic Croaker, Striped Bass, and White Perch young-of-year (James River). The 2016 year class of Weakfish was the lowest recorded (Tuckey and Fabrizio 2017).
4.2.4 Recent Entrainment Studies A two-year entrainment study was conducted at SPS from August 2015 through July 2017. Pumped entrainment samples were collected in front of the trash racks at Unit 1 from three depth strata (i.e., near surface, mid-depth and near-bottom) twice a month for 24 months from July 2015 through June 2017 (HOR 201 Ba). Each sampling event lasted 24 hours subdivided into four, 6-hour sampling periods. Sample duration was approximately 100 minutes per depth Dominion Energy I 42
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 56 of 1631 per 6-hour sample (or the time required to collect a volume of 100 m3 of water per depth per 6-hour sample). Please refer to Section 9 for more details. During the first year of sampling, and excluding non-viable eggs (NVE), a total of 243,611 organisms were collected, consisting of 61,272 finfish distributed among 23 distinct taxa and 182,339 shellfish distributed among 14 distinct taxa. Table 4-1 presents the master list of fish species collected in this impingement study. Shellfish taxa dominated the entrainment collection, accounting for 75 percent of the total collection. Finfish taxa accounted for 25 percent of the total collection. After excluding NVE, the total number of organisms collected during the second year of sampling was 557,882 organisms, including 83,298 fish distributed among 22 distinct taxa and 474,584 shellfish distributed among 14 distinct taxa. Shellfish taxa dominated the entrainment collection for the second year as well, accounting for 85 percent of the total collection. Table 9-4 in Section 9.2 presents a list of the taxa and life stages collected each year of study. In general, the taxa lists were consistent during the two years of sampling with minor differences associated primarily with the variation that typically occurs when species are collected in small numbers (HOR 2018a). The dominant life stage during both years of entrainment sampling consisted of shellfish zoea at 36 percent (Year 1) and 64 percent (Year 2). Post-yolk sac larvae (20% of the total). megalopae (4% of the total), and finfish juveniles (4% of the total) were the next most abundant life stages during the first year of sampling and shellfish juveniles (20% of the total), and finfish post-yolk sac larvae (13% of the total) were the next most abundant life stage during the second year of sampling (HOR 2018a). Taken together as a group, the Gobiidae family (Gobies, Naked Goby, Naked/Seaboard Goby and Green Goby) dominated the finfish collection, accounting for 60 percent of finfish collected during the first year of sampling. This same trend continued during the second year of sampling with the Gobiidae family accounting for 71 percent of the finfish collected. The second most abundant finfish taxa group were the Anchovies (Bay Anchovy and Anchoa spp.) accounting for approximately 27.5 percent of the during the first year of sampling and approximately 16 percent during the second year of sampling. Clupeiformes (Herrings and Anchovies and associated species) and Atlantic Croaker, accounted for six and three percent of the finfish entrained, respectively, during the first year of sampling and nearly four percent and 1.5 percent, respectively, during the second year of sampling. Additionally, during the second year of sampling, the group silversides (Atlantic Silverside, Inland Silverside, and Silversides [Atherinidae]) accounted for almost seven percent of the finfish collection. In comparison, this group accounted for nearly one percent of the finfish collection during the first year of sampling. No endangered or threatened species were collected. Mud Crab (Panopeidae) zoea (39% of shellfish) and juvenile Tellin Clams (Tellinidae) (35% of shellfish) were the most abundant shellfish taxon collected during the first year of entrainment sampling. Fiddler Crab zoea (39% of shellfish), Mud Crab (Panopeidae) zoea (33% of shellfish). and juvenile Mysid Shrimp (Mysidae) (13% of shellfish) were the most abundant shellfish taxon collected during Year 2 sampling. Overall, the entrainment taxa composition collected in 2015-2017 (HOR 2018a) compares well with the entrainment study data conducted in 2005-2006 (EA 2006) and described in Section Dominion Energy I 43
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 57 of 1631 1-)~ 4.2.1. The finfish component of both studies was dominated by Anchovies, Gobies, Atlantic Croaker (in 2015-2016), and silversides (in 2016-2017). The peak seasonal abundances of finfish were similar for both studies, a reflection of the similar species compositions. The primary difference between the finfish collection between the two studies was the limited number of eggs collected in the current study compared to the high abundance of Bay Anchovy eggs collected in the previous study. As mentioned previously, Bay Anchovy abundance, and consequently egg production, is subject to wide annual fluctuation. Shellfish taxa dominated the entrainment collection in both studies, comprising 97 percent of the collection in 2005-2006 (EA 2006) compared to 7 5 percent in 2015-2016 and 85 percent in 2016-2017. The shellfish species composition varied, with shrimp and crab taxa dominating the 2005-2006 entrainment samples at 66.5 percent and 24 percent, respectively, compared to 18. 7 percent and 45.6 percent in 2015-2016 samples and 17.5 percent and 73. 7 percent in 2016-2017. Annual shellfish densities measured in the current study are generally much higher than those recorded in the 2005-2006 study. The reasons for the variation in densities could include sampling gear and net mesh differences between the two studies, as well as fish and shellfish abundance changes within the James River. 4.2.5 Recent Impingement Studies A one-year impingement monitoring study was conducted at SPS from August 2015 through July 2016 (HOR 201 Bb). Impingement samples were collected twice a month for 12 consecutive months for a total of 24 sampling events. Each sampling event lasted 24 hours with a target 30-minute sample collected every 4 hours. A minimum of 15 minutes was allowed if heavy debris loads and/or fish collections occurred. Impingement samples were collected in the fish/debris return troughs of the TWS in front of the combined Unit 1 and 2 intakes. The original Ristroph TWS were modified from a 3/8-inch square mesh opening to 1/8 by 1/2-inch rectangular mesh openings in the early 1990s. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens are rotated at fast speed to reduce impingement time to 1.5 minutes or less. Fish and shellfish were also assessed for condition to evaluate initial impingement survival rates. Eighteen taxa were classified as 100 percent alive and undamaged after initial impingement (Table 4-2). These included a variety of sunfish, catfish, mackerel, and shrimp. In addition, another 50 percent or more of 25 taxa were undamaged after impingement. Table 4-2. Initial Impingement Survival of each Assessed Individual by Taxa at Surry Power Project during 2015-2016 Impingement Sampling Taxon Alewife" American Eel Gizzard Shad* American Shad* Atlantic Croaker Live Undamaged (%) 80.0 100.0 74.7 65.2 Live Damaged (%) Finfish 20.9 2.3 20.0 4.4 100.0 31.2 Dead Decaying (%) 0.0 1.3 Total Assessed 26 1 703 2 467 Dominion Energy I 44
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Taxon Atlantic Cutlassfish Atlantic Menhaden* Atlantic Needlefish Atlantic Silverside Atlantic Spanish Mackerel Bay Anchovy* Black Crappie Black Drum Blue Catfish Blueback Herring* Bluegill Brown Bullhead Channel Catfish Common Carp Dusky Pipefish Golden Shiner Gray Snapper Gray Trout Harvestfish Hickory Shad* Hogchoker Inland Silverside Largemouth Bass Longnose Gar Mummichog Pumpkinseed Silver Mullet Silver Perch Skilletfish Southern Kingfish Spot Spottail Shiner Spotted Seatrout Striped Bass Live Undamaged (%} 40.1 88.9 64.8 100.0 50.1 100.0 50.0 62.8 83.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 50.0 100.0 67.5 91.6 95.1 50.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 82.5 85.2 100.0 50.0 87.5 Live Damaged (%) 30.1 11.1 0.3 0.4 50.0 34.7 0.2 100.0 9.7 1.5 100.0 3.6 1.6 100.0 2.3 3.0 -100.0 22.1 29.6 44.4 2.5 15.9 50.0 22.8 6.9 1.3 50.0 15.9 100.0 12.2 50.0 6.7 Serial No. 20-298, Page 58 of 1631 Dead Decaying (%) 7.7 5.4 5.1 0.8 100.0 0.3 2.7 1-)~ Total Assessed 4 557 5 648 8,093 1 2 153 575 2 2 2 1 2 1 5 31 107 1 104 3 1 1 1 1 1 28 1 1 383 2 2 164 Dominion Energy I 45
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Taxon Striped Mullet Summer Flounder Threadfin Shad White Catfish White Perch Yellow Perch Blue Crab Grass Shrimp Species Mud Crabs (Xanthoidea) Northern White Shrimp Sand Shrimp Note: Live Undamaged (%) 100.0 100.0 66.7 99.2 93.9 100.0 67.4 97.1 97.9 100.0 100.0
- considered a 'fragile' species by USEPA.
Live Damaged (%) 33.3 0.8 2.6 Shellfish 31.2 0.4 2.1 2.7 0.7 0.4 Serial No. 20-298, Page 59 of 1631 Dead Decaying (%) 0.8 0.6 2.1 Total Assessed 1 1 9 24 1507 1 952 113 63 11 1 A total of 316,163 organisms comprising 285,868 finfish distributed among 61 distinct taxa and 30,295 shellfish distributed among 6 distinct taxa were collected during 2015-2016 impingement sampling5* While Table 4-1 presents the master list of fish species collected in this impingement study, Table 4-3 presents the most abundant finfish and shellfish and relative abundance (percent of total impingement collection). Bay Anchovy were the most abundant taxa, accounting for 75 percent of the total collected. Atlantic Croaker and White Perch were the next most abundant taxa, each accounting for 4 percent of the total collected. Grass Shrimp (Pa/aemonetes spp.) and Mud Crabs (Xanthoidea) were the most abundant shellfish collected, accounting for 36 percent and 28 percent of the shellfish total, respectively. The remaining taxa collected each accounted for 2 percent or less of the total catch. Table 4-3. Most Abundant Fish and Shellfish Species Collected by Unit at Surry Power Station during 2015-2016 Impingement Sampling (HOR 2018b) Bay Anchovy Atlantic Croaker White Perch Atlantic Silverside Total Collected Finfish 235,831 12,675 11,250 7,093 Percent(%) of Total 75 4 4 2 5 One Diamondback Terrapin (Malactemys terrapin) was collected during the study, but was not included in further impingement analysis. Dominion Energy I 46
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Taxa Atlantic Menhaden Blueback Herring Gizzard Shad Hogchoker Striped Bass Weakfish Grass Shrimp Mud Crabs (Xanthoidea) Blue Crab UID Shrimp Mud Crabs (Panopeidae) Northern White Shrimp Sand Shrimp Brown Shrimp Total Collected 4.460 3,879 2,550 2.468 2,211 1,081 Shellfish 10,908 8,385 5,630 4,877 216 147 128 4 Serial No. 20-298, Page 60 of 1631 1-)~ Percent(%) of Total 1 1 1 1 1 <1 3 3 2 2 <1 <1 <1 <1 The impingement collection data were further evaluated to account for the mesh size employed at SPS. The TWS at Units 1 and 2 have a finer mesh opening than the USEPA used in their rulemaking (0.56-inch [14.2-millimeter (mm)] diagonal mesh or 0.25 x 0.50-inch mesh). Therefore, morphometric data was collected on a subsample of collected organisms to allow for quantification of those organisms that were small enough that they would have passed through (i.e., been entrained) the standard TWS assumed by USEPA6, but were impinged on the finer mesh used at Units 1 and 2. The percent of the measured individuals measuring 14.2 mm maximum body depth (fish) or maximum body width (shellfish) was extrapolated to the total impingement collection to deduct those individuals impinged at Units 1 and 2 that were of entrainable size but were impinged (i.e., converts) as a result of the finer mesh used on the Units 1 and 2 TWS. Based on the morphometric data, only 14 percent of the measured organisms were impingeable. After adjusting for converts. 21 taxa collected in impingement samples were determined to be entrainable by rule definition and not impingeable at Units 1 and
- 2. These include Bluegill, Bluefish, Inland Silverside, and Naked Gaby, and the more abundant taxon, Grass Shrimp Species. Other impinged species such as Atlantic Croaker, American Eel, Atlantic Silverside, and the most abundant taxa, Bay Anchovy, were largely converts.
6 EPA recognizes that 1/2 by V4-inch mesh is used in some instances and performs comparably to the 318-inch square mesh. Therefore, the Rule allows for facilities to apply a 1/2 by V4-inch sieve (diagonal opening of 0.56 inches) or a 318-inch sieve (diagonal opening of 0.53 inches) when discerning between impinged and entrained organisms - Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158. Page 48321. Dominion Energy I 47
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 61 of 1631 4.3 Identification of Species and Life Stages Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment [§122.21 (r)(4)(iii)] The withdrawal of cooling water from waterbodies has the potential to impact fishes and aquatic organisms through impingement and entrainment. The degree of vulnerability to impingement exhibited by adult and juvenile fish species depends upon biological and behavioral factors including seasonal fish community structure, swimming speed, spawning effects on distribution, habitat surrounding intake structures, high flow events, fish health, and attraction to the flow associated with the intake structures themselves. In addition, intake velocity, screen mesh size, trash rack spacing, and other intake design components will also affect the susceptibility of fishes to impingement and entrainment. For example, clupeids have high susceptibility to impingement based on multiple factors such as schooling behavior, distribution in the water column, negative rheotactic response to intake flows, and poor swimming performance in winter months due to lower water temperatures (Loar etal.1978). Life history characteristics can influence the vulnerability of a fish species to entrainment. For example, broadcast spawners with non-adhesive, free-floating eggs can drift with water currents and may become entrained in a CWIS, while nest-building species or species with adhesive eggs are less susceptible to entrainment during early life stages. Further, some marine species spawn offshore where eggs would not be susceptible to entrainment but larvae drift inshore to estuarine waters with the currents. Susceptibility of larval life stages of fishes to entrainment depends on body size and swimming ability. Therefore, an organism will spend only a portion of its life cycle susceptible to entrainment, as larger juvenile and adult life stages are not likely to be entrained. The Rule assumes fish subject to 0.5 fps and lower velocities are able to swim freely and avoid impingement; thus impingement is minimized at intakes with 0.5 fps through-screen velocities. At SPS, as previously discussed, the impingement AOI can be represented as a semi-circle with a radius of 118 feet centered at the CWIS. For entrainment of non-motile and limited mobility life stages such as eggs and larvae, velocity thresholds of 0.1 fps and 0.3 fps were used to calculate AOI (Section 2.2.3). For a threshold velocity of 0.1 fps, the overall entrainment AOI at SPS can be conservatively represented as a rectangular area 14,170 feet long and 1,834 feet wide centered at the CWIS. For a threshold velocity of 0.3 fps, the overall entrainment AOI at SPS can be conservatively represented as a rectangular area 4,723 feet long and 611 feet wide centered at the CWIS. The potential for entrainment and impingement of species known to occur in the vicinity of SPS, based on species collected during recent entrainment and impingement studies conducted at SPS, was assessed based on life history characteristics and existing information of species collected in the 2015-2017 entrainment and 2015-2016 impingement studies conducted at SPS with a relative abundance equal to or greater than two percent of each study collection (Table 4-4). Additional consideration was given to adjustments to entrainment and impingement data to account for the smaller screen mesh at SPS (described previously). For example, one of the Dominion Energy I 48
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 62 of 1631 1-)~ more abundant species collected at SPS during the 2015-2016 impingement study, the Naked Goby, were smaller than impingeable size7 based on the Rule-defined mesh size to distinguish between entrainable and impingeable organisms; therefore, they were assessed as unlikely to be impinged but likely to be entrained. Fish eggs and larvae are vulnerable to unfavorable conditions because they lack mobility and cannot respond to hazards. Therefore, the nature of the spawning site can dictate the impact of hazardous conditions (Wootton 1990). Pelagic or mid-water broadcast spawners were considered to be more susceptible to impingement and entrainment because their eggs can drift downstream in the current (i.e., possible potential for entrainment in Table 4-4). After hatching, early larvae may be vulnerable until they make their way to nursery areas such as the margins of the river, backwaters, and side channels (Wootton 1990). Further, those species with migrating larvae from offshore spawning areas may be susceptible to entrainment as they move with the tidal currents. Fish that broadcast or scatter their eggs over vegetation or substrates were not considered likely to be entrained as eggs but may be vulnerable as larvae or older life stages. In addition to this life history information, species that were entrained or impinged during recent studies were considered to have potential for entrainment, based on HOR {2018a) or impingement based on HOR (2018b). Many factors have affected finfish community structure in the James River over the years, including the introduction of species such as Blue Catfish with the potential to have negative effects and outcompete native species. Other factors also have affected the aquatic community over the years, including the fish kill that affected White Perch in 1971 (VEPCO 1980), improvements to water quality and aquatic habitat, and fish restoration efforts (e.g. Striped Bass and American Shad). Thus, the recent study data conducted at SPS provides the most current available information on species and relative abundance in the vicinity of SPS as well as their relative susceptibility to entrainment and impingement. The potential risk of entrainment and impingement is also related to the relative abundance of susceptible species. The majority of the species listed in Table 4-4 are expected to occur in the vicinity of the SPS CWIS in low abundances. Fish species that are expected to be the most abundant (those that comprised at least 2 percent of the recent entrainment or impingement study collections) include species in the taxa Naked Goby, Bay Anchovy, Atlantic Silverside, Atlantic Croaker, and White Perch. Information on relative abundance of selected species that inhabit Chesapeake Bay and the James River was gleaned from the juvenile index survey (Tuckey and Fabrizio 2017), and site-specific studies conducted at Surry Power Station. Species comprising less than two percent of the total entrainment or impingement study collections were not considered to be susceptible and were assessed as not likely to be entrained or impinged. Based on this information, and as supported by data collected from recent entrainment and impingement studies, seven finfish and four shellfish taxa were found to be potentially susceptible to entrainment or impingement. These are identified in Table 4-4. 7 Federal Register/ Vol. 79, No. 158. Page 48321. Dominion Energy I 49
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 63 of 1631 Mud Crabs (Panopeidae and Xanthoidea), Tellin Clams, Mysid Shrimp, Fiddler Crabs, Grass Shrimp, and Palaemonid Shrimp are expected to be the most abundant shellfish taxa with potential risk of entrainment and impingement based on the results of the recent entrainment and impingement studies (those that comprised at least two percent of the study collections). Grass Shrimp species, Mud Crabs (Xanthoidea), and Blue Crab are expected to be the most abundant shellfish taxa with potential risk of impingement. Based on an assessment of impingement survival (HOR 2018b), greater than 60 percent of impinged Blue Crabs and greater than 97 percent of impinged Mud Crabs and Grass Shrimp survived to be returned to the source water. Dominion Energy I so
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 64 of 1631 1-)~ Table 4-4. Entrainment and Impingement Potential for Fish Taxa Known to Occur near the Surry Power Station Family Common Name Scientific Name Anchovy Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli Catfish Blue Catfish lctalurus furcatus Micropogonias Drum Atlantic Croaker undulatus Eel American Eel Anguilla rostrata Goby Naked Goby Gobiosoma bosc Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Herring Blueback Herring Alosa aestivalis Dorosoma Gizzard Shad cepedianum Silverside Atlantic Silverside Menidia Striped Bass Morone saxatilis Temperate Bass White Perch Morone americana Potential to Occur Near the Intake Finfish Likely based on abundance in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Likely - collected in recent impingement study in very low abundance (i.e., less than 2% of total collection). As cavity spawners early life stages have protection. Likely-spawning occurs offshore but larvae migrate inshore into estuaries; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Likely - spawning occurs in the ocean, but larval form (elver) migrates up rivers; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Nearly all individuals assessed in impingement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - eggs laid in oyster beds but larvae are free-swimming; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. All individuals assessed impin~ement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - spawning occurs offshore, but larvae migrate inshore to nursery areas; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Likely - broadcast spawners; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. Likely - broadcast spawners in shallow waters; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. Likely - eggs laid in intertidal zone but larvae may be free swimming; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Nearly all individuals assessed in impingement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - eggs are broadcast and non-adhesive; collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. Likely - based on historical study data; collected in recent entrainment (very low abundance) and impingement studies. Potential for Entrainment of Early Life Stages Likely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Potential for Impingement of Adults and Juveniles Likely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Likely Dominion I 51
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station I Family I Butterfishes Soles Swimming Crabs Fiddler and Ghost Crabs Mud Crabs Palaemonidae Mytilidae Cyrenidae Penaeid Crangonidae Tellin Clams Common Name Harvestfish Hogchoker Blue Crab Fiddler Crab Mud Crabs Mud Crab Grass Shrimp Palaemonid Shrimp Ribbed Mussel Asian Clam Northern White Shrimp Sand Shrimp Tellin Clams Scientific Name Peprilus alepidotus Trinectes maculatus Callinectes sapidus Uca spp. Panopeidae Xanthoidea Palaemonetes Palaemonidae Geukensia demissa Corbicula fluminea Litopenaeus setiferus Crangon septemspinosa Tellinidae Potential to Occur Near the Intake Likely - collected in recent impingement study in low abundance. Likely - collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. Shellfish Likely - collected in recent entrainment (in very low abundance) and impingement studies. Many individuals assessed in impingement study were converts. i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - collected in recent entrainment study. Likely - collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. Likely - collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies. All individuals assessed in impingement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - collected in recent entrainment study in very low abundance. Likely - collected in recent entrainment study in very low abundance. Likely - collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. Nearly all individuals assessed in impingement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - collected in recent entrainment and impingement studies in very low abundance. All individuals assessed in impingement study were converts, i.e. of entrainable sizes. Likely - collected in recent entrainment study in very low abundance., Page 65 of 1631 Potential for Entrainment of Early Life Stages Unlikely Unlikely Likely Likely Likely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely 1-)~ Potential for Impingement of Adults and Juveniles Unlikely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Likely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Unlikely Note: Assessment of potential for entrainment and impingement in this table is based on the Rule-defined mesh size, which is a 1/2 by V4-inch sieve (diagonal opening of 0.56 inches), when discerning between entrained and impinged organisms (
Reference:
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158. Page 48321). Dominion I 52
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 66 of 1631 4.4 Identification and Evaluation of Primary Growth Period [§122.21 (r){4){iv)] The primary growth period for the majority of fishes directly follows the spring hatch. Growth rates are highest in early spring and tend to decline throughout the summer along with total fish abundance. The generally held view on seasonal variation in fish growth in North America is that growth is fastest in the spring and early summer, slows in the late summer and fall, and virtually stops in the winter (Gebhart and Summerfelt 1978). The majority of fishes have their highest densities shortly after the hatch occurs when larvae are concentrated. Feeding competition is especially important during late spring through early summer when the bulk of fish are in their early life stages. During this time, they are more susceptible to starvation (May 1974). This is a critical stage in development, where larval fish have a short time period to initiate exogenous feeding before starving (Ehrlich 1974; Miller et al. 1988). 4.4.1 Reproduction Fish species in the vicinity of the SPS utilize external fertilization, which is principally controlled by water temperatures. Fish reproduction has the potential to produce high yields; however, natural mortality rates are also high regardless of whether the fish reside in the James River or another estuarine environment. The number of eggs a female produces (fecundity) can vary depending on the life history of the species and individual size. Additionally, most fish spawn only once a year regardless of prior success. Based on data collected in recent (2015-2017) entrainment and impingement studies, fish and shellfish with the highest potential for entrainment or impingement are from taxon groups Anchovies, Gobies, Clupeids (Shad, Menhaden, and Herrings), Atlantic Silverside, Atlantic Croaker, White Perch, Grass Shrimp Species, Blue Crab, Mud Crabs, Fiddler Crabs, and Tellin Clams. The fish species are primarily schooling species and broadcast spawners during spring months. Other fish species present near SPS consist of cavity nesters such as lctalurids (catfish}. Eggs and yolk sac larvae of these species are usually contained within the nest area, but post-yolk sac larvae and early stage juveniles may be vulnerable to entrainment during the period when they are moving from the nest or spawning areas in search of nursery habitat. 4.4.2 Larval Recruitment Peak larval recruitment for most James River fishes would be expected to occur during the spawning period, which, based on ambient fish collection data and entrainment data, generally occurs between May and July. As a result, peak larval fish entrainment would be expected to occur during the same period. Based on two years of entrainment data conducted at SPS from 2015-2017, peak entrainment densities occurred in May, June, and July and were attributed primarily to post-yolk sac larval gobies (Naked Goby and Naked/Seaboard Goby [Gobiosoma sp.]) and post-yolk sac and juvenile anchovies (Bay Anchovy and Common Anchovy). Winter finfish densities were dominated by spawning activities of Atlantic Croaker while early spring finfish entrainment densities were dominated by juvenile Atlantic Menhaden. Dominion I 53
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 67 of 1631 1-)~ 4.4.3 Period of Peak Abundance for Relevant Taxa Based on water quality data collected during the entrainment study (HOR 2018a), SPS is in a tidally influenced oligohaline (i.e., characterized by a range of salinities of 0.5 to 5 ppt) to mesohaline (5.0 to 18.0 ppt) zone of the James River, which is utilized by a number of species both separately and simultaneously as a spawning ground, nursery ground, and /or migration route (VEPCO 1980). Fish spawning is a direct function of water temperature, constraining most activity to the spring and early summer months. The majorities of the species found in the vicinity of SPS do not spawn in the area but rather occur as juveniles or adults. Coastal species such as Atlantic Croaker spawn in offshore waters and the larvae move into inshore bay and tributary nursery areas with coastal and tidal currents. This results in the influx of larval and juvenile fishes into the James River system drainage each year when water temperatures begin to rise. Peak abundance for most early life stage and juvenile fishes in the vicinity of SPS occurs between May and July depending on each species' unique spawning habits (HOR 2018a). Based on results of Dominion Energy's 2015-2017 entrainment study, depth-averaged monthly entrainment densities (i.e., average of surface, mid-water, and near-bottom samples) for finfish were highest during spring to early summer months of May, June, and July (Figure 4-6). These spring entrainment densities were dominated by post-yolk sac larval gobies (Naked Gaby and Naked/Seaboard Gaby [Gobiosoma sp.]) and post-yolk sac and juvenile anchovies (Bay Anchovy and Common Anchovy), with silversides contributing to the spring collection during the second year of sampling. Winter finfish densities were dominated by spawning activities of Atlantic Croaker while early spring finfish entrainment densities were dominated by juvenile Atlantic Menhaden. The lowest depth-averaged monthly densities generally occurred during winter and early spring months from November to March. Shellfish taxa depth-averaged monthly densities were highest during late spring to late summer months of April - September (Figure 4-6). High densities during the first year of sampling were attributed primarily to Mud Crab zoea and megalopae in July, August, and September, and juvenile Tellin Clams from May through August. Palaemonid Shrimp, Fiddler Crab (Uca spp.) zoea and Mysid Shrimp also contributed to summer entrainment densities in June, July and August, while Mysid Shrimp were collected throughout the year. During the second year of sampling, depth-averaged monthly entrainment densities were similarly highest April to September (Figure 4-6). These higher densities were attributed primarily to Fiddler Crab and Mud Crab zoea and megalopae in June, July, and August, Mysid shrimp in April through September, and juvenile Tellin Clams in April and August. Palaemonid Shrimp and zoea also contributed to summer entrainment densities in June, July, and August. Dominion Energy I 54
Serial No. 20-298, Page 68 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 10,000 8,000 E 0 ~ 6,000 -~ 4,000 C: Cl) 0 2,000 0 10,000 8,000 E 0 ~ 6,000 ~ f 4, 000 C G) C 2,000 0 Aug Sep Aug Sep Finfish
- _i[LL Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
- Year 1 (2015-2016)
- Year 2 (2016-2017)
Shellfish Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
- Year 1 (2015-2016)
- Year 2 (2016-2017)
Figure 4-6. Depth-averaged Total Entrainment Density (#/1 00 m3) for Finfish and Shellfish Life Stage Combined at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 Based on data collected for Dominion Energy's 2015-2016 impingement study, rates of impingement were episodic for finfish. Mean sample densities topped 400 organisms/100,000 m3 five times during the study; January 21, 2016, February 16, 2016, March 1, 2016, April 5, 201 6, and May 17, 2016 (Figure 4-7). Minimal impingement occurred during the late summer to early winter. Bay Anchovy was impinged throughout the year but peak densities occurred in December, March, and April. Atlantic Croaker were impinged primarily in winter months, while peak Atlantic Menhaden impingement occurred in May, Blueback Herring in February, and Striped Bass in June. Shellfish impingement was driven by Grass Shrimp species which occurred primarily in late October. Blue Crab and Mud Crabs (Xanthoidea) exhibited a secondary peak in August (Figure 4-7). Dominion Energy I 55
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1,800 _ 1,600 e o 1,400 0 0 g 1,200 ~ 1.000 ~ 'iii 800 C a, C c 600 a, E a, Cl 400 C 'ii 200 .§ 0 8/1/15 9/1/15 10/1/15 11/1/15 12/1/15 1,800 _ 1,600 "e o 1.400 0 0 g 1.200 ~ 1.000 ~ 'iii 800 C a, C c 600 a, E a, Cl 400 C 'ii 200 .§ 0 8/1/15 9/1/15 10/1/15 11/1/15 12/1/15 Finfish 1/1/16 2/1/16 3/1/16 Sample Date Shellfish 1/1/16 2/1/16 3/1/16 Sample Date Serial No. 20-298, Page 69 of 1631 1-)~ 4/1/16 5/1/16 6/1/16 7/1/16 8/1/16 4/1/16 5/1 /16 6/1/16 7/1/16 8/1/16 Figure 4-7. Average(+/- Standard Error) Impingement Sample Density (#/100,000 m3) of all Taxa by Sample Date 4.5 Data Representative of Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of CWIS [§122.21 (r)(4)(v)] Fish that occur near the vicinity of the CWIS depend on a variety of habitats for their daily activities, although some species might be dependent on a specific type of habitat. Pelagic species, such as clupeids, anchovies, and Harvestfish form large schools in mid-water column in the open water, while littoral species such as silversides form dense schools that move along the shoreline or in beds of underwater grasses. The typical habitat preferred by littoral zone species includes vegetated areas, submerged woody debris (roots, logs), boulders, rocks, and artificial structure such as docks and piers. Some predators (i.e., Striped Bass) may utilize both the littoral and pelagic zones. Dominion Energy I 56
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 70 of 1631 Daily migrations, such as diel vertical migration (or water column migration), are typical for fish species that inhabit a tidal riverine environment. During a daily cycle, zooplankton and fish exhibit synchronized movements up and down in the water column (Brierley 2014). Diel vertical migration in freshwater fish is primarily triggered by the diel change in light intensity. Declining light at dusk triggers the ascent to the surface, and increasing light at dawn triggers the return to deeper water (Mehner 2012). This is the typical pattern for many species; however, reverse migration can also occur. Additional triggers for vertical migration include hydrostatic pressure and water temperature, which may guide fish into particular limnological zones at night particularly during the season of stratification (Mehner 2012). Pelagic (open water) organisms use diel vertical migration to balance the competing objectives of growing quickly and minimizing predation risk. Nearly all taxa and life stages were collected at all three depth strata during the two-year entrainment sampling study at SPS and there were few consistent trends of entrainment rates by depth, with high variability by taxa and by month to month within the same taxa and life stage. Overall, slightly more organisms were collected at the near-surface compared to mid-depth. Looking at each group separately, finfish followed the trend of higher densities mid-depth while shellfish were collected in higher densities at near-surface samples. A review of diel densities of all finfish taxa indicate entrainment occurred primarily in the night and mid-morning hours. In contrast, shellfish densities were highest during the pre-dawn and night hours, followed by mid-morning. The diel pattern for finfish and shellfish was similar for near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom samples. Entrainment data was also reviewed for tidal influences. Finfish entrainment densities were substantially higher during the flood phase when high densities of Naked Gaby and Naked/Seaboard Gaby were collected at night. Shellfish densities were also highest during flood phase. Tellin Clam densities were substantially higher in the flood phase, with very low densities collected during the ebb phase while Fiddler Crab and Mysid Shrimp densities occurred primarily during the ebb tide in near-surface and mid-depth strata. Mud Crab zoea were collected during both ebb and flood phases, but densities were highest during flood phase. Variation in seasonal behavior is primarily associated with spawning activities. The James River is a primarily oligohaline tidally influenced coastal river; thus, there are numerous diadromous and estuarine fish species that may occur seasonally. For example, the anadromous American Shad, Blueback Herring, and Striped Bass enter the river to spawn each spring. Additionally, freshwater resident species, such as White Perch, may undergo short or local migrations for spawning and/or overwintering. Additionally, marine/estuarine species such as in the drum family (Atlantic Croaker) spawn in offshore waters but whose larvae drift into the bay and tributaries such as the James River for nursery habitat. This information is summarized in Table 4-4 (Section 4.3) for the species that may be present in James River in the vicinity of SPS. Based on the recent entrainment study conducted at SPS (HOR 201 Ba). finfish densities were highest during late spring and early summer months (May, June and July) while shellfish densities dominated during late spring through summer months (April to August). This can be attributed to spawning activities of the major taxa, specifically fish in the goby and anchovy families, in the spring and Mysid Shrimp, Fiddler Crab, and Mud Crabs in summer. Dominion Energy I 57
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 71 of 1631 Based on the impingement study conducted in 2015 to 2016 (HOR 2018b), peak impingement was episodic and occurred primarily from winter through early summer. Bay Anchovy was impinged throughout the year but peak densities occurred in December, March, and April. Atlantic Croaker were impinged primarily in winter months, while peak Atlantic Menhaden impingement occurred in May, Blueback Herring in February, and Striped Bass in June. Shellfish impingement occurred primarily in late October with a secondary peak in August. Information on seasonal and daily activities for fish species known to occur near SPS is presented in Table 4-5. Dominion Energy I 58
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 72 of 1631 1-)~ Table 4-5. Seasonal and Daily Activities of Organisms in the Vicinity of the Surry Power Station Cooling Water Intake Structure Family Anchovy Drum Eel Goby Herring Silverside Common Name Bay Anchovy Atlantic Croaker American Eel Naked Goby Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Silverside Scientific Name Anchoa mitchilli Micropogonias undulatus Anguilla rostrata Gobiosoma bosc Brevoortia tyrannus Menidia Seasonal Activities/Spawning Migration Dally Activities/Migration/Habitat Finfish Spawning occurs late in the evening from late April through Pelagic schooling species inhabiting lower September, with a peak in July. Females may spawn up to 50 freshwater and estuarine reaches of coastal rivers, times each season, producing more than 1,000 eggs in each bays, sound, and high salinity near shore marine batch. Eggs typically hatch within 24 hours and growth occurs waters. It usually occurs in shallow waters. Feeds rapidly, with fish maturing a few months after hatching. mostly on zooplankton. Spawning occurs in oceanic over the continental shelf from A benthic species that prefers sandy or muddy July to February, with a peak in August to October. Beginning areas in shallow or deep water. They move to in August, young larvae drift into the Chesapeake Bay with deeper parts of tidal rivers for the winter. Juveniles coastal currents and travel to low-salinity and freshwater leave the Chesapeake Bay with the adults the creeks. following autumn. Feed on the bottom, consuming worms, crustaceans, and small fish. A catadromous species. spawning occurs in the Sargasso Sea during winter. Larvae are transported to the Atlantic In freshwaters, eels are mostly nocturnal where coast by Gulf Stream where they move into freshwaters for at they swim and feed at night. Eels can move over least 3 years maturing. Mature Eels migrate back out to the moist surfaces if water levels are low. ocean where they return to spawn in the Sargasso Sea. Spawning occurs May to November. Females lay bundles of small eggs inside of empty oyster shells and males Year-round residents of tidal rivers and areas in aggressively guard the eggs until they hatch. Free-swimming Chesapeake Bay. larvae may migrate upstream and school over oyster reefs before settling. The majority of spawning occurs primarily offshore during Adult and juvenile menhaden form large, near-winter. Buoyant eggs hatch at sea, and larvae are carried into surface schools, primarily in estuaries and near estuarine nursery areas by ocean currents. Juveniles spend shore ocean waters from early spring through early most of their first year in estuaries, migrating to the ocean in winter. Menhaden are very efficient filter feeders. late fall. Prefer brackish or salty water, but can tolerate Spawn in intertidal areas during the highest spring tide, laying changes in salinity. In the summer, they are eggs along the sandy bottom of intertidal zone. Larvae hatch generally found in dense schools along the shoreline or in beds of underwater grasses. In the during the next highest tide. winter, they swim in deeper waters to avoid low temperatures. Dominion Energy I 59
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Family Temperate Bass Swimming Crabs Fiddler and Ghost Crabs Mud Crabs Common Name White Perch Blue Crab Fiddler Crab Mud Crabs Scientific Name Morone americana Callinectes sapidus Uca spp. Panopeidae is a group under Xanthoidea Seasonal Activities/Spawning Migration White Perch spawn in tributaries of larger water bodies in April and May. They release their adhesive eggs randomly into shallow water over gravel and rocky areas. SHELLFISH Spawn from May through October in brackish waters of the middle Chesapeake Bay. After mating, females migrate into saltier waters of the lower Chesapeake Bay. Hatched larvae (zoea) are released into the water after about two weeks and undergo multiple moltings, eventually returning ~o the Bay and estuaries. Zoea eventually metamorphose into a post-larval form (megalopa) that become benthic inhabitants moving into the upper Bay and rivers and undergo further metamorphosis into immature crabs. Three species of fiddler crabs inhabit Chesapeake Bay, Red-Jointed Fiddler (Uca minax), Marsh Fiddler (Uca pugnax), and Sand Fiddler (Uca pugilator). Fiddler Crabs mate every two weeks during the summer. Females incubate their eggs on their abdomen for about two weeks followed by release into the water when they hatch into free-swimming larvae (zoea). Zoea are carried with ocean currents out into estuaries where they undergo several moltings, metamorphosing to megalopa stage. The megalopa larvae migrate back into coastal areas, using flood currents, befor~ undergoing the final changes to the adult form and a benth1c existence. Reproduction can occur throughout the summer when females carry large broods of eggs on their abdomen. The planktonic larvae undergo multiple metamorphos_es as zoea and undergo vertical migration using inward-flowing bottom currents. The larvae metamorphose into megalopa larvae before taking on a more benthic habitat as juveniles and adults. I, Page 73 of 1631 1-)~ Daily Activities/Migration/Habitat Inhabit brackish tidal rivers and streams and freshwater impoundments of formerly tidal waters. During most of the year this species is found in shallow and moderate depths; it occupies deep water in winter. A schooling fish, tending to spend daylight hours in deep water, moving into the shallows at dusk to feed. Highly tolerant to temperature and salinity changes, using variable habitats during the course of its lifecycle, with distribution based on age, sex and season. May be abundant in shallow waters and_ bay grass beds during the warmer months but will hibernate in the deeper water in winter. Excellent swimmers with specially adapted hind appendages shaped like paddles. Typically found in marshes, beaches, and mu~ ~ats, depending on the species and tolerance to sahn_1ty. They create burrows in the sand or mud for mating, sleeping, refuge, and hibernating during winter.. Active during the day, Fiddler Crabs return to their burrow at night and during high tide, plugging the burrow entrance with mud or sand. Commonly inhabit the muddy or sandy bottoms of marshes, *swamps, or oyster beds, and are sometimes found on jetty rocks, shell or cobble bars where they excavate shallow burrows. They are found throughout estuaries and brackish waters above 10 ppt. Dominion Energy I 60
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Family Palaemonidae Common Name Grass Shrimp Scientific Name Palaemonetes Seasonal Activities/Spawning Migration Spawning can occur from February through October depending on location, and typically occurs in summer in Chesapeake Bay. Mating occurs within seven hours of molting with the female carrying her fertilized eggs on her pleopods. Females molt again after spawning, thereby producing another brood. Larvae rapidly mature at approximately 1.5 to 2 months old and typically spawn late in the fall of their first year as adults. Post larvae that survive fall and winter spawn the following spring while older, overwintering individuals usually spawn early in the year and die by the following winter. I, Page 74 of 1631 1-)~ Daily Activities/Migration/Habitat A diverse group inhabiting variable freshwater, estuarine, and marine environments; most species prefer areas with aquatic vegetation, especially eelgrass beds, tidal marshes, oyster reef habitats or other structures such as oyster shell, woody debris, and docks or pilings. Inhabit very shallow areas near their margins, and have been reported at depths as great as 15.2 meters (50 feet). Sources: CBP 2018; MDNR 2018; VDGIF 2018a; Froese and Pauly 2018; NatureServe 201 7; USFWS 201 5; SMSFP 2009; Lippson and Lippson 2006; Epifania et al. 1988; Herman 1963 Dominion Energy I 61
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 75 of 1631 4.6 Identification of Threatened, Endangered, and Other Protected Species Susceptible to Impingement and Entrainment at CWIS [§122.21 (r)(4)(vi)] The Rule requires that the permittee document the presence of federally listed species and designated critical habitat in the Action Area (see 40 CFR 125.95[f]). The USEPA consulted with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (or together, the Services) under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) during development of the Rule and the Services concluded that the Rule is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of designated critical habitat (USFWS and NMFS 2014). The Rule requires that facilities identify all federally listed threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat that are or may be present "in the vicinity of impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake structure" in §122.21(r)(4). This section provides a review of listed species associated with SPS. The Rule states that the Action Area can "generally be considered the area in the vicinity of impingement and entrainment at the cooling water intake structure" (79 Federal Register 48363) (e.g., an area analogous to the zone of hydraulic influence of the intake structure). Under the ESA, the Action Area is defined more expansively, and in their Biological Opinion on the Rule (USFWS and NMFS 2014), the Services included areas indirectly affected by the CWIS. This document will use the Services' broader definition as the Action Area to identify the full set of federally listed species that might be directly or indirectly affected by the CWIS, including those which occur within the portions of the receiving water potentially affected by the thermal discharge, CWIS AOI, and the power station footprint/property boundary. This is consistent with the Action Area defined by Services' representatives at a §316(b)-focused conference held in 2014 (Figure 4-8; Tortorici and Ashfield 2014). Based on the Services' guidance, the SPS Action Area is conservatively defined as all areas potentially directly or indirectly affected by the SPS CWIS, and the CWIS AOI, the cooling water discharge and the facilities upland boundaries. These are described in the following paragraphs. The CWIS AOI has been calculated as a conservative zone of hydraulic influence (i.e., it errs on the side of overestimating the size of the AOI) and is used to define the Action Area but not necessarily the area of direct impacts on fish. Fish can occur in the AOI and avoid the CWIS or not be withdrawn by the facility. The AOI is calculated based on conservative assumptions including that ambient velocity is zero and low water depth, and thus represents the maximum areal extent associated with the evaluated thresholds velocities described below. Based on these conservative calculations, the impingement AOI can be represented as a semi-circle with a radius of 118 feet originating at the center of the CWIS (see Section 2.2.3). The entrainment AOI of non-motile and limited mobility life stages such as eggs and larvae is represented as a rectangular area ranging from 4,723 feet long and 611 feet wide to 14,170 feet long and 1,834 feet wide, originating at the center of the CWIS (see Section 2.2.3). Dominion Energy I 62
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §1 22.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 76 of 1631 1-)~ ESA Aspects of the Rule Action Area Source: Tortorici and Ashfield 2014 Figure 4-8. Service-Defined Action Area The SPS circulating water system was designed with the optimum discharge, location, configuration, and exit velocity to facilitate rapid mixing with ambient estuarine waters and reduce the size of the thermal mixing zone. Five years of thermal monitoring (2 years pre-operational and 3 years post-operational) indicated the surface plume usually affected less than 30 percent of the river in the survey area adjacent to the discharge point and plume temperatures greater than 0.6°C above ambient never crossed the entire width of the river at its narrowest point (i.e., at Hog Point). Further, NMFS (2012a) stated that: "Based on the available information, the largest area measured with increased water temperatures extended 2,000 feet from the outfall and 6-feet down from the surface. " A Section 316(a) thermal variance Type 1 demonstration study conducted from 1969 through 1976 (although sampling period varied for each trophic group of organisms) supported the conclusion that the heated effluent from SPS caused no appreciable harm to the aquatic ecosystem based on the following results (VEPCO 1977): Finfish communities remained stable throughout the sampling period but demonstrated natural variability. Thermal discharge was determined not to form a barrier for anadromous fish such as Blueback Herring (Alosa aestivalis). Few eggs and larvae were collected in near SPS; centers of spawning are known to occur upstream and downstream of SPS. Eggs and larvae present were found not to be entrained in the thermal plume. Benthos and fouling organisms have not been harmed by the thermal effluent; fouling organisms show low species diversity and seasonal variability associated with this transitional zone. Dominion Energy I 63
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 77 of 1631 Phytoplankton and zooplankton demonstrated seasonal shifts unrelated to the thermal plume. However, there was a slight shift in community structure in and directly outside the discharge canal. This was determined to be related to pumping operations across the peninsula. Based on this information, the area considered to be indirectly affected by the cooling water discharge is "2,000 feet from the outfall and 6-feet down from the surface. " (NMFS 2012a) The SPS property extends no more than 1.5 mile in any direction from the CWIS. Additionally, the Low-level cooling water intake is approximately 2 miles from the cooling water discharge overland or approximately 6 river miles (area of potential indirect effects). The area potentially affected by the cooling water discharge is defined by an increase in temperature over ambient conditions. Under VPDES Permit VA0004090, SPS has a thermal variance under Section §316(a) of the CWA. These provisions in the VPDES permit assure the protection and propagation of a balanced, indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in the James River. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF) (Undated) recommends a default listed species search area with a 2-mile radius centered at the point of action. Based on the three factors defining the Action Area above, the search area exceeds that default recommendation. The VDGIF Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System (VAFWIS) and USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPAC) database search areas presented in Figures 4-9 and 4-10, respectively, were selected as representative of the action area for purposes of conducting the species search. The search areas encompass the thermal mixing zone, the AOI, and the SPS property boundaries. In order to encompass these areas, the listed species search radius was expanded from the 2-mile search radius recommended by VDGIF to 3 miles. II u1g1m~I GolCl1Jb Map Source: USFWS 2018b I For Note: Map not to scale. Search area is a circle with approximately a 3-mile radius around Surry Power Station. Figure 4-9. Information, Planning, and Conservation Database Search Area Dominion Energy I 64
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Map Source: VDGIF 2018b Serial No. 20-298, Page 78 of 1631 Note: Map not to scale. Outer circle is a 3-mile radius around Surry Power Station. Figure 4-10. Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information System Database Search Area To develop a list of federally listed species and critical habitat under USFWS jurisdiction, known or likely to occur within the three-mile radius Action Area of the SPS CWIS described above, the USFWS IPAC System (USFWS 2018b) was consulted on October 9, 2018 (see Appendix C for the resulting report) (Table 4-6). The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ESA Section 7 Mapper (NOAA 2018a) was consulted on October 19, 2018, to develop a list of federally listed marine species and critical habitat under NMFS jurisdiction that are known or likely to occur in the Action Area (NMFS 2018). The results were compared to scientific literature and other documents, including a NMFS Biological Opinion and Letter of Concurrence for projects proposed to occur near the vicinity of the CWIS, including those related directly to SPS (NMFS 2012a and NFMS 2012b). Those documents were used to confirm that marine species under the jurisdiction of NMFS were appropriately considered in Table 4-6. The VDGIF VAFWIS database (VDGIF 2018b) was consulted on October 9, 2018, to determine the state-listed species that have the potential to occur in the Action Area (see Appendix C). In cases where the VAFWIS was more inclusive of federally listed species than the USFWS IPAC and NMFS queries, the USFWS and NMFS authorities were given priority. Available information on federally listed species that were included in the VAFWIS list, but not the USFWS or NMFS list, were further reviewed to determine if appropriate to include in Table 4-6. Species under USFWS oversight excluded for this reason include Red Cockaded Woodpecker, Piping Plover, and Red Knot. These species are not included on the USFWS threatened and endangered Dominion Energy I 65
Serial No. 20-298, Page 79 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station species list for Surry County (USFWS 201 Bb). Additionally, VDGIF (2018b) indicates that there are no confirmed observations of these species in the Action Area. Species under NMFS jurisdiction excluded for this reason include Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, and Leatherback sea turtles. NMFS (2012a) states, "Several species of listed sea turtles occur seasonally in Chesapeake Bay and may be present near the confluence of the James River; however, none of these species occurs in the Action Area." VDGIF (2018b) also indicates that there are no confirmed observations of these species in the Action Area. Note that only federally and state-threatened and endangered species were included in Table 4-
- 6. Federal species of concern and candidate species were omitted from the list (unless they were also state-threatened or endangered), because there are no requirements to address those species under the Section 7 of the ESA.
The following is a summary of the materials that were reviewed to develop the species list in Table 4-6: IPAC (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) (USFWS 2018b) VAFWIS (http://vafwis.org/fwis/) (VDGIF 2018b) National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) ESA Section 7 Mapper (NOAA 2018a) Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS' Jurisdiction (http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm) (NMFS 2018) Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS (NMFS 2012a) Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield counties and the Cities of Richmond and
- Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183) (NMFS 2012b)
Dominion Energy I 66
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station ""- 1',AI I*-* -- -VV, Page 80 of 1631 1-)~ Table 4-6. Federal and State-threatened and Endangered Species with the Potential to Occur within Surry Power Station Action Area Common Name Scientific Name 1111 Atlantic Sturgeona,b Acipenser FE, SE, oxyrinchus CH Shortnose Acipenser FE, SE Sturgeonb brevirostrum Blackbanded Enneacanthus Sunfisha chaetodon SE Eastern Chicken Deirochelys Turtle8 reticularia SE Canebrake Crotalus horridus SE II Rattlesnakea Eastern Tiger Ambystoma SE II Salamander8 tigrinum Mabee's Ambystoma Salamander8 mabeei ST II Barking Treefroga Hy/a gratiosa ST II Potential to Occur In the Action Area Fish Early life stages - Unlikely. spawning occurs in the James River upstream of the AOI. Adults and Juveniles - Likel/ Critical habitat present Adults-There was a report of a single Shortnose Sturgeon in the James River RM (river mile) 30 in 2016. This was the first reported occurrence in Virginia waters in the past 100 years aside from the two reports at the mouth of the Rappahannock River noted previously (Personal Communication Dr. Matt Balazik, VDGIF 2018c). In 2018 a second Shortnose Sturgeon was reported from the James River RM 30 (NOAA 2018b) No - Freshwater species; only known to exist in the Chowan River drainaged and not expected in the action area. Reptiles No - habitat is interdunal ponds and sinkhole complexes that experience seasonal water fluctuationse. Preferred habitat is forested. Amphibians No - aquatic habitats include ditches, vernal ponds, and rarely, sluggish streams1. No - fish-free vernal ponds or ephemeral coastal plain sinkholes up to 1.5 meters deep, with surrounding forests9* No - breeds in cypress ponds and bays, and in pine barren ponds; open canopied ponds; all Virginia breeding sites were found in graminoid dominated temporary pondsh. Potential for Entrainment and/or Impingement Unlikely potential for impingement or entrainment. See text for additional discussion. Unlikely potential for impingement or entrainment. Available information indicates Shortnose Sturgeon are rare in the lower Chesapeake Bay and in the James River. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. Dominion Energy I 67
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name I Peregrine F alcon3 Loggerhead Shrikea Henslow's Sparrow" Migrant Loggerhead Shrikea Black Rail3 Northern Long-Eared Bata.c Little Brown Bat3 Rafinesque's Bat3 Scientific Name ** Falco peregrinus ST Lanius ST ludovicianus Ammodramus ST henslowii Lanius ludovicianus ST migrans Lateral/us SE jamaicensis Myotis septentrionalis FT Myotis lucifugus SE Corynorhinus SE rafinesquii macrotis Potential to Occur In the Action Area Birds Terrestrial species that preys primarily on other birds and bats - no nexus with CWIS or thermal discharge. Suitable habitat includes short grasses and forbs interspersed with perching locations for hunting and shrubs/small trees for nesting - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge. This species inhabits large, flat fields with no woody plants, and with tall, dense grass. a dense litter layer, and standing dead vegetation - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge. Suitable habitat includes short grasses and forbs interspersed with perching locations for hunting and shrubs/small trees for nesting - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge. Suitable habitat includes dry fields, brackish marshes and the drier parts of the salt marsh. rare in fresh water marshes - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge. Mammals This species primarily flies through the understory of forested areas feeding on invertebrates - no nexus to the CWIS or thermal discharge. This species uses a wide range of habitats that often include use of human-made structures for resting and maternity sites. They also use caves and hollow trees' - no nexus to the CWIS or thermal discharge. This species roosts singly, in small clusters, or groups to 100 or more in hollow trees. under loose bark, houses. unoccupied buildings. and culverts; feeds primarily on moths - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge., Page 81 of 1631 1-)~ Potential for Entrainment and/or Impingement No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. Dominion Energy I 68
I §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Tri-colored Bat8 Scientific Name Perimyotis subflavus FE = Federally Endangered FT = Federally Threatened SE = State Endangered ST = State Threatened CH = Critical Habitat Source: SE Potential to Occur in the Action Area This species is associated with forested landscapes, where they forage near trees and along waterways. Maternity and summer roosts are in dead or live tree foliage; caves,.mines, and rock crevices may be used as night roosts' - no nexus with the CWIS or thermal discharge. l=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need ll=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II - Very High Conservation Need, Page 82 of 1631 1-)~ Potential for Entrainment and/or Impingement No potential for impingement or entrainment impacts. 8VDGIF 2018a, bNMFS 2018, cUSFWS 2018b, dKercher 2006, 0VDGIF 201 4a, 1VDGIF 2014b, 9VDGIF 201 4c, hVDGIF 2014d, and ;NatureServe 2017 Note: 1While not associated with the SPS CWIS, land clearing activities associated with construction and maintenance have the potential to impact this species and its habitat. if present in the Action Area. Dominion Energy I 69
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 83 of 1631 1-)~ Most of the species listed in Table 4-6 are terrestrial species and (1) do not have a nexus with the CWIS or (2) occur in habitats that are not in the vicinity of the SPS CWIS and thus are not subject to potential entrainment or impingement at the facility or the thermal plume. Additional literature was reviewed to identify aquatic species that do not occur near the CWIS and therefore should be eliminated from further consideration; these documents are cited in Table 4-
- 6.
Based on this review, the only federally listed and state-listed species to potentially occur in the Action Area are the Atlantic Sturgeon and Shortnose Sturgeon. These species were retained for further analysis below. Atlantic Sturgeon. The risk of impingement and entrainment of Atlantic Sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrinchus) at SPS is low. While Atlantic Sturgeon spawn in the James River, their spawning grounds are located at least 50 miles upstream of the SPS intake with a second area of seemingly suitable habitat located approximately 25 miles upstream (NMFS 2012a). Atlantic Sturgeon originating from the New York Bight. Chesapeake Bay, South Atlantic and Carolina Distinct Population Segments (DPSs) are listed as federally endangered. Those originating from the Gulf of Maine DPS are listed as federally threatened. Atlantic Sturgeon from these five DPSs have the potential to occur in the James River and the vicinity of the SPS CWIS; however, the majority of the spawning adults are likely to originate from the Chesapeake Bay DPS. The marine range of all five DPSs extends along the Atlantic coast from Canada to Cape Canaveral, Florida (NMFS 2012a). The Chesapeake DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon includes all anadromous Atlantic Sturgeon that are spawned in the watersheds that drain into the Chesapeake Bay and into coastal waters from the Delaware-Maryland border on Fenwick Island to Cape Henry, Virginia (NMFS 2012a). The Atlantic Sturgeon is a long-lived, late-maturing, estuarine dependent, anadromous species. Adults spend most of their life in the marine environment but migrate upriver in the spring/early summer to spawn. Spawning is expected to occur during April through June (temperatures for spawning can range from 13-26°C); however, strong empirical evidence suggests that spawning also occurs in the fall (Balazik et al. 2012; Secor et al. 2000; Balazik and Musick 2015), and in October 2018 several young of year Atlantic Sturgeon were collected from the James River approximately 25 miles upstream of SPS (Lynn Lankshear, NMFS, personal communication). Atlantic Sturgeon spawning is believed to occur in flowing water between the salt front and fall line of large rivers. where optimal flows are 46-76 cm/second with depths of 11-27 m. Atlantic Sturgeon likely do not spawn every year; multiple studies have shown that spawning intervals range from 1-5 years for males and 2-5 years for females. Sturgeon eggs are adhesive and demersal and occur only on the spawning grounds (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). Eggs typically hatch in 4 to 7 days depending on water temperature (Gilbert 1989; Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928). At hatching, Atlantic Sturgeon larvae are large bodied (e.g., 7.8 mm total Dominion Energy I 70
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 84 of 1631 1-)~ length [Smith 1980 and 1981 as cited in NMFS 2012a]) and are assumed to undertake a demersal existence in the same areas where they were spawned (ASMFC 2012; Bath et al. 1981). Following yolk sac absorption, larvae move downstream to rearing grounds. During the day, larvae use benthic structure (e.g., gravel matrix) as refugia. During the latter half of migration when larvae are more fully developed, movement to rearing grounds occurs both day and night. Late-stage larvae transition into the juvenile phase as they move downstream into brackish waters and take up residence in estuarine waters (ASMFC 2012). Snyder {1988) reports that Atlantic Sturgeon complete yolk absorption by 13-14 mm standard length in 6-7 days. Larvae transition into the juvenile phase at approximately 30 mm total length (Bain 1997). Subadult Atlantic Sturgeon (greater than 50 cm but not yet sexually mature) swim among coastal and estuarine habitats, undergoing rapid growth. These migratory subadults, as well as adult sturgeon, are normally captured in shallow (10-50 m) nearshore areas dominated by gravel and sand substrate. Despite extensive migration in coastal waters, Atlantic Sturgeon return to their natal river to spawn as indicated from tagging records and the relatively low rates of gene flow reported in population genetic studies. Juveniles, sub-adults, and adults could occur in the Action Area (NMFS 2012a). Telemetry data and collection of ripe and running adults indicate that spring spawning occurs downstream of river mile (RM) 67 which is more than 40 miles from SPS. Additionally, empirical evidence suggests that spawning occurs in the fall upstream of RM 67 (Balazik et al. 2012; Balazik and Musick 2015). Adults and subadults move through the action area as they move to spawning grounds upstream of SPS and overwintering habitat consisting of deep water areas located within and downstream of the action area (Hager et al. 2014). While Atlantic Sturgeon were not collected during the SPS impingement studies from 197 4 to 1983, entrainment studies from 1970-1978 or 2005-2006, 2005-2006 ambient ichthyoplankton study, or 2005-2006 trawl or seine study, four Atlantic Sturgeon were collected in the ambient trawl sampling from 1970-1978, indicating that juvenile or adult sturgeon have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the facility (VEPCO 1980). More recently, tracking studies by Hager (2011) and Balazik et al. (2012) indicate adult Atlantic Sturgeon may be in the vicinity of SPS from April through November. Impingement occurs when a fish cannot swim fast enough to escape the intake (e.g., the fish's swimming ability is overtaken by the velocity of water being drawn into the intake). AOI calculations indicate that a threshold velocity for SPS CWIS of 0.5 fps can be conservatively represented as a semi-circle with a radius of 118 feet centered at the intake. In order for impingement to occur, a fish must be overcome by the intake or approach velocity. Shortnose Sturgeon, while not expected to occur in the vicinity of the SPS intake, are well studied and have swimming capabilities expected to be representative of Atlantic Sturgeon. Juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon (body lengths greater than 58.1 cm) can avoid impingement at intakes with velocities as high as 3.0 fps (Kynard et al. 2005 as cited in NMFS 2012a). Shortnose Sturgeon with body lengths greater than 28 cm have been demonstrated to have the ability to avoid impingement at intakes with velocities of 1.0 fps (Kynard et al. 2005 as cited in NMFS 2012a). Assuming that Atlantic Sturgeon have swimming capabilities at least equal to Shortnose Sturgeon, Atlantic Sturgeon in the vicinity of the SPS, should also be able to avoid Dominion Energy I 71
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 85 of 1631 becoming impinged on trash racks and intake screens. This is a reasonable assumption given that the Atlantic Sturgeon that would be present in the vicinity of the intake are at least of a similar size to the juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon tested by Kynard et al. (2005 as cited in NMFS 2012b), and because these species have similar body forms. Based on the available data, impingement of Atlantic Sturgeon is unlikely and not expected to occur at SPS. Furthermore, as described in previous paragraphs, Atlantic Sturgeon have never been collected in impingement samples and no records of impinged sturgeon at SPS exist to date (VEPCO 1980). Critical habitat for all five DPSs was designated by NMFS on August 17, 2017 (82 FR 39239). Within the Chesapeake Bay DPS and specifically the James River, critical habitat has been designated for the James River from Boshers Dam downstream to where the main stem river discharges at its mouth into the Chesapeake Bay at Hampton Roads (82 FR 39248). Occupied critical habitat is designated based on the physical features essential to the conservation of the species that may require special management considerations or protections. Physical features within this boundary. which NMFS designated as essential for the conservation of Atlantic Sturgeon in the Chesapeake Bay (82 FR 39239), include: Hard bottom substrate (e.g., rock, cobble, gravel. limestone, boulder, etc.) in low salinity waters (i.e.. 0.0- 0.5 ppt range) for settlement of fertilized eggs, refuge, growth, and development of early life stages; Aquatic habitat with a gradual downstream salinity gradient of 0.5 up to as high as 30 parts per thousand and soft substrate (e.g., sand, mud) between the river mouth and spawning sites for juvenile foraging and physiological development; Water of appropriate depth and absent physical barriers to passage (e.g., locks, dams, thermal plumes, turbidity, sound, reservoirs. gear, etc.) between the river mouth and spawning sites necessary to support: (i) Unimpeded movement of adults to and from spawning sites; (ii) Seasonal and physiologically dependent movement of juvenile Atlantic sturgeon to appropriate salinity zones within the river estuary; and (iii) Staging, resting, or holding of subadults or spawning condition adults. Water depths in main river channels must also be deep enough (e.g., at least 1.2 meters) to ensure continuous flow in the main channel at all times when any sturgeon life stage would be in the river; Water, between the river mouth and spawning sites, especially in the bottom meter of the water column. with the temperature, salinity, and oxygen values that. combined, support: (i) Spawning; (ii) Annual and interannual adult. subadult. larval, and juvenile survival; and (iii) Larval, juvenile. and subadult growth, development, and recruitment (e.g., 13 to 26°C for spawning habitat and no more than 30°C for juvenile rearing habitat. and 6 milligrams per liter (mg/L) or greater dissolved oxygen for juvenile rearing habitat). NMFS (2012a) considered the potential for Atlantic Sturgeon to avoid the thermal plume at SPS and concluded that that Atlantic Sturgeon are likely to seek refuge in deep cool areas outside of the thermal plume and Action Area. Additionally, the thermal plume does not extend more than Dominion Energy I 72
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 86 of 1631 1-)~ halfway across the river, thereby allowing fish passage. NMFS (2012a) concluded that changes in behavior would not preclude Atlantic Sturgeon from "completing any essential behaviors such as resting, foraging or migrating or that the fitness of any individuals will be affected. Additionally, there is not expected to be any increase in energy expenditure that has any detectable effect on the physiology of any individuals or any future effect on growth, reproduction, or general health." Therefore, direct and/or indirect effects to critical habitat in the vicinity of the SPS CWIS from cooling water discharge are considered insignificant. Shortnose Sturgeon. The risk of impingement and entrainment of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) at SPS is low. In March 2016, a single Shortnose Sturgeon was collected from the James River at RM 30 (Balazik 2017). This was the first verified occurrence of a Shortnose Sturgeon in the James River. The fish was collected as part of a Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) program monitoring Atlantic Sturgeon under NOAA endangered species permit No. 16547. Species identification was verified by genetic analysis by the USGS Leetown, West Virginia, Science Center (Balazik 2017). In February 2018, a second Shortnose Sturgeon (a confirmed gravid female) was captured near RM 30 (NOAA 201 Bb). This species is federally and state-listed as endangered. Critical habitat has not been designated for Shortnose Sturgeon (NOAA 201 Bc).Shortnose Sturgeon are similar in appearance to Atlantic Sturgeon, but can be distinguished by their smaller size, larger mouth, smaller snout shape, and scutes (Kynard et al. 2016). The two species have a close lineage, are bottom-oriented, are morphologically similar, exhibit similar feeding behaviors, make spawning migrations, and spawn in similar habitats. The greatest distinction between the two is Atlantic Sturgeon make coastal migrations, whereas the Shortnose Sturgeon tend to remain restricted to its natal river. Kynard et al. (2016) details the life stages found and adult abundance in rivers throughout its range. Absent from Kynard's discussion is the Chesapeake Bay drainage, which indicates that there is not a known reproducing population within Chesapeake Bay. The Shortnose Sturgeon captured from the James River in 2016 is hypothesized to have been a colonizing or roaming fish from the Potomac River (about 47 miles away), or the Delaware River (about 220 miles away), that entered the system through the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal (Balazik 2017). Shortnose Sturgeon are amphidromous fish. They live in their birth (natal) river, make short feeding or migratory trips into salt water, and then return to freshwater to feed and escape predation. When they do enter marine waters, they generally stay close to shore. In the spring, adults move far upstream and away from salt water to spawn. After spawning, the adults move rapidly back downstream to the estuaries, where they feed, rest, and spend most of their time (NOAA 201 Bb). There is little evidence for spawning Shortnose Sturgeon populations within the Chesapeake Bay (Kynard et al. 2016). Early life stage Shortnose Sturgeon are restricted to freshwater habitats. Yearling movements are not very well understood given the lack of telemetered fish studied. Shortnose Sturgeon at all life stages appear to follow the channel during any upstream or downstream migrations. The most suitable spawning habitat is considered to be the most upstream river reach used by Shortnose Sturgeon (Kynard et al. Dominion Energy I 73
Serial No. 20-298, Page 87 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 2016). Shortnose Sturgeon early life stages also are very intolerant to salinities of 5-1 O ppt until they are about 300 days of age. A number of factors indicate the risk of entrainment or impingement of Shortnose Sturgeon is low. There have only been two documented occurrences of Shortnose Sturgeon in the James River, despite regular and frequent fish collection surveys. The rarity of the fish alone indicates there is low probability for encounters. With regards to entrainment of early life stages, suitable spawning habitat for Shortnose Sturgeon is at least 50 miles upstream of SPS, and SPS occurs in a section of the James River with mixed salinity, which young fish would be expected to avoid. With regards to impingement, advanced juvenile and adult Shortnose Sturgeon are strong swimmers, and the previous discussion regarding their swimming ability with respect to the potential for Atlantic Sturgeon impingement indicates that it is unlikely a healthy sturgeon, of either species, would be impinged at SPS.
- 4. 7 Documentation of Consultation with Services
[§122.21 (r)(4)(vii)] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission initiated Endangered Species Act Section 7 consultation with NMFS in 201 2, following the listing of the Chesapeake Bay DPS of Atlantic Sturgeon as endangered. NMFS (2012a) reviewed a variety of materials as part of the consultation, and concluded "... based on information from NRC, Dominion Energy, and other sources, all effects to listed species will be insignificant or discountable. Therefore, the continued operation of SPS Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect any listed species under NMFS jurisdiction." This conclusion was documented in a letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS (NMFS 2012a). Virginia Department of Environmental Quality initiated coordination with Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation on September 27, 2012. OCR responded on October 22, 2012 stating that they do not anticipate that the permit reissuance will adversely impact natural heritage resources or state-listed threatened or endangered plant and insect species (VPDES Permit VA0004090). 4.8 Methods and QA Procedures for Field Efforts [§122.21 (r)(4)(viii)] Methods and quality assurance (QA) procedures for the biological baseline characterization data referenced in Section 4 are documented in each of the relevant reports. 4.9 Definition of Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data [§122.21 (r)(4)(ix)] Data were provided to address §122.21 (r)(4)(i) - (viii) and (x) - (xii}, and there is no required submittal under subsection §122.21 (r)(4)(ix). Dominion Energy I 74
Serial No. 20-298, Page 88 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 4.10 Identification of Protective Measures and Stabilization Activities [§122.21 {r)(4){x) Dominion Energy is not aware of any activities that have been pursued in the James River near SPS that might qualify as protective measures or stabilization activities. 4.11 List of Fragile Species [§122.21 {r)(4){xi)] In the Rule, USEPA identifies 14 species (§125.92(m)) as fragile or having post-impingement survival rates of less than 30 percent, including: Alewife American Shad Atlantic Herring Bay Anchovy Blueback Herring Bluefish Butterfish Gizzard Shad Grey Snapper Hickory Shad Menhaden Rainbow Smelt Round Herring Silver Anchovy Based on recent studies, eight species from the fragile species list are found in the James River in the vicinity of SPS, comprising Alewife, Blueback Herring, Butterfish, Atlantic Menhaden, Bay Anchovy, Gizzard Shad, Gray Snapper, and Hickory Shad. Additionally, Threadfin Shad, a closely related species to Gizzard Shad, is likely to have similar survival rates. 4.12 Information Submitted to Obtain Incidental Take Exemption or Authorization from Services [§122.21 {r)(4){xii)] The operation of SPS is not likely to result in adverse effects on federally listed species (see Section 4.7) (NMFS 2012a). For this reason neither Dominion Energy nor the NRC have sought or obtained an incidental take exemption or authorization for SPS's CWIS from the USFWS or NMFS. Dominion Energy I 75
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 89 of 1631 5 Cooling Water System Data [§122.21 (r){5)] 5.1 Description of Cooling Water System Operation [§122.21 (r){S){i)] SPS contains two identical nuclear powered steam electric units. Each unit includes a closed-cycle three-coolant-loop, pressurized light-water-moderated reactor nuclear steam supply system, a turbine generator, and auxiliary equipment. The heat generated by each reactor is transferred through three separate closed-cycle loops (the primary system) to three steam generators. The steam generators in turn utilize the heat from the primary system to produce steam. The steam is transferred though the closed-cycle secondary coolant loops to the steam turbines and drives the generators to produce electricity. After passing through the turbines, the spent steam is condensed with cooling water from the James River and return to the steam generator to repeat the cycle (Figure 5-1). STEAM GENERATORS PRIMARY * "s~~; l REACTOR FROM RIVER ED PRIMARY COOLANT WATER llfl SECONDARY COOLANT WATER Im SECONDARY COOLANT STEAM CJ JAMES RIVER COOLING WATER Source: VEPCO 1980 GENERATOR ] DISCHARGE TO RIVER ELECTRICAL OUTPUT Figure 5-1. Simplified Flow Diagram of Steam-electric System of Generating Unit at Surry Power Station The once-through cooling water from the James River is used to dissipate waste heat from the turbine condensers and from the plant service water system (Figure 5-2). The heat dissipating or circulating water system is designed to provide once-through cooling water for both units. The Dominion Energy I 76
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 90 of 1631 1-)~ cooling water system comprises a dredged river inlet channel, a Low-level intake structure consisting of eight traveling screens and eight circulating pumps, a High-level elevated intake canal. a High-level intake structure with eight conventional traveling screens per unit, a once-through condenser system for each unit a sea-level discharge canal, and a rock groin mixing structure extending into the James River. The water used for cooling is taken from the James River on the downstream side of the Low-level intake structure, pumped into the high-level canal, transported (by gravity) throughout the station condensers, and discharged into the James River on the upstream side. DISCHARGE CANAL TO RIVER HIGH-LEVEL INTAKE STRUCTURE , UNIT 2 SO_!'lDENSERS Source: Modified from VEPCO 1980 I I I t t I I I I I I I I I I I f I I I I I I FROM RIVER HIGH-LEVEL INTAKE CANAL LEGEND -- OPERATION SHUT DOWN HIGH-LEVEL INTAKE STRUCTURE Figure 5-2. Simplified Flow Diagram of Heat Dissipating System at Surry Power Station Dominion Energy I 77
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 5.1.1 Operation of Cooling Water System Serial No. 20-298, Page 91 of 1631 1-)~ The circulating water is withdrawn from the James River through the Low-level intake structure. The circulating water system at SPS provides cooling water for the main condensers and the service water systems of both units. Each unit requires 840,000 gpm of river water to supply condensing and service water needs. To provide operational flexibility, system reliability, and station economy, the water requirement for each unit is supplied by four 220,000-gpm pumps. Each circulating water pump discharge line is a 96-inch diameter steel pipe that conveys the water over the embankment of and into the High-level intake canal. The High-level intake canal is about 1. 7 miles long and is designed to convey the circulating water flow to the station. The canal is paved with 4.5 inches of reinforced concrete to allow velocities that would otherwise erode the earthen materials through which the canal is constructed. A reinforced-concrete, High-level intake structure is located in the High-level intake canal at each unit. Each structure contains four bays, and each bay contains a trash rack, a conventional traveling screen, and an inlet to a 96-inch-diameter condenser intake line. The circulating water flows by gravity from the High-level intake canal through four buried parallel lines to each condenser and then through four separate lines to a concrete tunnel for each unit. The tunnels terminate at seal pits located at the edge of the circulating water discharge canal, which is common to both units. Service water system taps are made in the steel portion of these lines. Electric motor-operated butterfly valves are provided at the condenser inlets and outlets. The discharge lines terminate at the reinforced-concrete discharge tunnel. which then carries the water to the common circulating water discharge canal. This tunnel is 12 foot-6 inch by 12 foot-6 inch in cross section. The circulating water system total energy gradient in the discharge system is maintained at proper elevation to ensure a full condenser discharge water box by a seal weir at the termination of the discharge tunnel. 5.1.2 Temporal Characteristics of Cooling Water System Operation The generating units at SPS are base-load units and intended for year-round, 24 hours/day operation, with the exception of down time for planned refueling outages. The operation of the generating units and cooling water system result in cooling water demand and, consequently, operation of circulating water pumps. As presented in Table 3-2 in Section 3.3, the average number of days of circulating water pump operations by unit over the last five years ranged from 20 to 31 days each month during 2013-2017. Based_ on the pump run time data, the cooling water system operates close to 24/7 during the summer (June to September) and at relatively lower levels during April-May and October-November months because of the typical unit refueling outage schedule. During the refueling outages, intake flow is reduced but the cooling water system is utilized to some degree at all times, particularly for safety related systems. Dominion Energy I 78
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 92 of 1631 1-)~ 5.1.3 Proportion of Design Flow Used in the Cooling Water System One hundred percent of the water withdrawn is used for non-contact cooling purposes at SPS. The proportion of the design flow used in the cooling system was calculated based on monthly average daily intake flows during 2013-2017 (refer to Table 3-2). The 2013-2017 Al F withdrawn from James River on a monthly basis was compared with the maximum DIF of 2,534.4 MGD (see Table 3-1). The proportion of the maximum design flow used in the cooling system ranged from 64.7 percent to 89.4 percent with an average of 77.3 percent on a monthly basis during 2013-2017 (Table 5-1). Table 5-1. Percent (%) of Surry Power Station Design Flow vs. Actual Intake Flow used in Cooling Water System during 2013-2017 Year Month January 77.8 71.6 76.8 February 75.2 72.2 68.7 March 77.1 72.8 74.8 April 74.0 66.1 68.0 May 77.9 61.9 55.6 June 87.1 86.7 83.5 July 89.3 90.6 86.4 August 82.6 88.9 89.6 September 87.4 87.6 90.3 October 68.9 77.8 65.6 November 60.3 70.1 43.2 December 71.9 78.8 75.5 Annual 77.5 77.1 73.2 Average 5.1.4 Distribution of Water Reuse 78.8 78.5 70.7 75.2 75.0 75.1 74.7 76.8 75.0 53.2 84.8 86.3 90.9 89.8 89.7 90.3 88.9 88.5 73.3 76.3 73.7 79.0 82.5 78.5 79.8 79.0 2013-2017 Average 76.7 72.4 75.0 71.9 64.7 85.7 89.4 88.2 88.6 72.4 65.3 77.4 77.3 The cooling water is not reused at SPS. This sub-section is not applicable for SPS. 5.1.5 Description of Reductions in Total Water Withdrawals SPS has not made changes to operations resulting in withdrawal reductions in the last five years. This sub-section is not applicable for SPS. 5.1.6 Description of Cooling Water Used in Manufacturing Process SPS is not a manufacturing facility. This sub-section is not applicable for SPS. Dominion Energy I 79
Serial No. 20-298, Page 93 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 5.1.7 Proportion of Source Waterbody Withdrawn 1-)~ For estuaries or tidal rivers, the proportion of source water body withdrawn can be estimated using the concept of tidal excursion volume as illustrated in the CWA's §316(b) Phase I Rule (Figure 5-3). 65336 Federal Register /Vol. 66. No. 243/Tuesday. December 18, 2001 / Rules and Regulations Appendix 3 to The Preambl&-Exampla of Areu and Volumes Defined in Estuaries or Tidal Rivers By The Tidal Excunion Distance I I I C. CVl'IS "' ~"'"""" I ~-j Figure 5-3. Illustration of Tidal Excursion Volume in CWA §316(b) Phase I Rule The tidal excursion volume is defined as the volume of the water column in the area centered about the opening of the intake with a radius defined by the length of one tidal excursion at the mean low water level. Based on a sinusoidal tidal function, one tidal excursion can be calculated using the equation below: Tidal Excursion= 2/TT*(UmaxHT mi/2) where, Umax = Average Maximum Tidal Velocity T m2 = Tidal Period of M2 Tide. Eq. 7 Dominion Energy I 80
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 94 of 1631 1-)~ Typical maximum average ebb and flood current velocity values at SPS are approximately 2.0 fps and M2 tide period (T m2) is 12.42 hrs. Using Eq. 7, the calculated the tidal excursion is 5.4 miles on each tidal phase and the combined excursion for both phases is 10.8 miles. Assuming the mean low water depth of the waterbody in the vicinity of SPS CWIS is 20 feet8 and the river width is 3 miles, the calculated total tidal excursion volume bounded by the river width (as shown in Example A of Figure 5-3 for a shoreline CWIS in a narrow reach) is approximately
- 1. 71x1010 cubic feet. The calculated design intake water volume over one tidal period of 12.42 hours is 1. 75x108 cubic feet. Therefore, at design flow, the SPS CWIS withdraws approximately 1.0 percent of the James River tidal excursion volume in the vicinity of SPS.
5.2 Design and Engineering Calculations [§122.21 (r)(5)(ii)] The engineering calculations of through-screen velocity for the traveling screen design prepared by a qualified professional are provided in Appendix D. 5.3 Description of Existing Impingement and Entrainment Reduction Measures [§122.21 (r)(5)(iii)] SPS has Ristroph TWS with 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch rectangular smooth mesh openings with a low-pressure wash and fish return system to maximize impinged organism survival. Each screen basket has a steel fish bucket and the screens are designed for continuous operation. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens can be rotated at a fast speed, reducing impingement time to approximately 1.5 minutes or less. A single return trough is located upstream of the screens that transports organisms and debris back to the river approximately 1,000 feet south of the intake structure and approximately 300 feet from the shore. While the generating units at SPS are intended for year-round, 24 hours/day operation, the cooling water system operates at relatively lower levels during April-May and October-November months compared to other months because of typical planned refueling outages, resulting in reduction in circulating water pump operation. Additionally, as shown in Table 5-1 in Section 5.1.3, the proportion of the maximum design flow used in the cooling system ranged from 64.7 percent to 89.4 percent with an average of 77.3 percent on a monthly basis during 2013-2017. Since reductions in impingement and entrainment are assumed to be commensurate with reductions in flow, SPS is assumed to have reduced potential impingement and entrainment by 10.6 to 35.3 percent from the maximum design flow conditions on a monthly basis during 2013-2017. 8 The average water depth of 20 feet at MLW in the general area of SPS was assumed based on NOAA Chart
- 12248.
Dominion Energy I 81
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 95 of 1631 1-)~ 6 Chosen Method(s) of Compliance with Impingement Mortality Standard [§122.21 (r)(6)] Dominion Energy has reviewed the impingement mortality compliance alternatives in 40 CFR §125.94(c) and proposes to implement §125.94{c)(5), modified traveling screens, as BTA for reduction of impingement mortality. In accordance with §125.94(b)(1 ), Dominion Energy's finalization of its chosen method for compliance with the impingement mortality BTA standard will be synchronized with the establishment of entrainment BTA and will be determined after issuance of a final VPDES permit that establishes the site-specific entrainment requirements for SPS under §125.94(d). Compliance with the establishment of the impingement mortality BTA standard will be accomplished thereafter as soon as practical. SPS will operate modified traveling screens, that, after review of the information required in the impingement technology performance optimization study at 40 CFR §122.21 (r)(6)(ii), the VPDES permit Director determines is the BTA for impingement reduction at the SPS CWIS. As the basis for the Director's determination, Dominion Energy will demonstrate that the modified traveling screens have been optimized to minimize impingement mortality of non-fragile species. Both operating units at SPS have Ristroph-type TWS, which are described in Section 3.0 and Section 5.3 of this document. In addition, as described in Section 4.2.5, a one-year impingement monitoring study was conducted at SPS from August 2015 through July 2016 (HOR 2018b). Impingement samples were collected twice a month for 12 consecutive months for a total of 24 sampling events. Each sampling event lasted 24 hours with a target 30-minute sample collected every 4 hours. A minimum of 15 minutes was allowed if heavy debris loads and/or fish collections occurred. Impingement samples were collected in the fish/debris return troughs of the traveling water screens in front of the combined Unit 1 and 2 intakes. The original Ristroph TWS were modified from a 3/8-inch square mesh opening to 1/8-by 1/2-inch rectangular mesh openings in the early 1990s. At times of high fish abundance or low river levels, the screens are rotated at fast speed to reduce impingement time to 1.5 minutes or less. Fish and shellfish were also assessed for condition to evaluate initial impingement survival rates. Eighteen taxa were classified as 100 percent alive and undamaged after initial impingement (see Table 4-2). These included a variety of sunfish, catfish, mackerel, and shrimp. In addition, another 50 percent or more of 25 taxa were undamaged after impingement. 7 Entrainment Performance Studies [§122.21 (r)(7)] There have been neither site-specific entrainment performance studies conducted at SPS nor have relevant studies from other facilities been identified for inclusion in this report. Dominion Energy I 82
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 96 of 1631 8 Operational Status [§122.21 (r){8)] 8.1 Description of Operating Status [§122.21 (r)(B)(i)] SPS has two base-load nuclear power generating units (Units 1 and 2) with a combined generating capacity of 1,741 megawatts (MW). The net generation of each unit is seasonally variable where the net electric output of 838 megawatts electric (MWe) is required to be met by each unit in the summer and 875 MWe is required to be met by each unit in the winter. Normally, the lower value of 838 MWe is reported as net generation output. 8.1.1 Individual Unit Age SPS is Dominion Energy's first nuclear station, consisting of two nuclear power-generating units (Units 1 and 2). Unit 1 began commercial operation in December 1972 and Unit 2 began operating in May 1973. In 2003, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) extended the operating licenses for both reactors from 40 to 60 years. 8.1.2 Utilization for Previous 5 Years Table 8-1 presents monthly capacity factors from 2013 to 2017. The annual gross generation for 2013 to 2017 is shown in Table 8-2. 8.1.3 Table 8-1. Capacity Factors at Surry Power Station during 2013-2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Capacity Factor (%) 89.3 94.2 77.3 95.8 94.6 Table 8-2. Annual Gross Generation at Surry Power Station during 2013-2017 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Annual Gross Generation (megawatt-hours) 13,614,600 14,404,590 11,789,706 14,610,520 14,427,648 Major Upgrades in Last 15 Years Each reactor unit was initially operated at a licensed power output of 2,441 megawatt thermal (MWt) with a gross electrical output of 822.6 megawatt electric (MWe). In 1995, both units were uprated to the design values that correspond to a core power output of 2,546 MWt with an Dominion Energy I 83
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 97 of 1631 1-)~ expected gross electrical output of 855.4 MWe (NRC 2018a). In 2010, both units were again uprated to a core power output of 2,587 MWt with each expected gross electrical output of 870.5 MWe. 8.2 Descriptions of Consultation with Nuclear Regulatory Commission [§122.21 (r)(8)(ii)] SPS operations are regulated by the NRC. The NRC licenses for Units 1 and 2 were renewed on March 20, 2003. Each unit has had a stretch power uprate approved on August 25, 1986 and a measurement uncertainty recapture power uprate on October 22, 2009. Table 8-3 includes information for the SPS Relicensing Status and Approved Uprates. Table 8-3. Surry Power Station's Relicensing Status and Approved Uprates Unit 1 Unit2 Docket Number 50-280 50-281 Operation License Date May 25, 1972 January 29, 1973 Renewed License Date March 20, 2003 March 20, 2003 License Expiration May 25, 2032 January 29, 2033 Approved: August 3, 1995 Approved: August 3, 1995 Percent Stretch Power Uprate Percent Uprate(%): 4.3 Uprate (%): 4.3 Megawatt Thermal Megawatt Thermal Increase: 105 Increase: 105 Measurement Approved: September 24, 201 O Approved: September 24, 2010 Uncertainty Recapture Percent Uprate (%): 1.6 Percent Uprate (%): 1.6 Power Uprate Megawatt Thermal Increase: 41 Megawatt Thermal Increase: 41 Source: NRC 2018b, NRC 2018c, NRC 2018d 8.3 Other Cooling Water Uses for Process Units [§122.21 (r)(8)(iii)] SPS does not use cooling water for process units. This sub-section is not applicable. 8.4 Descriptions of Current and Future Production Schedules [§122.21 (r)(8)(iv)] SPS is not a manufacturing facility. This sub-section is not applicable. 8.5 Descriptions of Plans or Schedules for Any New Units Planned within the Next 5 Years [§122.21(r)(8)(v)] There are no plans for decommissioning. replacing. or adding of new units at this plant over the next five years. Dominion Energy I 84
Serial No. 20-298, Page 98 of 1631 §31 6(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)*(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 9 9.1 9.1.1 Entrainment Characterization Study [§122.21 (r)(9)] Entrainment Data Collection Method [§122.21 (r)(9)(i)] Sampling Gear Pumped entrainment samples were collected using 94-cm by 102-cm, 335-µm mesh hoop plankton nets with a PVC cod-end bucket (Figure 9-1). Intake water from three depths (near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom) was pumped through the separate nets using gas-powered 4-inch-diameter centrifugal trash pumps and 4-inch PVC pipelines. To minimize organism damage, the water was pumped into 200-gallon polyethylene water-filled sample buffering tanks (one for each depth), where the plankton net was suspended. The samples were collected concurrently using three pairs of pumps and buffering tanks (Figure 9-1 ). The sample duration was approximately 100 minutes per depth or the time required to sample a minimum of 100 m3 (0.0264 million gallons) of water. SAMPLER FLOW"' 9.1.2 JOINT MUST SWIVEL ---<'\\--I APPROX 90* (POSSIBLY MORE) WOODEN CRADLES (typ. 2) STAINLESS STEEL BANOS (typ. 2) INLINE FLOW TOTALIZING METER (PVC SADOlE MOUNT) NOT TO SCALE c* 0 QUICK-CONNECT SAAIPLE FLOW RATE 250-260 GPM 33Silm ICHTHYo-NET I 33Si,m {BJ t.. 200 gel coo POLYETHYLENE ENO D TANK '1 BUCKET c* 0 PVC NIPPLE c* 0 ADAPTER SOCKET c* 0 OVERFLOW DRAIN 4"0PVC (PASSIVE DISCHARGE) 4'0PVC (DISCHARGE THROUGH NET) Figure 9-1. Entrainment Pump Sampling System Configuration Sampling Location Total volume of water withdrawal was similar between Unit 1 and Unit 2. Unit 1 was selected as the primary sampling location, while Unit 2 was used as the secondary location in the event that Unit 1 was not operating. Entrainment samples were collected from intake piping installed along the front of the bar racks at Unit 1 from near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom depths. Dominion Energy I 85
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 99 of 1631 1-)~ Table 9-1 presents the sampling depths for SPS relative to mean sea level. Figure 9-2 presents the design of intake piping for entrainment sampling at SPS. Table 9-1. Sampling Depths Relative to Mean Sea Level at Surry Power Station Sampling Location Sampling Depth Relative to Mean Sea Level (MSL), Sampling Depth from Intake Near-surface (Mean Low Water - 3 feet) Mid-depth (Mid-point of Mean Sea Level and bottom of intake) Near-bottom (Bottom of Intake + 3 feet) TO PUMPS/ COLLECTION I I I DECK M SL ML w MID NEAR BOTTOM NOTES SIDE VIEW FLOW DIRECTION 1 Based on Mean Low Water (MLW) elevation. 2 Based on Mean Sea Level (MSL) elevation. I Deck Level (+12 feet MSL) -4.3 -13.0 -23.0 INTAKE PIPES INSTALLED ON CENTER SECTION OF TRASH (BAR) RACK -3 ft ~ -3 ft 1,ii NEAR SURFACE SAMPLE 1 MID-DEPTH SAMPLE 2 ~ NEAR BOTIOM SAMPLE 3 [111 11 FRONT VIEW SCHEMATIC
- NOT TO SCALE
-16.3 -25.0 -35.0 0 C
- s:
~ 0.... m (') --1 6 z ' If it is determined the bottom sediments are soft and being pulled in with the samples the intake may need to be pulled up enough to avoid pulling up the bottom sediments. Figure 9-2. Design of Intake Piping for Entrainment Sampling at Surry Power Station Dominion Energy I 86
Serial No. 20-298, Page 100 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 9.1.3 Sample Collection Period and Frequency Entrainment samples were collected twice a month (within the first and third week of each month, as possible) for 24 consecutive months from August 2015 through July 2017, for a total of 48 sampling events. Each sampling event lasted 24 hours subdivided into four, six-hour subsampling periods. Sample duration was approximately 100 minutes per depth per six-hour sample (or the time required to sample 100 m3 per depth per six-hour sample). Specific details of the 2015-2017 entrainment sampling program are presented in Table 9-2. Table 9-2. Surry Power Station Entrainment Sampling Details, 2015-2017 Entrainment Units to be Sampled August 2015 - July 2017 Sampling Events Daily Collection Schedule Targeted Organisms Depths Number of Samples Collected per Depth Sample Duration Proposed Number of Samples per Sampling Event Proposed Total Number of Samples Water Quality Measurements Details Unit 1 (Primary Location) and Unit 2 (Secondary Location) Twice per month sampling events (within the first and third week of each month) for 24 months (2/month x 24 months = 48 sampling events) Samples collected every 6 hours in a 24-hour period (4 collections/ 24-hour period) Fish eggs, larvae, and juveniles; shellfish life stages Near-surface, mid-depth, near-bottom for a total of 3 depths 1 sample per depth by pumping water through a 335-µm net suspended in a buffering tank (to minimize potential damage to the collected organisms, the sampling net was emptied three times per sample collection period) - 100 minutes per depth strata per 6-hour sample (or time required to get 100 m3 per depth per 6-hour sample) 4 collections/survey x 3 depths/collection x 1 sample/depth = 12 samples/survey 12 samples/survey x 2 surveys/month x 24 months = 576 samples Temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, salinity, and conductivity approximately every six hours in the entrainment sampling buffering tanks for near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom depths. DO was also collected just north of the intake structure from a loading dock at mid-depth. 9.1.4 Laboratory Analysis After sample collection, each sample was washed through a 335-µm sieve in the laboratory to remove the excess formalin that was used in the field to preserve the sample. Each sample was then sorted in a glass sorting tray, which was placed on a light box. The aquatic fauna was sorted into groups of fish eggs, larvae, and later life stages. Each group was preserved in 5 percent formalin, placed in separate, labeled glass vials, and stored. Dominion Energy I 87
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §1 22.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 101 of 1631 After sorting, the fish eggs, larvae, and later life stages were identified to the lowest practical taxon and enumerated. All ichthyoplankton was assigned a life stage: viable egg, non-viable egg (NVE), yolk sac larvae, post-yolk sac larvae, juvenile, or unidentified larval stage. Also, morphometric data (such as minimum and maximum egg diameter; total length and notochord length, maximum body depth and width, head capsule depth and width for each fish taxon and life stage) were collected and recorded for each life stage of fish. Organisms subject to the morphometric evaluation were selected at random from within each taxonomic category (i.e., each taxon and life stage). 9.1.5 Identification of Species Susceptible to Entrainment A total of 244,210 organisms were collected during the first year of entrainment sampling and included 61,871 fish distributed among 23 distinct taxa and 182,339 shellfish distributed among 14 distinct taxa. A number of fish eggs (599) collected primarily in May, were considered non-viable (e.g., unfertilized or dead/decaying); therefore, they would not have contributed to future fish populations. As such, these NVE were excluded from further entrainment analysis. Removing the total number of NVE reduced the total number of finfish collected in entrainment samples to 61,272 and the total number of organisms collected in entrainment samples to 243,611 during Year 1 entrainment sampling. During the second year of entrainment sampling, after removing the total number of NVE eggs (248) which were collected primarily in April, the total number of finfish collected in entrainment samples during the second year to 83,298, and the total number of organisms collected in entrainment samples during the second year to 557,882. Table 9-3 presents the complete list of species collected by common name and scientific name. Overall, taxonomic diversity was low in entrainment samples with the number of distinct taxa ranging from monthly lows of 1 O in January, 2017 and nine in February, 2016 of each year to highs of 22 in June 2016 and 21 in September 2016. The most taxa were collected in late spring, summer, and into fall, and the fewest taxa were collected in winter. Table 9-3. Master Species List of All Distinct Taxa Collected during Entrainment Sampling at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 Common Name Scientific Name Year1 {Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) Year2 (Aug 2016 - Jul 2017) American Eel Anguilla rostrata X X Atlantic Croaker Micropogonias undulatus X X Atlantic Menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus X X Atlantic Silverside Menidia menidia X X Bay Anchovy Anchoa mitchilli X X Blackcheek Tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa X X Finfish Blennies Blenniidae X X Blueback Herring Alosa aestiva/is X X Common Anchovies Anchoaspp. X X Conger Eel Conger oceanicus X X Dominion Energy I 88
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Common Name Scientific Name Drums and Croakers Sciaenidae Gizzard Shad Dorosoma cepedianum Gobies Gobiidae Gray Trout Cynascian regalis Green Goby Microgabius thalassinus Herring and Anchovies Clupeiformes Herrings Clupeidae Hogchoker Trinectes maculatus Inland Silverside Menidia beryllina Minnow Cyprinidae Naked Goby Gabiasama base Naked/Seaboard Goby Gabiasama sp. Non-Viable Egg Not Applicable Northern Pipefish Syngnathus fuscus Finfish Silver Perch Bairdiella chrysoura Silvers ides Menidia spp. Skilletfish Gabiesax strumasus Southern Kingfish Mentricirrhus americanus Spot Leiastamus xanthurus Striped Bass Marone saxatilis Striped Basses Marone spp. Summer Flounder Para/ichthys dentatus Unidentified Egg Unidentified Unidentified Finfish Unidentified White Perch Marone americana Asian Clam Carbicula fluminea Blue Crab Callinectes sapidus Blue Mussel Mytilus edulis Crangonid Shrimp Crangonidae Dark Falsemussel Mytilapsis /eucophaeata Dwarf Surfclam Mulinia lateralis Shellfish Fiddler Crab Uca spp. Grass Shrimp Palaemonetes spp. Lady Crab Ovalipes spp. Lucifer Shrimp Lucifer faxani Mud Crabs Panopeidae Mysid Shrimp Mysidae Serial No. 20-298, Page 102 of 1631 Year1 Year2 (Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) (Aug 2016 - Jul 2017) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X Dominion Energy I 89
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Ill Common Name Scientific Name Palaemonid Shrimp Palaemonidae Pea Crabs Pinnotheridae Penaeid Shrimp Penaeidae Ribbed Mussel Geukensia demissa Sand Shrimp Crangon septemspinosa Sea Mussel Mytilidae Sergestid Shrimp Sergestidae Tellin Clams Tellinidae White Shrimp Litopenaeus setiferus Unidentified Shellfish Unidentified Serial No. 20-298, Page 103 of 1631 Year1 Year2 (Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) (Aug 2016 - Jul 2017) X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 9.1.6 Identification of Protected Species There were no protected species identified under federal. state, or tribal law, including threatened or endangered species, collected as part of the 2015-2017 entrainment sampling. 9.2 Biological Entrainment Characterization [§122.21 (r)(9)(ii)] During the first year, the total entrainment sample collection consisted of approximately three times more shellfish (75%) than finfish (25%). The entrainment sample collections were dominated by zoea (36% of the finfish and shellfish combined total), shellfish juveniles (35% of the total), post-yolk sac larvae (20% of the total), megalopae (4% of the total), and finfish juveniles (4% of the total). Very few yolk sac larvae, eggs, or adult fish were collected, with each comprising less than one percent of the total collection. The total entrainment collection for the second year of sampling resulted in approximately six times more shellfish (85%) than finfish (15%). Similar to the first year of entrainment sampling, the entrainment sample collections for the second year were dominated by zoea (64% of the total), shellfish juveniles (20% of the total), and post-yolk sac larvae (13% of the total). Very few yolk sac larvae, eggs, juvenile or adult fish were collected, with each comprising no more than one percent of the total collection. Refer to Appendix E (Surry Power Station 2015-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study Report) of this document for more details. Dominion Energy I 90
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 9.2.1 Species Abundance Serial No. 20-298, Page 104 of 1631 Table 9-4 presents the total number of organisms collected by taxa and life stage for the first and second year of entrainment sampling. The percentages presented in Table 9-4 are based on finfish and shellfish groups separately. Naked/Seaboard Gaby {30% of finfish) and Naked Gaby (24% of finfish) post-yolk sac larvae, and Bay Anchovy juveniles {13% of finfish) were the most abundant fish taxa collected during the first year of entrainment sampling (Table 9-4). Bay Anchovy (8% of finfish), Gobies {6% of finfish), and Common Anchovies {5% of finfish) post-yolk sac larvae were collected in relatively low abundance during the first year. The remaining fish taxa each accounted for three percent or less of the total finfish catch. Mud Crab (Panopeidae) zoea {39% of shellfish) and juvenile Tellin Clams (Tellinidae) (35% of shellfish) were the most abundant shellfish taxon collected during the first year of entrainment sampling (Table 9-4). Juvenile Mysid Shrimp (Mysidae) (9% of shellfish), Palaemonid Shrimp (Palaemonidae) zoea {6% of shellfish), and Mud Crab megalopae (5% of shellfish) were collected in relatively low abundance, while all remaining shellfish taxa collected accounted for two percent or less of the total shellfish catch during the first year. During the second year of entrainment sampling, Naked/Seaboard Goby (51 % of finfish) and Naked Gaby (14% of finfish) post-yolk sac larvae were also the most abundant fish taxa collected (Table 9-4). Silverside post-yolk sac larvae (7% of finfish), Bay Anchovy juveniles {6% of finfish) and post-yolk sac larvae (4% of finfish), and post-yolk sac larvae Gobies (5% of finfish) were collected in relatively low abundance during the second year. The remaining fish taxa each accounted for four percent or less of the total finfish catch in Year 2. Fiddler Crab zoea {39% of shellfish), Mud Crab (Panopeidae) zoea {33% of shellfish), and juvenile Mysid Shrimp (Mysidae) (13% of shellfish) were the most abundant shellfish taxon collected during the second year of entrainment sampling (Table 9-4). Juvenile Tellins Clams (Tellinidae) {8% of shellfish) and Palaemonid Shrimp (Palaemonidae) zoea {3% of shellfish) were collected in relatively low abundance, while all remaining shellfish taxa collected accounted for one percent or less of the total shellfish catch during the second year of entrainment sampling. Blue Crabs accounted for less than one percent of the shellfish collected in both years. Dominion Energy I 91
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 105 of 1631 Table 9-4. Total Number of Fish by Taxa and Life Stage Collected at Surry Power Station during 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling Naked/Seaboard Goby PYS Naked Goby PYS Bay Anchovy Juv Bay Anchovy PYS Gobies PYS Common Anchovies PYS Atlantic Croaker PYS Herring and Anchovies UIDL Atlantic Menhaden Juv Herring and Anchovies PYS Bay Anchovy Adult Silversides PYS Gray Trout PYS Hogchoker PYS Unidentified Finfish UIDL Hogchoker Juv Herrings PYS Atlantic Croaker Juv Naked Goby Juv White Perch Juv Striped Bass Juv Spot PYS Drums and Croakers PYS Northern Pipefish PYS Unidentified Egg Egg Silversides Egg Gray Trout Juv Atlantic Silverside PYS White Perch PYS Atlantic Silverside Juv American Eel Juv Striped Bass PYS Spot Juv Atlantic Silverside vs Striped Basses PYS Atlantic Menhaden PYS White Perch Adult Atlantic Silverside Adult Silver Perch PYS Year 1 (Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) Total Number of Organisms Collected Finfish 18,113 14,877 7,703 5,196 3,704 3.223 1,810 1,784 897 740 719 381 377 177 156 142 140 94 80 76 69 67 66 64 60 58 46 44 43 40 32 32 31 29 26 19 17 16 14 Im - 30 24 13 8 6 5 3 3 1 1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 Year 2 (Aug 2016 -Jul 2017) Total Number of Organisms Collected
- 42,608 11,294 5,267 3,384 4,094 1,185 1,188 643 2,507 3,213 5,534 34 1
586 4 12 51 983 31 77 167 1 1 25 1 16 58 15 14 5 5 5 3 28 6 1 Dominion Energy I 92 51 14 6 4 5 1 1 1 3 4 1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Year 1 (Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) Serial No. 20-298, Page 106 of 1631 1-)~ Year 2 (Aug 2016 - Jul 2017) Taxa Total Number of Organisms Collected II Total Number of Organisms Collected
- Blackcheek Tonguefish Silversides vs Green Goby PVS Blueback Herring Juv Northern Pipefish Juv Blennies PVS Hogchoker Adult Southern Kingfish PVS Skilletfish PVS Gizzard Shad Adult Naked Goby Adult Silversides UIDL Southern Kingfish Juv Summer Flounder Juv Unidentified Finfish Juv Unidentified Finfish PVS Atlantic Silverside Egg Atlantic Silverside UIDL Bay Anchovy UIDL Common Anchovies Adult Conger Eel Juv Gizzard Shad Juv Inland Silverside PVS Naked Goby Egg Spot Adult Striped Bass vs Striped Basses vs Blackcheek Tonguefish Adult Blueback Herring Adult Gizzard Shad vs Minnow PVS Silver Perch Juv Mud Crabs (Panopeidae)
Zoea Tellin Clams Juv Mysid Shrimp Juv Palaemonid Shrimp Zoea Mud Crabs (Panopeidae) Mega Fiddler Crab Zoea Grass Shrimp Juv Mysid Shrimp Zoea Ribbed Mussel Juv Shellfish 14 13 13 12 10 7 6 5 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2 <1 2 1 <1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 1 <1 70,588 39 63,658 35 17.137 9 10,173 6 8,622 5 3,596 2 3,182 2 3,124 2 1,385 1 7 104 2 9 5 35 3 12 7 3 16 5 1 2 1 8 4 9 158,894 38.467 62,986 14,561 6,234 182,992 4,496 3,254 Dominion Energy I 93 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 33 8 13 3 1 39 1 1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 107 of 1631 I I Year 1 (Aug 2015 - Jul 2016) I Year 2 (Aug 2016 - Jul 2017} Taxa Mysid Shrimp Blue Crab Palaemonid Shrimp Crangonid Shrimp Mud Crabs (Panopeidae) Unidentified Shellfish Blue Crab Unidentified Shellfish Asian Clam Dark Falsemussel Dwarf Surfclam Sea Mussel Lady Crab Pea Crabs Unidentified Shellfish Blue Mussel Sand Shrimp Lucifer Shrimp Penaeid Shrimp Blue Crab Palaemonid Shrimp Pea Crabs Sergestid shrimp White Shrimp Finfish Total Shellfish Total Grand Total Note: Juv Juv Juv Juv Zoea Mega Mega Juv Juv Juv Juv Zoea Zoea Juv Juv Juv Juv Juv Adult Mega Juv Juv Adult Total Number of Organisms Collected Ill 201 <1 185 163 109 61 51 37 20 9 7 7 5 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 4 <1 4 <1 4 <1 3 <1 2 <1 1 <1 1 <1 61,272 25 182,339 75 243,611 100
- Percent Total is calculated separately for finfish and shellfish groups in this table.
Total Number of 1 Organisms Collected 655 748 10 29 1,151 79 1 1 6 6 2 4 1 1 8 83,298 474,584 557,882 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 <1 15 85 100 YSL = Yolk Sac Larvae; PYSL = Post-yolk Sac Larvae; UIDL = Unidentified Life Stage Larvae; Juv = Juveniles; Mega = Megalopae; NA = Not Applicable Dominion Energy I 94
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 9.2.2 Spatial Characteristics Serial No. 20-298, Page 108 of 1631 1-)~ The entrainment densities were evaluated for trends associated with depth strata, which varied by year, taxa, and month. During the first year of sampling, more organisms were collected mid-depth (44%) compared to near-surface (32%) or near-bottom (24%), with finfish and shellfish showing similar trends. This trend was not as strong during the second year of sampling. Overall, slightly more organisms were collected at the near-surface (45%) compared to mid-depth (44%). Looking at each group separately, finfish followed the trend of higher densities mid-depth (52%) while shellfish were collected in higher densities at near-surface samples (47%) (Figure 9-3). 1,200
- Year1
- Year2 1,000 800 f
Cl Cl... 600 ~ Ill C GI C 400 200 0 Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Finfish Depth Stratum by Group Shellfish Note: The numbers reported in this figure do not include organisms that would potentially be retained on 1/8 x 1/2-inch mesh screens installed at Surry Power Station. Figure 9-3. Entrainment Density (#/100 m3 or 0.0264 million gallons) by Depth Stratum Excluding lmpingeable Organisms at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 For finfish, post-yolk sac and juvenile Bay Anchovy and Naked Goby (including the Naked/Seaboard Goby) were collected at highest densities mid-depth, followed by near-surface, and with the near-bottom densities at substantially lower levels. This trend was consistent during both sample years. In contrast. the highest densities for Atlantic Croaker were variably collected near the surface (January), mid-depth (December), or near the bottom (September). During the second year of sampling, Atlantic Croaker were collected at higher densities near the bottom in November then near the surface in December and at similar densities at mid-depth and near the surface in September and October. For shellfish, Mud Crab zoea, which were generally the most abundant among all taxa and life stages, were collected at highest densities at mid-depth followed closely by near-surf ace depths. In contrast. Mud Crab megalopae were collected at higher densities in mid-depth samples during the first year of sampling but at surface samples during the second year of Dominion Energy I 95
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 109 of 1631 1-)~ sampling. When juvenile Tellin Clams occurred at their highest densities, in May and June of the first year sampling, and April and August of the second year sampling, they were collected primarily in near-bottom samples, followed by near-surface samples. However, when their densities were lower, though still abundant, they occurred at nearly equal densities at each depth or were more abundant at mid-depth. 9.2.3 Temporal Characteristics During the first year of sampling entrainment (excluding impingeable organisms on the SPS screens) densities of finfish were higher at night (2200 hours). In contrast, entrainment of finfish during the second year of sampling was greatest at mid-morning (1000 hours) followed by at night. Late afternoon (1600 hours) and pre-dawn hours (0400 hours) had similar finfish entrainment densities during both sampling years that were generally lower than night (2200 hours) entrainment densities (Figure 9-4). 1.400
- Year 1
- Year2 1,200 1,000 f
800 c:, c:, i ~ 600 iii C GI 0 400 200 0 0400 1000 1600 2200 0400 1000 1600 2200 Finfish Diel Periods by Group Shellfish Note: The numbers reported in this figure do not include organisms that would potentially be retained on 1/8 x 1/2-inch mesh screens installed at Surry Power Station. Figure 9-4. Average Entrainment Density during Four Diel Periods (0400, 1000, 1600 and 2200 hours) at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 The diel pattern of entrainment was also evaluated by depth strata. For finfish, the diel pattern was similar for the near-surface, mid-depth, and near-bottom samples. For shellfish, the highest densities were collected at pre-dawn (0400 hours) and at night (2200 hours), followed by mid-morning (1000 hours) (Figure 9-5). The highest densities at pre-dawn hours (0400 hours) were especially evident during the second year of sampling. Late afternoon (1600 hours) had substantially lower entrainment densities during both sampling years (Figure 9-5). Dominion Energy I 96
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 2,500 2,000 l 1.500 c:, c:, i f 1.000 C ! 500 2,500 2,000 'f 1.soo g i f 1,000 C
- Q 500 0
2,000 l 1,500 c:, c:, i i 1,000 C
- Q Near-surface 0400 1000 Mid-depth 0400 1000 Near-bottom 0.__ _
0400 1000 1600 Finfish 1600 Finfish 1600 2200 0400 2200 0400 2200 0400 Serial No. 20-298, Page 110 of 1631 1-)~ 1 *Year1
- Year2 !
1000 1600 2200 Shellfish I
- Year1
- Year2 1 1000 1600 2200 Shellfish
- Year1
- Year2 1000 1600 2200 Finfish Shellfish Note: The numbers reported in this figure do not include organisms that potentially would be retained on 1/8 x 1/2-inch mesh screens installed at Surry Power Station.
Figure 9-5. Average Entrainment Density (#/100 m3) During Four Diel Periods (0400, 1000, 1600 and 2200 hours) at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 Dominion Energy I 97
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 111 of 1631 1-)~ Entrainment densities of both finfish and shellfish were evaluated for trends associated with seasonal variations. In general, the two years of sampling exhibited similar trends for finfish entrainment, with the second year of sampling having higher overall entrainment densities. The depth-averaged entrainment densities for finfish were highest during late spring to early summer months of May, June and July (Table 9-5). Consistent with the first year of sampling, the highest densities for finfish occurring in June and July were attributed primarily to post-yolk sac larval Gobies (Naked Goby and Naked/Seaboard Gaby [Gobiosoma sp.]) and post-yolk sac and juvenile Anchovies (Bay Anchovy and Common Anchovy). The lowest depth-averaged monthly densities generally occurred during winter and early spring months from November to March. Winter finfish densities were dominated by spawning activities of Atlantic Croaker while early spring finfish entrainment densities were dominated by juvenile Atlantic Menhaden. Bay Anchovy was the only finfish species collected in every month of the year. For shellfish, the depth-averaged monthly entrainment densities during the first year of sampling were highest during late spring to late summer months of May - September (Table 9-5). These high densities were attributed primarily to Mud Crab zoea and megalopae in July, August, and September, and juvenile Tellin Clams from May through August. Palaemonid Shrimp, Fiddler Crab (Uca spp.) zoea and Mysid Shrimp also contributed to summer entrainment densities in June, July and August. while Mysid Shrimp were collected throughout the year. The lowest depth-averaged monthly shellfish densities occurred in February (0.8 organism/100 m3). During the second year of sampling, depth-averaged entrainment densities were similarly highest May - September. These higher densities were attributed primarily to Fiddler Crab and Mud Crab zoea and megalopae in June, July, and August. Mysid shrimp in April through September, and juvenile Tellin Clams in April and August. Palaemonid Shrimp and zoea also contributed to summer entrainment densities in June, July, and August. Mysid Shrimp, Ribbed Mussels, and Tellin clams were collected throughout the year. The lowest depth-averaged monthly shellfish densities again occurred in February (16.5 organisms/100 m3). Dominion Energy I 98
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 112 of 1631 1-)~ Table 9-5. Monthly Density (#/100m 3) of Finfish and Shellfish by Depth Stratum Excluding lmpingeable Organisms at Surry Power Station, 2015-2017 Finfish Shellfish Finfish Shellfish Note: Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Month>> Depth-Averaged Finfish Total Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Depth-Averaged Shellfish Total Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Depth-Averaged Finfish Total Near-surface Mid-depth Near-bottom Depth-Averaged Shellfish Total 13.0 9.7 53.5 14.5 19.7 33.2 28.7 19.1 1,351.7 772.0 2,397.3 744.2 951.6 339.4 1,566.9 618.5 34.7 20.2 85.9 40.1 20.9 17.3 47.2 25.9 2,188.9 909.0 2,286.1 1,027.1 1,892.8 754.3 2,122.6 896.8 mmmmm+Mi+ Year 1 (2015-2016) 8.9 5.8 4.5 48.4 12.6 16.3 19.3 14.9 38.5 34.4 7.2 21.9 10.8 6.3 6.0 20.4 2.1 1.1 13.0 9.0 16.4 34.4 7.3 13.1 54.7 34.7 19.6 5.8 0.5 28.9 202.4 54.4 11.8 8.6 0.8 28.1 164.1 35.9 17.6 12.7 1.1 56.4 140.4 41.7 16.4 9.0 0.8 37.8 Year 2 (2016-2017) 14.7 12.4 23.2 14.6 26.2 14.7 41.6 22.2 18.2 12.4 23.8 12.5 14.7 13.8 10.5 6.6 7.4 2.5 23.7 16.1 17.3 11.2 19.1 9.9 221.5 10.4 36.4 6.0 7.8 256.5 204.6 32.4 36.8 36.2 11.4 192.4 165.3 59.1 78.9 76.1 30.1 134.8 197.1 33.9 50.7 39.4 16.5 194.6 33.5 179.7 1,569.5 736.6 22.6 111.8 1,613.0 1,819.2 3.2 13.8 622.7 150.0 19.8 101.8 1,268.4 901.9 163.0 1,186.1 1,286.7 2,937.3 180.6 728.0 791.5 5,122.7 159.5 2,818.4 1.465.3 902.8 167.7 1,577.5 1,181.2 2,987.6 14.8 823.7 1,704.2 189.4 14.8 889.0 3,426.9 366.1 1.6 391.7 1,052.8 106.0 10.4 701.5 2,061.3 220.5 1,139.1 943.1 6,921.1 14,771.7 1,418.2 1,589.3 6,135.0 11,769.7 1,378.3 605.2 390.3 696.1 1,311.9 1,045.9 4,482.1 9,079.1 Entrainment density for shellfish may include some impingeable-sized organisms because the morphometric measurements were performed only for Blue Crab; therefore, the percent exclusions for other shellfish species were not calculated or applied. Dominion Energy I 99
Serial No. 20-298, Page 113 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 9.3 9.3.1 Analysis and Supporting Documentation [§122.21 (r)(9)(iii)] Representative Operational Flows Using pump run time data, the monthly average AIF was calculated by unit for each month. Throughout the two-year entrainment study, the AIF at Units 1 and 2 was higher during summer months (June to September), but slightly lower during April-May and October-November months (Figure 9-6). c CJ
- Ii!: -
3:: ..2 lL 1,200 1,100 1,000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 1
~
~------'
-- unit 1 (Year 1) --unit 2 (Year 1) -+-Unit 1 (Year 2) .... Unit 2 (Year 2) 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 Figure 9-6. Monthly Average Actual Intake Flows by Unit at Surry Power Station, during 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling By comparing the flows during the latest five years from 2013 to 2017 (see Tables 3-3 and 3-4 in Section 3.4), the two-year average total intake flow of 1,961.5 MGD during the sampling years (August 2015-July 2017) is comparable to that during the latest five years (1,959.3 MGD). Therefore, the current 2015-2017 entrainment data were collected during periods of representative operational flows for the CWIS. Dominion Energy I 100
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 9.3.2 Latent Mortality Serial No. 20-298, Page 114 of 1631 1-)~ The latent mortality for all taxa and life stages of organisms entrained was assumed to be 100 percent. which is conservative based on a review of entrainment survival studies with a total of 36 discrete entrainment survival studies conducted at 21 power stations from 1970 to 20009* 9.3.3 Total Entrainment This sub-section documents all assumptions and calculations used to determine total entrainment for SPS together with all methods and quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures for data collection and data analysis. Assumptions Non-viable Eggs (NVE) A large number of fish eggs collected primarily in April of the first year sampling, with smaller numbers in May of the second year sampling, were identified as NVE and therefore would not have contributed to future fish populations. As such, NVE were excluded from further entrainment analysis. Even though NVE were excluded from entrainment estimates, they would continue to contribute to forage base after being returned to the source waterbody. Exclusion Fraction The entrainment sampling at SPS used pumped samplers withdrawing water directly from in front of the trash rack. The orifices of the sample pipes were much larger than existing intake screen mesh openings at SPS. As a result, during sampling, impingeable-sized organisms were collected in the entrainment samples. The maximum opening allowed by the USEPA in discerning between impingement and entrainment, which is called "baseline screen" in Figure 9-7, is 0.56 inches 1°, however, the TWS's at SPS have a finer sized 1/8-inch by 1/2-inch mesh screen. Therefore, there is potential for some organisms to pass through the baseline screen, but be retained on the finer SPS screen, i.e. organisms may be retained rather than entrained. Organisms that are retained by the SPS screen but would have been entrained (pass through) based on the Rule's mesh size (1/4-x 1/2-inch) are termed 'converts'. Organism limiting morphometrics sized at 3.2 mm correspond to exclusion on the 1/8-inch mesh of the SPS screens. The majority of the converts at SPS are later life stage organisms (i.e., juveniles and adults) and many of which are expected to be returned to the source waterbody alive due to the fish friendly screens and fish return system at SPS. Figure 9-7 illustrates the process of estimating entrainment based on the exclusion method described below. 9 The entrainment survival studies were primarily done in the 1970s, with several in the 1980s and 1990s. The majority of the studies were done at estuarine sites in the northeast, primarily in the Hudson River. Larvae of Striped Bass and White Perch frequently exhibited a high rate of survival (>50 percent), but fragile species such as Herring and Anchovies had relatively low survival rates (-25 percent). Macroinvertebrates, which are important in the food chain, experienced very high survival, averaging in the 70 to 90 percent range (EPRI 2000). 1° Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158. Page 48321. Dominion Energy I 101
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)*(9) Reports Surry Power Station L ntrainment Data Collectioj in Front of Bar Rack on the River Side pass through ~onverts] Serial No. 20-298, Page 115 of 1631 pass through I Actual l ~ntrainmej entrainable organisms entrainable organisms ... -4 ,-4.. Entrainable organisms excluding impingeable finfish and Blue Crab based on oonceptual baseline Note: saeen mesh; impingeable organisms on the actual saeen mesh openings (% x %-inch) after passing through the conceptual baseline screen mesh openings are called *converts*. Entrainable organisms excluding impingeable finfish and Blue Crab based on actual screen mesh; actual entrainment at the station. Y. x ~ inch mesh or% inch square mesh defined by Ya x %-inch mesh screens the Rule in differentiating entrainable from impingeable that are installed at the organisms (conceptual baseline screen)* station**
- Exclusion threshold for the conceptual baseline screens is finfish and Blue Crab with body depth and body width greater than 14.2 mm. respectively.
- Exclusion threshold for the actual screens installed at the station is finfish and Blue Crab with head capsule width and body depth greater than 3.2 mm. respectively.
Figure 9-7. Summary of the Step-Wise Process Used to Estimate Entrainment based on the Rule and Existing Screens Installed at Surry Power Station Because very few, if any, of these larger organisms would be entrained through the 0.56-inch opening, exclusion methods were developed to separate these impingeable-size organisms from the others in the data and then exclude them from the calculation of densities and numbers entrained. To account for the different screen mesh sizes and to provide an accurate estimate of entrainment, several calculations were performed based on morphometric data collected on the sampled organisms as follows. Organisms with body depth and body width greater than 14.2 mm (0.56 inch) for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively, are excluded from the raw entrainment data as these organisms would be impinged, and not entrained by the USEPA rule mesh size. Organisms with body depth and body width less than 14.2 mm for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively, represent entrainable-sized organisms consistent with the USEPA rule mesh size (organisms that could pass a 14.2 mm (0.56 inch) opening). lmpingeable organisms on the USEPA rule mesh size are primarily juveniles and adults, which have well developed skeletal and muscular systems (as compared to larvae), so that the body depth (for finfish) and body width (for Blue Crab) would be the limiting dimensions; however, SPS has a unique finer mesh size, such that head capsule width (for finfish) and body depth (for Blue Crab) would be limiting in estimating exclusion from the current SPS mesh size. Dominion Energy I 102
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 116 of 1631 1-)~ Organisms with body depth and body width less than 14.2 mm for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively, but organisms with head capsule width and body depth for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively, greater than 3.2 mm (a.k.a., converts), are organisms that are impinged by the SPS screens but are considered entrainable by the Rule. Organisms with head capsule width and body depth for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively, less than 3.2 mm represent actual entrainment with the current SPS mesh size. These adjustments were carried out for consistency with the Rule (which defines an entrainable organism as one that would pass a 0.56-inch sieve opening). Table 9-6 presents the percentage of each species/life stage excluded from the study results. Dominion Energy I 103
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 117 of 1631 1-)~ Table 9-6. Excluded lmpingeable Finfish and Shellfish at Surry Power Station based on 2015-2017 Entrainment Sampling Study Taxa American Eel Atlantic Croaker Atlantic Menhaden Atlantic Silverside Bay Anchovy Blackcheek Tonguefish Blue Crab Blueback Herring Gizzard Shad3 Gray Trout Hogchoker Naked Goby Silver Perch Southern Kingfish Spot Striped Bass Summer Flounder Unidentified Finfish White Perch Note: Percent Exclusion (%) based on maximum opening dimension of 0.56 Inches (14.2 mm; a diagonal opening of 1/4 x 1/2 inch mesh - Baseline Screen1 Post-Yolk Sac Larvae 11MYIM14iihii 9 2 7 29 100 44 100 25 13 14 9 63 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 Blank cells have a value of zero exclusion. Percent Exclusion (%) based on Surry Power Station's Actual Screen Mesh Size of 1/8 x 1/2 inch2 Post-Yolk Sac Lal'Vae 5 6 15 6 19 41 5 43 5 6 99 6 17 5 69 8 100 100 100 100 5 50 50 100 100 100 36 100 100 82 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
- 1. Organisms with body depth and body width greater than 14.2 mm (0.56 inch) for finflsh and Blue Crab, respectively are excluded from the raw entrainment data as these organisms would be impinged, and not entrained by the EPA rule mesh size.
- 2. Organisms with head capsule width and body depth for finfish and Blue Crab, respectively less than 3.2 mm represent actual entrainment with the current SPS mesh size
- 3. If juveniles had 100% exclusion, then adults collected for that species, but not measured, were assumed to be 100% excluded.
- 4. UIDL
- Unidentified Life Stage Larvae Dominion Energy I 104
Serial No. 20-298, Page 118 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ Calculation Methods Monthly Density Monthly densities (Dem,h) of entrainment accounting for exclusion and expressed as number per 100 m3, are calculated as the average of all 6-hour interval sample densities (01,h) in each calendar month for each species and life stage for the relevant stratum (h) multiplied by the fraction of organisms not excluded, i.e., the fraction of organisms projected to pass through the intake screens. nm Dem,h = n1 _L{Dt,hU) * (1-Fe)} m j=l where: Dem,h = monthly density {#/100 m3) for the h1h stratum with exclusion 0 1,hU) = Jh six-hour sample density within a calendar month for the h1h stratum nm = total number of six-hour samples within a calendar month (e.g., typically 8 valid samples) for the h1h stratum m = calendar month h = stratum (e.g., near-surface. mid-depth or near-bottom) Fe = fraction excluded where: [
- Fe = Fei (FF) for each identified finfish species and life stage
- Fe= Feu10L (FF) for unidentified life stage larvae of an identified finfish species
- Fe= Feuio (FF) for unidentified finfish species Annual Total Entrainment Monthly entrainment densities are used to estimate the year-specific total number of organisms entrained (Eai) for each species and life stage under actual flow rates as:
where: Eai = annual entrained for the i1h species and life stage under actual intake flows DemAi)= monthly density {#/100 m3) for the h1h stratum with exclusion for the i1h species and life stage Va,m = monthly total volume {m3) of water withdrawn by the station based on actual operations h = stratum (e.g., near-surface, mid-depth or near-bottom) H = total number of strata sampled (e.g., 3 for SPS) m = calendar month M = total number of months in a year Dominion Energy I 105
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 119 of 1631 1-)~ The yearly total number of organisms entrained (Ea) is then estimated by summing the total numbers of organisms entrained (EaJ for all species and life stage under actual flow rates as: where: NN Ea= L Eai i=l Ea = annual entrained of all species and life stage under actual intake flows Ea; = annual entrained for the i1h species and life stage under actual intake flows NN = total number of all species and life stages collected. Quality Assurance/Quality Control Procedures Adherence to sample collection and lab analysis Standard Operating Procedures was observed and documented through regular technical assessments/audits. These technical assessments/audits were conducted by a QA officer, who was independent of those individuals collecting and generating the data during the study and had experience in performing QA/QC programs for aquatic monitoring surveys. For QA/QC procedures for the laboratory analysis of entrainment samples, quality control methods for split, sort and identification of ichthyoplankton were checked using a continuous sampling plan to assure an Average Outgoing Quality Limit of 0.1 (.::90% accuracy). Specific methods for quality control were provided in the Standard Operating Procedures developed by the party performing the work. Quality control checks were recorded on appropriate datasheets and these records were maintained for review. Annual Total Entrainment Monthly entrainment densities were used to estimate the year-specific total number of organisms entrained for each species and life stage. The two-year entrainment sampling study was conducted during August 2015 - July 2016 (Year 1) and August 2016 - July 2017 (Year 2). To characterize inter-annual variability in entrainment the two years of entrainment data were treated separately to estimate annual total entrainment based on sampling year specific intake flows as Year 1 (August 2015 - July 2016) or Year 2 (August 2016 - July 2017) as well as AIF as defined by the Rule 11, which is the average volume of water withdrawn by the CWIS over the previous five years from 2013 to 2017 (see Table 3-4) for SPS. Table 9-7 presents estimated annual entrainment based on year-specific densities with sampling year-specific flows and Rule-defined AIF. The estimated annual total actual entrainment, based on the current SPS mesh size, ranged from 6.0 to 7.4 billion finfish and 20.5 to 49.1 billion shellfish organisms over the study period. The estimated annual total converts ranged from 151.0 to 293.3 million finfish and 0.4 to 1.0 million Blub Crabs, many of which are expected to be returned to the source waterbody alive and undamaged due to the fish friendly 11 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 158. Page 48431. Dominion Energy I 106
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 120 of 1631 1-)~ screens and fish return system at SPS based on the initial impingement survival data collected during 2015-2016 impingement study (HOR 201 Bb). Dominion Energy I 107
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station, Page 121 of 1631 Table 9-7. Estimated Annual Entrainment Based on Year-specific Densities with Sampling Year-specific Flows and Rule-defined AIF Taxon I American Eel JUV Atlantic Croaker PVS JUV Atlantic Menhaden PVS JUV Atlantic Silverside Egg vs PVS UIDL JUV Adult Bay Anchovy PVS Blackcheek Tonguefish Blennies Common Anchovies Conger Eel Drums and Croakers Gizzard Shad Gobies UIDL JUV Adult JUV Adult PVS JUV PVS Adult JUV PVS vs PVS Sampling Year 1 Density and Flow Actual Entrainment 2,936,705 168,224,815 138,709 1,064,835 75,979,740 89,035 2.493,622 3,920.482 89,022 3,340,141 553,964,589 172.844 752,840,707 11,733,621 454,950 828,692 325,262,898 221,283 89,236 6,961,803 357,547,228 Converts 172,747 9,496,562 8,461,233 66,552 3,303,467 668,028 1,747,954 43,769,809 54,883,060 1,000,890 766,171 Sampllng Year 2 Density and Flow Actual Entrainment 1,274,020 107,440,944 69,318 258,819 53,460,677 454,814 457,814 1,306,935 334,628,341 518,845,788 48,349,41 2 189,682 3,066,202 112,112,430 92,866 101,081 820,288 376,860.376 Converts Flnflsh 74,942 6,065,214 4,228,391 16,176 2.324,377 622.429 30,165,453 226,150,461 417,301 88,899 582,504 Sampllng Year 1 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 2,849,497 172,688.387 138,059 1,385,266 73,359,019 85,727 2,400,987 3,780,168 85,715 3,371,006 553,425,318 169,427 748,321,801 11,755,613 448,449 824,882 327,857.499 217,817 85,921 6,941,668 331,618,559 Converts 167,617 9,748,538 8,421,620 86,579 3,189,523 674,201 1,719,234 43,507,082 54,985,928 986,588 776,286 Sampllng Year 2 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 1,250,333 104,034,985 67,430 252,252 52,762,961 425,765 428,574 1,385.400 338,193,342 513,074,428 46,423,913 194,745 3,231,757 116,202.409 92,712 100,299 813,938 390,142,377 73,549 5,872.943 4,113,245 15,766 2,294,042 608,018 29,829,909 217,144,093 428,438 83,333 551,451 Dominion Energy I 108
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station I Sampling Year 1 Density and Flow Taxon Gray Trout Green Goby Herring and Anchovies PVS JUV PVS PVS UIDL Herrings and Shad PVS Hogchoker PVS Inland Silverside PVS Minnow PVS Naked Goby Egg Naked/Seaboard Goby Northern Pipefish PVS JUV Adult PVS PVS JUV Silver Perch PVS JUV Silversides Egg vs PVS UIDL Skilletfish PVS Southern Kingfish PVS Spot JUV PVS JUV Striped Bass VS Actual Entrainment 32,991,575 1,196,007 74,413,270 178,314,090 13,840,169 16,847,244 216,788 111,557 1,552.109,401 7,736,620 1,913,179,168 6,292,722 1,158,370 1,388,794 5,574,690 1,214,636 18,673,955 185,607 476,135 521,322 127,197 4,902,110 92,618 Converts 5,688,203 2,860,380 1,123,150 407,191 180,431 63,599 1,114,116 2,517,129 Sampling Year 2 Density and Flow Actual Entrainment 3,053.484 178,783 234,010,808 1,083,179 707,482 412,665 1,157,842,587 95,767,455 3,912.108,409 90.434 454,991 753,393 491,999 2,216,079 7,272,175 211,026.462 480,935 1,320,264 166,518 10,602,652 Converts 526,463 425,798 47,165 5,040,392 491,999 83,259 2,409,693 376,951, Page 122 of 1631 Sampling Year 1 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 33,186,002 1,230,812 75,087,377 179,903,617 13,942,207 16,992,737 213,392 109,724 1,550,260,335 7,811,323 1,905,099,296 6,357,792 1,174,981 1,403,155 5,157,031 1,077,963 17,951,059 160,147 440,764 526,712 124,842 4,515,609 79,913 Converts 5,721,725 2,828,542 1,132,849 411,122 198,973 62.421 1,026,275 2,171,851 1-)~ Sampling Year 2 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 3,017,491 167,538 242,039,825 1,133,652 698,945 409.471 1.150,705,614 95,024,870 4,054,824,074 89,288 436,486 749,158 488,829 2,295,941 8,306.462 237,852,425 584,888 1,313,980 165,058 11,210,337 520,257 420,859 46,596 5,001,309 488,829 82,529 2,547,804 399,522 Dominion Energy I 109
I [ _ §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station I Sampling Year 1 Density and Flow Taxon PYS JUV Striped Basses vs PYS Summer Flounder JUV Unidentified Egg Egg Unidentified Finfish PYS UIDL JUV White Perch PYS Asian Clam Blue Crab Blue Mussel Crangonid Shrimp Dark Falsemussel Dwarf Surfclam Fiddler Crab Grass Shrimp Lady Crab Lucifer Shrimp Mud Crabs (Panopeidae) JUV JUV Mega JUV JUV JUV JUV JUV Zoea JUV Zoea JUV Zoea Mega JUV Mysid Shrimp Zoea JUV Adult Palaemonid Shrimp Zoea Actual Entrainment 1,855.447 86,922 2,603,561 5,508,620 192.418 14,903,783 204,376 2.423.141 882,657 4,742,738 28,249,507 393,943 11,735,959 752,278 787,272 413,177.343 324,491,862 887,140 51,572 8,980,372,296 1,233.192, 783 7,075,705 385,254.908 1,782,066,783 36,857,546 1,324,272,662 Converts 1,298,813 6,266,567 184,146 9,700 710,619 85,994 1,817,356 2,887,601 421,634 Sampling Year 2 Density and Flow Actual Entrainment 646,120 350,825 975,592 47,195,438 3,328,199 Converts 452,284 6,766,174 49,178 2,250,298 2.496,149 1,113,984 Shellfish 123,492,226 64,358,725 960,578 928,516 8,227,363 110,057 19.468.128,386 445,141,903 654,133 17,102,992,590 673.173, 773 2,785,656 5,632,201,791 1,462,486,579, Page 123 of 1631 Sampllng Year 1 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 1,810,332 83,693 2,616,948 4,767,813 199,689 15,054,206 200,336 2.424,994 893,148 4,777.533 27,992.779 386,156 11,506,273 739,918 774,337 41 o. 790,854 325,701,191 873,245 77,914 8,840,612,694 1,214.155,510 7,067.419 390,878,756 1,765,325.680 36.468,014 1,302,805,201 Converts 1,267,232 6,244,317 184,104 10,066 717,791 84,294 1,818,746 2,859,683 417,803 Sampling Year 2 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 709,740 426,655 1,186.464 50,722,792 3,323,531 121,868,879 63,276,507 893,771 8,110,805 108,223 19,349,320,340 448,777,322 641,602 17,012,249,656 667,367,768 2,701,337 5,832,480,898 1,478,903,632 496,818 6,711.449 59,808 2,418,484 2.492,649 1,102,209 944.425 Dominion Energy I 110
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station I Sampllng Year 1 Density and Flow Taxon Pea Crabs Penaeid Shrimp Ribbed Mussel Sand Shrimp Sea Mussel Sergestid shrimp Tellin Clams Unidentified Shellfish White Shrimp Mega JUV Zoea JUV JUV JUV JUV JUV JUV JUV Zoea Mega JUV Adult Flnfish Total Shellfish Total Note: Actual Entrainment 20,085,364 637,697 51.119 130,340,490 177.088 546,415 6,392,625,346 10,856,106 3,874.417 790,641 6,127,697,270 21,095,229,638 Converts 151,551,467 421,634 S1mpllng Year 2 Density and Flow Actual Entrainment 412,915 74,808,832 90,755 503,787 288,892.196 101,706 88,689 3,752,013,616 713,383 7,252,326,736 49,102,307,575 Converts 293,265,939 960,578, Page 124 of 1631 Sampllng Year 1 Density and Rule-deflned AIF Actual Entrainment 19,900,530 625,093 77,230 117,487,782 195,286 540,070 5,958,027,082 10,686,062 3,812,569 778,256 6,091,775,587 20,453,956,585 Converts 151,003,187 417,803 1-)~ Sampllng Year 2 Density and Rule-defined AIF Actual Entrainment 409,718 75,751,330 89,605 488,464 280,260,715 95,519 87,566 3,597,343,593 689,219 ++i:thi 7,436,961,131 283,803,908 48,941,916,473 944,425 YSL = Yolk Sac Larvae; PYSL a Post-yolk Sac Larvae; UIDL = Unidentified Life Stage Larvae; JUV = Juveniles; Mega a Megalopae Dominion Energy I 111
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 10 References Serial No. 20-298, Page 125 of 1631 1-)~ Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFC). 1999. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery Management Report No. 35. Washington, DC. ____. 2000. Technical Addendum I to Amendment 1 of the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Shad and River Herring. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Prepared by Heather Stirratt. Washington, DC. 6p. ____. 2001. Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Menhaden. Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission, Fishery Management Report No. 37. 127p. ____. 2012. Habitat Addendum IV to Amendment 1 to the Interstate Fishery Management Plan for Atlantic Sturgeon. Bain, M.B. 1997. Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons of the Hudson River: Common and divergent life history attributes. Environmental Biology of Fishes 48: 347-358. Balazik, M. 2017. First verified occurrence of the shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) in the James River, Virginia. Fisheries Bulletin 115:196-200 (2017). Available online: https://www.st.nmfs.noaa.gov/spo/FishBull/1152/balazik.pdf. Accessed on February 11, 2019. Balazik, M.T., G. C. Garman, J.P. Van Eenennaam, J. Mohler, and L.C. Woods Ill. 2012. Empirical Evidence of Fall Spawning by Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River, Virginia. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 141 : 1465-14 71. Balazik, M.T. and J.A. Musick. 2015. Dual Annual Spawning Races in Atlantic Sturgeon. PLoS ONE 10(5): e0128234. doi:10.1371aournal.pone.0128234. Bath, D.W., J.M. O'Conner, J.B. Alber, and L.G. Arvidson. 1981. Development and identification of larval Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) from the Hudson River estuary, New York. Copeia 1981 : 711-717.
- Brierley, A.
S. 2014. Diel vertical migration, Curr. Biol., 24(22), R107 4-R1076, doi:10.1016a.cub.2014.08.054. Chesapeake Bay Program (CBP). 2018. Field Guide - Fish. Accessed March 2018. Available online: https://www.chesapeakebay.net/discover/field-guide/all/fish/all Connelly, W.J. 2001. Growth patterns of three species of catfish (lctaluridae) from three Virginia tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Master's Thesis. College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA. 153p. EA Engineering, Science, and Technology, Inc. (EA). 2006. Entrainment Characterization Report Surry Power Station June 2005 - May 2006. Prepared for Dominion Resources Services, Inc., Gen Allen, Virginia. 58p. Ehrlich, K. F. 197 4. Chemical Changes during Growth and Starvation of Herring Larvae. Pages 301 -323 in J. H. S. Blaxter, editor. The Early Life History of Fish. Springer-Verlag, New York. Dominion Energy I 112
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 126 of 1631 1-)~ Epifanio, C.E, K.T. Little, and P.M. Rowe. 1988. Dispersal and recruitment of fiddler crab larvae in the Delaware River estuary. Marine Ecology Progress Series. 43:181 -188. EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). 2000. Review of Entrainment Survival Studies: 1970-2000. Final Report, December 2000. 1000757. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. ___. 2004a. Technical Evaluation of the Utility of Approach Velocity as an Indicator of Potential Adverse Environmental Impact under Clean Water Act Section 316(b). 1000731. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. ___. 2004b. Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Techniques to Define the Hydraulic Zone of Influence of Cooling Water Intake Structure. 1005528. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. ___. 2007. Cooling Water Intake Structure Area-of-Influence Evaluations for Ohio River Ecological Research Program Facilities. 101 5322. EPRI, Palo Alto, CA. Froese, R. and D. Pauly (Editors) 2018. FishBase World Wide Web electronic publication. www.fishbase.org Gebhart, G.E. and R.C. Summerfelt. 1978. Seasonal Growth of Fishes in Relation to Conditions of Lake Stratification. Oklahoma Cooperative Fishery Research Unit 58 (1 978): 6-10. Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma. Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species profiles: life histories and environmental requirements of coastal fishes and invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight)--Atlantic and shortnose sturgeons. U.S. Fish Wildl. Serv. Biol. Rep. 82(1 1.122). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers TR EL82-4. 28 pp. Golder Associates. 2005. Crystal River Energy Complex Proposal for Information Collection. NPDES Permit No. FL0000159. Prepared for Progress Energy. Hager, C. 2011. Final Report: Atlantic Sturgeon Review: Gather data on reproducing subpopulation on Atlantic Sturgeon in the James River. Hager, C., J. Kahn, C. Watterson, J. Russo, and K. Hartman. 2014. Evidence of Atlantic Sturgeon Spawning in the York River System, Transactions of the American Fisheries Society, 143:5, 1217-1219, DOI: 10.1080/00028487.2014.925971. Herman, S.S. 1963. Vertical migration of the opossum shrimp, Neomysis americana Smith. Association for the Sciences of Limnology and Oceanography. Vol 8(2):228-238. Hildebrand, S.F. and W.C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay. Department of Commerce, Bulletin of the United States Bureau of Fisheries, Volume XLIII. HOR Engineering, Inc. (HOR). 2018a. Draft (Final) 2015-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study. Prepared for Dominion Energy, Inc. ___. 2018b. Draft (Final) 2015-2016 Impingement Characterization Study. Prepared for Dominion Resources Services, Inc. Dominion Energy I 113
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 127 of 1631 Kercher, D.M. 2006. Genetic Assessment of Rare Blackbanded Sunfish (Enneacanthus Chaetodon) Populations in Virginia. M.S. Thesis. Virginia Commonwealth University. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2015. Endangered and Threatened Marine Species under NMFS' Jurisdiction. Updated on April 27, 2015. Available online: http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/esa/listed.htm. Accessed: June 17, 2015. Kynard, B., S. Bolden, M. Keiffer, M. Collins, H. Brundage, E.J. Hilton, M. Litvak, M.T. Kinnison, T. King and D. Peterson. 2016. Life History and Status of Shortnose Sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum Lesueur, 1818). Journal of Applied Ichthyology, 32:208-248. Lankshear, L. 2018. Personal communication with Dominion Energy. Leonard, P. M. and D.J. Orth. 1988. Use of Habitat Guilds of Fishes to Determine lnstream Flow Requirements. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 8: 399-408p. Lippson, A.J. and R.L. Lippson. 2006. Life in the Chesapeake Bay: An illustrated guide to the Fishes, Invertebrates, Plants, Birds, and other Inhabitants of the Bays and Inlets from Cape Cot to Cape Hatteras. 3rd Edition. Loar, J.M., J.B. Griffith, and K.D. Kumar. 1978. An analysis of factors influencing the impingement of Threadfin Shad (Dorosoma pretenense) at Power Plants in the Southeastern United States. Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Online. Accessed April 6, 2018. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML 1802/ML18023A192.pdf Marcy, B.C., Jr. 2004. Planktonic fish eggs and larvae of the lower Connecticut River and the effects of the Connecticut Yankee plant including entrainment. P.M. Jacobson, D.A. Dixon, W.C. Leggett, B.C. Marcy, Jr., and R.R. Massengill, editors. The Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. (Originally published in 1976). Massengill, R.R. 2004. Entrainment of zooplankton at the Connecticut Yankee plant. P.M. Jacobson, D.A. Dixon, W.C. Leggett, B.C. Marcy, Jr., and R.R. Massengill, editors. The Connecticut River Ecological Study (1965-1973) revisited: ecology of the lower Connecticut River 1973-2003. American Fisheries Society, Monograph 9, Bethesda, Maryland. (Originally published in 1976). May, R.C. 197 4 Larval mortality in marine fishes and the critical period concept. Pages 3-19 in J.H.S. Blaxter, editor. The early life history of fish. Springer-Verlag, New York. Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) 2018. Maryland Fish Facts. Available online. Accessed August 6, 2018. http://dnr.maryland.gov/Fisheries/Pages/fishfacts-index.aspx. Mehner, T. 2012. Diel vertical migration of freshwater fishes - proximate triggers, ultimate causes and research perspectives. Freshwater Biology (2012) 57, 1342-1359. Middle James Roundtable. 2018. Virginia's Watershed. Accessed October 8, 2018. Available online: http://www.mjrt.org/middle-james-watershed.html Miller, T.J., L.B. Crowder, J.A. Rice, and E.A. Marshall. 1988 Larval Size and Recruitment Mechanisms in Fishes: Toward a Conceptual Framework. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 45:1657-1670p. Dominion Energy I 114
Serial No. 20-298, Page 128 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2018. Endangered and Threatened Species Under NMFS' Jurisdiction. Accessed October 10, 2018. Available online: https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species-directory/threatened-endangered __. 2012a. Letter of concurrence, from Mr. D.M. Morris, NMFS, to Ms. Amy Hull, Nuclear Regulatory Commission that continued operation Surry Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2 is not likely to adversely affect species listed by NMFS. __. 2012b. Biological Opinion of James River Federal Navigation Project: Tribell Shoal Channel to Richmond Harbor in Surry, James City, Prince George, Charles City, Henrico, and Chesterfield Counties and the Cities of Richmond and Hopewell, Virginia (FINER/2012/01183). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2014. Tidal Current Tables 2015. Atlantic Coast of North America. Issued 2014. Accessed November 1, 2018. Available online: https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/tidetables/2015/acct2015book.pdf 2017. Cheasapeake Bay Office Invasive Catfish. Retrieved from https://chesapeakebay.noaa.gov/fish-facts/invasive-catfish (accessed February 7, 2019). ___. 2018a. Section 7 Mapper. Greater Atlantic Region. Accessed October 19, 2018. Online: http://noaa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id= 1 bc332edc5204 e03b2 Oac11f9914a27 ___. 2018b. Greater Atlantic Fisheries Office Master ESA Species Table. September 17, 2018. Accessed December 19, 2018. Available online: https ://www.greateratla ntic. fisheries. noaa.gov/protected/section 7 /listing/garfo master es a species table - shortnose sturgeon 09172018.pdf NOAA. 2018c. Greater Atlantic Region, The ESA and Recovery of Shortnose Sturgeon. Accessed December 19, 2018. Available online: https ://www. greateratla ntic. fisheries. noa a. gov /protected/snsturgeon/recovery/i ndex. htm I NatureServe. 2017. NatureServe Explorer: An Online Encyclopedia of Life. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Web application. [1] Accessed: March and October 2018. Schloesser, R.W., M.C, Fabrizio, R.J. Latour, G.C Garman, B. Greenlee, M. Groves, and J. Gartland. 2011. Ecological role of Blue Catfish in Chesapeake Bay communities and implications for management. Am. Fish. Soc. Symposium 77:369-382. Secor, D. H., E. J. Niklitschek, J. T. Stevenson, T. E. Gunderson, S. P. Minkkinen, B. Richardson, B. Florence, M. Mangold, J. Skjeveland, and A. Henderson-Arzapalo. 2000. Dispersal and growth of yearling Atlantic sturgeon, Acipenser oxyrinchus, released into Chesapeake Bay. Fishery Bulletin 98: 800-810. Smithsonian Marine Station at Fort Pierce (SMSFP). 2009. Species Inventory-Panopeus herbstii: Atlantic Mud Crab. Available online: http://www.sms.si.edu/lRLSpec/Panope herbsti.htm Dominion Energy I 115
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 129 of 1631 Snyder, D. E. 1988. Description and Identification of Shortnose and Atlantic Sturgeon Larvae. American Fisheries Society Symposium 5: 7-30. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF}. 2015. Tortorici, C. and P. Ashfield. 2014. 316(b) and the Endangered Species Act. EUCI Conference: EPA 316(b) Fish Impingement in Power and Industrial Plants. Providence, RI. October 8-9, 2014. Tuckey, T.D. and M.C. Fabrizio. 2017. 2017 Annual Report - Estimating Relative Juvenile Abundance of Ecologically Important Finfish in the Virginia Portion of Chesapeake Bay (1 June 2016 - 30 June 2017). Virginia Institute of Marine Science Project Number: F-104-R-21. Submitted to Virginia Marine Resources Commission. Newport News, VA. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2015. Asian Clam (Corbicula fluminea) Ecological Risk Screening Summary. https://www.fws.gov/fisheries/ans/erss/highrisk/Procambarus-clarkii-E RSS-revision-May2015.pdf ____. 2018a. Candidate Species, Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act. Accessed on June 7, 2018 at: https://www.fws.gov/endangered/esa-library/pdf/candidate species.pdf. ____. 2018b. IPAC Trust Resource Report [for the area surrounding Surry Power Station in Louisa and Spotsylvania counties, Virginia]. Accessed October, 9 2018. https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/ USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (USFWS and NMFS). 2014. Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation, Programmatic Biological Opinion on the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Issuance and Implementation of the Final Regulations Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act. Accessed June 7, 2018. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-04/documents/final 316b bo and appendices 5 19 2014.pdf. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2007. Surry Power Station Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Revision 39-09/27 /2007. ____. 2018a. Application for Renewed Operating Licenses. Available online. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/northanna-surry/s lra.pdf Accessed 31 October 2018. ____. 2018b. Approved Applications for Power Uprates. Available online. Accessed 31 Oct 2018. https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/power-uprates/status-power-apps/approved-applications.html. ____. 2018c. Surry Power Station, Unit 1. Available online. Accessed 31 Oct 2018. https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/sur1.html. ____. 2018d. Surry Power Station, Unit 2. Available online. Accessed 31 Oct 2018. https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/sur2.htm1. Dominion Energy I 116
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 130 of 1631 1-)~ Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO). 1977. 316(a) Demonstration (Type 1) Surry Power Stations Units 1 and 2. ____. 1980. Surry Power Station Units 1 and 2 Cooling Water Intake Studies. Environmental Services Department, Richmond, Virginia. ____. 1985. Impingement and Entrainment Studies for Surry Power Station 1978-1983. Virginia Power Water Quality Department. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries (VDGIF). 2014a. Eastern chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia reticu/aria). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif. virginia. gov/wildlife/information/?s=030064 ____. 2014b. Eastern tiger salamander (Ambystoma tigrinum tigrinum). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020052 ____. 2014c. Mabee's salamander (Amybstoma mabee1). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020044 ____. 2014d. Barking treefrog (Hy/a gratiosa). Available online. Retrieved September 7, 2014. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/wildlife/information/?s=020002 ____. 2016. Virginia Wildlife and Information Service Search Report [for a 2-mile radius surrounding Surry Power Station]. Accessed June 2, 2016. https ://vafwis.dgif. virginia.gov/fwis/?Menu= Home 2018a. Fish and Wildlife Information Service (VaFWIS). Web. [2]. Accessed March 28, 2018. ____. 2018b Virginia Wildlife and Information Service Search Report [for an area surrounding Surry Power Station]. Accessed April 12, 2018. https://vafwis.dgif.virginia.gov/fwis/?Menu=Home ____. 2018c. Taxonomy Chapter for Shortnose Sturgeon. Available online: http://vafwis.org/fwis/booklet.html?Menu=.All+Chapters&bova=010031 &version=17833. Accessed on October 29, 2018. ____. Undated. VaFWIS Coordination Recommendations. Accessed June 27, 2015. http://www.dgif.virginia.gov/environmental-programs/files/VaFWIS-Coordination-Recommendations. pdf Virginia Institute if Marine Science (VIMS). 2017. 2017 Annual Report. Estimating Relative Juvenile Abundance of Ecologically Important Finfish in the Virginia Portion of Chesapeake Bay. Wiegel, R.L. 1964. Oceanographic Engineering, Prentice-Hall, Inc. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Wootton, R.J. 1990. Ecology of Teleost Fishes. London; New York: Chapman and Hall, 1990. 404 pp. Dominion Energy I 117
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 131 of 1631 1-)~ Appendix A Surry Power Station §122.21 (r)(2) - (9) Submittal Requirement Checklist Dominion I A-1
Serial No. 20-298, Page 132 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ 15 .2 ~ ..r::: a.. (2)(i) (2)(ii) (2)(iii) (3)(i) (3)(ii) (3)(iii) (3)(iv) (3)(v) (4)(i) (4)(ii) (4)(iii) (4)(iv) (4)(v) (4)(vi) (4)(vii) (4)(viii) (4)(ix) Requirement Narrative description and scaled drawings of source waterbody Identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical studies to determine your intake's area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies Locational maps Narrative description of the configuration of each Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column Latitude and Longitude of CWIS Narrative description of the operation of each CWIS Flow distribution and water balance diagram Engineering drawing of CWIS A list of the data in paragraphs (r)(4)(ii) through (vi) of this section that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data A list of species (or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of CWIS Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities of biological organisms in the vicinity of CWIS Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structures Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan Methods and QA procedures for any field efforts In the case of the owner or operator of an existing facility or new unit at an existing facility, the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data is the information in (i) through (xii) Identification of protective measures and stabilization activities that have been Provided in Report? Yes Yes; note that no physical studies were conducted to determine the area of influence Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, but not applicable because all data are available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, noted in report that (i) through (xii) provided (4)(x) implemented, and a description of how these measures and activities affected the Yes baseline water condition in the vicinity of CWIS (4)(xi) List of fragile species as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(m) at the facility Yes Information submitted to obtain Incidental take exemption or authorization for its (4)(xii) cooling water intake structure(s) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Yes National Marine Fisheries Service Dominion I A-2
Serial No. 20-298, Page 133 of 1631 §316(b) Compliance Submittal: §1 22.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station 1-)~ ~ ro 0 E .s !e. Cl) I
- s:
C> .5 8 (..) e = -e c::'o 'l!Ec~ (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(ii) (5)(iii) Requirement Narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to the CWIS Proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system Number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal changes in the operation of the system Proportion of design intake flow for contact cooling, non-contact cooling, and process uses Distribution of water reuse to include cooling water reused as process water, process water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling Description of reductions in total water withdrawals including cooling water intake flow reductions already achieved through minimized process water withdrawals Description of any cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling, including other recycled process water flows Proportion of the source waterbody withdrawn (on a monthly basis) Design and engineering calculations prepared by a qualified professional and supporting data to support the description required by paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section Description of existing impingement and entrainment technologies or operational measures and a summary of their performance Yes Yes Yes Yes Provided in Report? Yes, but not applicable Yes Yes, but not applicable Yes Yes Yes ~u,~~1§ .c =g-55 & (/) Identification of the chosen compliance method for the entire CWIS or each CWIS at its facility. Yes (.) = =a_.5 ~ §:~ § f?"li! (..)-~ (7)(i) (7)(ii) (7)(iii) (8)(i) (8)(ii) (8)(iii) (8)(iv) Site-specific studies addressing technology efficacy, through plant entrainment survival, and other impingement and entrainment mortality studies Studies conducted at other locations including an explanation of how they relevant and representative Studies older than 10 years must include an explanation of why the data are still relevant and representative Description of individual unit age, utilization for previous 5 year, major upgrades in last 15 years Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled upgrades and Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing status of each unit at nuclear facilities Other cooling water uses and plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacing units For all manufacturing facilities, descriptions of current and future production schedules Yes; note that no site-specific studies were conducted at this facility Yes; note that studies at other locations were not determined to be relevant Not applicable Yes Yes Yes Yes, but not applicable Dominion I A-3
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Requirement Serial No. 20-298, Page 134 of 1631 1-)~ Provided in Report? {B){v) {9){i) (9)(ii) {9)(iii) Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years Yes, but not applicable Entrainment Data Collection Method Yes Biological Entrainment Characterization Yes Analysis and Supporting Documentation Yes Dominion I A-4
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 135 of 1631 1-)~ Appendix B Engineering Drawings of Cooling Water Intake Structures Dominion I B-1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 136 of 1631 1-)~ The engineering drawings of SPS CWIS showing plan and section views of eight intake bays with details of trash racks, traveling screens and circulating water pumps are provided in Appendix B. Drawing No. 11448 FC-9E: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 1 Mat Plan Drawing No. 11448 FC-9F: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 2 Plan at Elevation -5' -6" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9G: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure - Plan at Elevation 12'-0" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9J: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 5 Elevation West Wall & Sections Drawing No. 11448 FC-9K: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure, Trash Rack, Seal Plate & Details Drawing No. 11448-FM-55A: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure Drawing No. 11448-FM-55B: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure Dominion I B-2
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 137 of 1631 1-)~ Appendix C Information for Planning and Consultation {IPAC) and State-Threatened or Endangered Species Query Results Dominion I C-1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21 (r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 138 of 1631 1-)~ Appendix D Engineering Calculations of Through-Screen Velocity Dominion I D-1
§316(b) Compliance Submittal: §122.21(r)(2)-(9) Reports Surry Power Station Serial No. 20-298, Page 139 of 1631 1-)~ Appendix E Surry Power Station 2015-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study Report Dominion I E-1
Serial No. 20-298, Page 140 of 1631 Appendix A Surry Power Station §122.21 (r)(2) - (9) Submittal Requirement Checklist
(2)(i) (2)(ii) (2)(iii) (3)(i) (3)(ii) (3)(iii) (3)(iv) (3){v) (4)(i) {4){ii) (4)(iii) (4)(iv) (4)(v) (4)(vi) (4)(vii) (4){viii) (4)(ix) Serial No. 20-298, Page 141 of 1631 Requirement Narrative description and scaled drawings of source waterbody Identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical studies to determine your intake's area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies Locational maps Narrative description of the configuration of each Cooling Water Intake Structure (CWIS) and where it is located in the waterbody and in the water column Latitude and Longitude of CWIS Narrative description of the operation of each CWIS Flow distribution and water balance diagram Engineering drawing of CWIS A list of the data in paragraphs (r)(4)(ii) through (vi) of this section that are not available and efforts made to identify sources of the data A list of species {or relevant taxa) for all life stages and their relative abundance in the vicinity of CWIS Identification of the species and life stages that would be most susceptible to impingement and entrainment Identification and evaluation of the primary period of reproduction, larval recruitment, and period of peak abundance for relevant taxa Data representative of the seasonal and daily activities of biological organisms in the vicinity of CWIS Identification of all threatened, endangered, and other protected species that might be susceptible to impingement and entrainment at your cooling water intake structures Documentation of any public participation or consultation with Federal or State agencies undertaken in development of the plan Methods and QA procedures for any field efforts In the case of the owner or operator of an existing facility or new unit at an existing facility, the Source Water Baseline Biological Characterization Data is the information in (i) through (xii) Identification of protective measures and stabilization activities that have been Provided in Report? Yes Yes; note that no physical studies were conducted to determine the area of influence Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, but not applicable because all data are available Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, noted in report that (i) through (xii) provided {4)(x) implemented, and a description of how these measures and activities affected the Yes baseline water condition in the vicinity of CWIS (4)(xi) List of fragile species as defined at 40 CFR 125.92(m) at the facility Yes Information submitted to obtain Incidental take exemption or authorization for its (4)(xii) cooling water intake structure(s) from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Yes National Marine Fisheries Service
.s cu Cl i <I) CJ).... .S:l cu
- s:
- 0)
~ ~ ~ '6
- s u5 Q) u C:
cu E .g Q) c.. C: Q) E C: ~ C: w 5: (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(i) (5)(ii) (5)(iii) Serial No. 20-298, Page 142 of 1631 Requirement Narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system and its relationship to the CWIS Proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system Number of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal changes in the operation of the system Proportion of design intake flow for contact cooling, non-contact cooling, and process uses Distribution of water reuse to include cooling water reused as process water, process water reused for cooling, and the use of gray water for cooling Description of reductions in total water withdrawals including cooling water intake flow reductions already achieved through minimized process water withdrawals Description of any cooling water that is used in a manufacturing process either before or after it is used for cooling, including other recycled process water flows Proportion of the source waterbody withdrawn (on a monthly basis) Design and engineering calculations prepared by a qualified professional and supporting data to support the description required by paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section Description of existing impingement and entrainment technologies or operational measures and a summary of their perfonnance Provided in Report? Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, but not applicable Yes Yes, but not applicable Yes Yes Yes Identification of the chosen compliance method for the entire CWIS or each CWIS at its facility. Yes (7)(i) (7)(ii) (7)(iii) (8)(i) (B)(ii) (B)(iii) (8)(iv) Site-specific studies addressing technology efficacy, through plant entrainment survival, and other impingement and entrainment mortality studies Studies conducted at other locations including an explanation of how they relevant and representative Studies older than 10 years must include an explanation of why the data are still relevant and representative Description of individual unit age, utilization for previous 5 year, major upgrades in last 15 years Descriptions of completed, approved, or scheduled upgrades and Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing status of each unit at nuclear facilities Other cooling water uses and plans or schedules for decommissioning or replacing units For all manufacturing facilities, descriptions of current and future production schedules Yes; note that no site-specific studies were conducted at this facility Yes; note that studies at other locations were not detennined to be relevant Not applicable Yes Yes Yes Yes, but not applicable
{8){v) {9){i) {9)(ii) (9)(iii) Requirement Serial No. 20-298, Page 143 of 1631 Provided in Report? Descriptions of plans or schedules for any new units planned within the next 5 years Yes, but not applicable Entrainment Data Collection Method Yes Biological Entrainment Characterization Yes Analysis and Supporting Documentation Yes
Serial No. 20-298, Page 144 of 1631 Appendix B Engineering Drawings of Cooling Water Intake Structures
Serial No. 20-298, Page 145 of 1631 The engineering drawings of SPS CWIS showing plan and section views of eight intake bays with details of trash racks, traveling screens and circulating water pumps are provided in Appendix B. Drawing No. 11448 FC-9E: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 1 Mat Plan Drawing No. 11448 FC-9F: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 2 Plan at Elevation -5' -6" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9G: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure - Plan at Elevation 12' -0" & Misc. Details Drawing No. 11448 FC-9J: Surry Power Station Intake Structure - Sheet 5 Elevation West Wall & Sections Drawing No. 11448 FC-9K: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Intake Structure, Trash Rack, Seal Plate & Details Drawing No. 11448-FM-55A: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure Drawing No. 11448-FM-558: Surry Power Station Unit 1 Arrangement of Intake Structure
---t-*. 36-J.cl 8t,t,II ~ ~.
- ..,. '"*-**-... I
- '"1"'
. >'*L -- "-*Yc_ __ ..i:.!......-.J=, '-oc...* _..,*ec**_' _ ~ l1'*1'!9v!I 1-----.;: i..~ -
- +
~ ~:::* ~00:l'T'tP) Jt IUTAN.a STAUCTl.,,Q.11£ I .. ~. i1.' -.... "'--'tl'-.41 t'IV. &...V &-V'-', Page 146 of 1631 ,-FQA e0ur.lsa1 TYD
- ..:~*l()A i".....
0'*'2,_' ___ D - -- ~ - ~ SMli'flP1L1"'4 'CC-'J$; [!J )_~... - 11' I ~
- 1 t
~ ~-J1~-----------_-_-.!.1_-.,,-~-===~-;,,-=-=*=_='J===*=-=~=.c.:=~=-*=*=-=*=*=*=*=-====d::;;,,..b===-....:._ _ ___ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-.:..~_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_L ___________ J ________________ ~::::Ji:::i==nsi:r~_ji -f,_~*i'::;'" ?,.__,~...::.. S!>.J sq..J
- 1ei-1*.i
.... -~-
- ~-~
l:l -,~*-,* ~
- vp SPLIC.. O!TA.I_
S*<o s -!>
- tl'O*"*
uo~._,;, s:u.ll, t*'* l'*o' u.:.. *~-& -..'OflC). Cl............ ~Qfl.* i,c.,. "'ell O".I..LL WA.LL COWi.Li, 'IQ N al.,*t('***_(.-";,-..._., (-~ \\ -- _.... -...... ~ ~-r-;Jog--,;:~*** n.- -z~*- s*-*! ~~--,
- 11tJ' OW'UP10"""U'G,
. {~~*L**U--*CI' INTAKE STRUCTURE* S1£ET I MAT PLAN ~~-,u.iu,- _.,...,.. --*-Tllt--- 11.. "'7'-"-f*-*""I\\M'I- --*n.WN:a-=a. (,1)-- *'.'"--,.. su,un ~WCR STATIO" VHIGI PIIIA lllCTIIIC ANO POW£~ COMPAN <<T0."11:6 *-.:iMTUC.'C~OCOltl'OtlA'T10:'I 11448 FC-9£ j@l j8 le Jg
.:16* ).:l 817171 1 56~ ... I. - I "!vO:C*~ ~- ,:f.< PUMD SOL~~ D1ST... 1L B {,)!~~) OllT... 'I.~ I oz ---t,-. -. -~~ I .'(: I I I *- I o.. sf.~'t.;.:, I \\ [] _::,=
- a*11:"(T'VP.l
.. JJ.11'.'lVA) -ii,:'*.~.~7ffYA; -~ ~T- ~--~*!\\~. 11,UM::> l!L
- 7'-0 '{ TT:OJ PLAU '°'BOVE EL.-5'* G,", Page 147 of 1631
'10'-t' I I '.*1,or.-. 1"' J ~.,, "1'd r{J~ !:!l - .. "", 1 -+---I--. -- -- - S4c:;.,p; ~ I _,.. ,,w I C'l,n,,111:tc~ :o -~ l! ~l;~,~~.J\\f!i*!~,5r:' I -_.:i:.-- - 7 ~;l~~ ~,~ "L ~ ~ ~ INTAKE STFLCTLR~ 9-EET 2 PLAN AT EL.-5'*6' & MISC.DETA*LS SU~AY l"OWlt" STATION VIRGINIA. ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY sro:n*~~(JO,n,(IIIJ,.'TIO.'t A -* 11446 FC*9F J@ Je
£ !:lb-J.,-s,,11 A B 'Oll'.1!11-CJ 1 '2 ~,. 1'2'*1.. 2 5 IHTA,C,E T~AllS'F. ~ ~ ~ -~-~~-.,L__~ -~_.~*-"-""--~
- }t::~f ~~~~';:
8 WOO.ES 2'*JU~*MU '1u) c,,.....,.,,~,...,...,1 PLAN*T~).!'>14 FLU,'1E: 1o1.'* t'*o* C D E F qo'*'Z' '21.'-1:" '2'2'-"i:" H'*I'* S84J! 3'*7" C G H 'IUTAKE. STRUCTURE. lf'. j " 1.1 ~ '2" ea~ ~101i.,-:1 4 wo:rtu*a L~ 6'.'JIC* :S *.iMk * ;:'-l*&!SA G H '21.'*'2' !'.1'*7' VIRGINIA POWER NORTH CAROLINA PO WER S*IC
- j.
0 NUCUiAlt ENOINE.EIUMO SERVICES RICH MOND.Y11tQINIA INTAKE STRUCTURE PLAN AT EL 12' *0' & MISC DETAILS SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT I PiYIS(tlf(R[ l'l'lffll. ,ctt**
- Tfl1 CISCM WW SLIII.C c )f:l'* l' *t' ll448-FC-9G 2
5 6 8 ~:,u:,.,, PRIOR TO USI'(;; ::,:i CE.SIGN WCAK Cl-f:Ck CHIS FJR llo'\\)l)( FEt-.t:ta::
P6*'.l.:l gt,t,11 C.U'!!L_ (F:::*3G) ',. l------- EL-*'3~c* ~ ILJ7,1,,.l(E. S.TR.UCTUAS 1,:,*, Page 149 of1631 t'. ;'~~le~,c--------; ti\\, r- -----~ . -\\ \\_Jl:~~---1-~=1[-i 1_...__j=SiJJ-rr,J - ---- '----------- -- *, _____ *--------------I --1. r Z'\\.'~-i.i.'"1,-; ~-IL====-~-~--=---=-=-=-J*i,. __,.i,,_=----=-=-=-~-=--=-=----'"--=a#-~.ea_;;:_ ;;:_ ;;:_ ::;-~-~-"=-=-=--=~~----=-~--=----*oc>:,c:.** ;;.~e:,'.",,"'--°'1-11"'--"c---===~===~==="T-=-=-=-=-=-~-_.\\_=-=-..,,*=-=------=-=--=-=-=-=-=--=-='--=----=-=-=-~-~--=-=-=-=-=-=--=='=-! ©- ... ~.;-a:i.o* ,.. ~-"'-~L.. *1-;!' !.L".:'_t:..~.a* 51:Al.... WATER fi)iri? ,1.,1*-a* ZR.EQtJIRl;V ~ S!"....u-,,.,.~*-::o* GttJr:~i..:on,:s.,c-zs INTAKE STRlCTLlE-51-!TT 5 ELEVATION WEST WALL & SECTIONS / SURAT POWER STATION VIRGINIA ELECTRIC AND POWER COMPANY lin:>SB 4 WE88T1lR l!:l'IGD'IUmll'G OORl'OR.l.'Z'IO.~ ~ =.;;-'1144s FC-9J
I SJ 1 HS 03lO'I lSIN:IJ11D S'Snn 9..,, 5 7 8 03*'1AR*l~'l'l 13,23 c,,,,~,\\4gnVll'HY8lc:l ~b-J,-8~~! l "CJ1~1~ A C & ~. DETAIL-A 0,10 ~C:AL5-C 1::EY ?;...~1-J 11"*, 1~0" f,1CE'OfCOIJC * . WALL--,__. ' ""'" ;--<*""*"'Li--- *1 'I --!---------+~ I I i DE-TAIL-B !'>EA~ PLATE-UIJJT (-4*2.liO;o.) ~ r,fe1to* H I---*-. jl .. ~!.f?}~... ~~!!. =~:~,r.J~-...r1;~"""...,.P.,... b 1,.r,,u:ft,:.1.1EL~ ">To.JD(,4 "-ED'o-1,.i: co,,..u.),
2.:L 1--~i,----
,: :!:;~; ~tl:~.!. tJO'KALE-1 --*------- N9J'='::I:
- J,'OO!H>1Ce.
~-,-. (;E.N~:I.AL "-0:'::, 1 U*&OLT 51:Al -it-.. ;.. 4!._ 4"~ 1::..-~"E;=;.:;==-==~~t 4~gr.--~~~ '*fl?. DE-TAI L-L I.JO tCt\\~E-- ,..1i_,.,,:==-a-.. ~,._, '!o'!.C:'<t. o.a c.:>Nj.o,.,;T" ;... ~.~"-. "'!> &...._., J'!o. .,. ;;:...-, ~*Dt., *\\L ~ '"'F"'...,,_~,~.;. *u: ~,.._..... -:.'!,,. ~" g;.l.c:i..1 NORTH CAROLINA POWER 2 5 7 8 VIRGINIA POWER i--, ... u"'c"LE"A"R'E'-N'"**"'**"*"'*'"**"***;;;*-;;*v",c"'*"s-"1-----I RICHMOND.VIRGINIA 11'1TAKE STRUCTURE TRASH RACK, SEAL PLATE & DETAILS SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT I lAES'iDIHERIIIS.: l(ITEI] 911 CJ' I P.=l[J=l TJ JSING FOO 0£S.IGtJ 'rlCRK CHECK J'.~IS FOR I'IQRK PEt-lOUIG
11 A ~gg-w~-01,1,11 "1>1:Wlft\\ll:II / '~""'"" il SCll:.EN jUIC/ES ") __ { TRIWEL:t:G _1*- ----- 8 S:REENS +----;----; i{C.ol,fLMH~-- I I I I I + I I I I a I I I I iEL-22'*3" - ------- r-------- i ! ~*-t*--µ..1-~-1-~~J-Y-ilSCF(EII & f'J"P -'i 22'*2'(1YP) 7 PCiRT ::>_CJN El-22'*~' ~-2':,*-3* W*l' ll'*L' ~- A ffH-~.C-&: B*B ~N.E 114' \\ ~ [--2-tw*P*LB lq_ l*Stt*P-18 \\__ PART PLAN P 1PltPOOO:L STOP.P'.iEROC": TH:M~E SIZES S. LO:ATllH ll*SW*P*I: c-c S(t,LE J/P, l'*O" En losure 2,2 Page "A
- ~
Hll((;'EO :;im:t.J OSECTJOIISl(T'l'F'I i.P. ltUE'll EL.<>*-q*
- T'UISIIFLUM£SSLuJ:Ert.l1Ml;:
<"'C:I.151 ~---+---l t-51IHlSO ~ ~~ ~::~;.\\~':~ ~!L~~lll 3'SLl0!NG MJSSILE OOJR i ~5* l!E"o'E... FOR DETAIL - A SCALEl18', 1'*3" Ml"ES* HOS:LE lARC (~AN:. "J SE JSEO ~OR LIFTJJiG TP~~ELl'IG 11,'ITER SO:~E'::t.S, :.*. ~~FSA ~£,'IL PLAT;" t,'.L CHECUPEO F,..H[ &. G~TINI, "O 6E P.EMl'~AIIL:. ffi Mlf-llHUM IH:CrnEsS ~Ofi TC~t"'1DO 1-1:ss:LE lIOECl:Cq,, P.[fEBICEOWfi ~RP.GT lt/TA(E Sl~UCTUR£ s:i;:: ~uu. CIP.CW1fiL1t.£S 5':RY'*rRLINE5 [L£(.[Q!J/f'U£til tP.A'5H P~C<. SEAL PL,1, OETA'.LS VIRGINIA POWER fM-~S8 fY*IC ~ ff rr-;:Ql FP*.ff f[*53Ai6 r:-q* NORTH CAROLINA POWER OS<J< NUCLEAR ENGINEERING SERVICES RICHMOHD.VIRQIHIA ARRGT I NT AKE STRUCTURE SURRY POWER STATION - UNrT CADHO, (1\\,,0,\\"9'>\\~l.()GN*Zl DMWlNG NO, 11448-FM-55A 11 IJ!O..ESSDTHERWISENOlED SHI fFI F D B MIOR TO LSJN'., ;-CR [iESIG'~ WC::i.t:'. CHECK 0115 FJfi WORK PEUOING
b a99-W,i-0H11
- .a.
\\",..,."\\. A Vl'O..ES 2il*.U.*le2102,J4 C:\\uor'uoqn\\':.5eOC-ffo,-I 8 [l"OS~[:Ct(. \\ FIOCl'"ELH'*G" \\ ~~----- )\\'.~.,.,.. : *:* ~* SLIDltlG tCSSILE lll(tl)-1 _[ _ _1:r-,---,,,;:,ff'~==S==='='l"',ii'r{~'-'t"'ft'it / JI L.,..1R TIGHT 'IO.r..1;uc; \\-=-=-=~l;;;~~~-1,( !===-"""1(-Ln ~n-22*-3* A-A 1FN-S'S.~,F-S1 5 'l>Lll.3* n.*,-1.:r S&l..PttllE ll<tlf.t.ltlPlr.C:El ..-*-r**,; ! (;:;?~tLYING <*::-!.-_./.1 A : n*2s*-11 "** -...JL...__..:,"'Fc.___:_--1. ___ .,.,=,.,..."~.:::l....,l--'l!ls!-=='=';~------;:, ':,/r~~:; ~i~tlG C~'IIA:EA[I.~ ~'IP..../' c-: ~ALE - 1 1/Z"*:*-~* D*C sc,u-1:12-*l*-0* 3 -;;-Page 15 of'f63'1 1 VIRGINIA POWER NORTH CAROLINA POWER NUCLEAR ENGINEEAIMG SERVICES RICl1MOND,V1RGINIA ARR GT INTAKE STRUCTURE SURRY POWER STATION - UNIT l 1448-FM-55B ~ F D B ?RICR TO USING FJR CESI~..... :.u: [~ECK D"'l5 FCR iri'CRX FO.OHIG
Serial No. 20-298, Page 153 of 1631 Appendix C Information, Planning, and Consultation and State-Threatened or Endangered Species Query Results
°LV:KERm Drawn Action Area & overlapping S7 Consultation Areas Area of Interest (AOI) Information Area : 18,091.45 acres Oct 19 2018 1 :52:40 Eastern Daylight Time O-nd11 n I 1,t El.all Elb-1un Nowpo,1 Nows 1:288,8915 2 4 8ml ........,-1 J J 6 IHm, Page 154 of 1631 , Page 155 of 1631 Summary Name Count Area(acres) Lenglh(mi) Atlantic Sturgeon 6 65,049.14 NIA Shortnose Sturgeon 1 12,932.21 NIA Atlantic Salmon 0 0 NIA Sea Turtles 0 0 NIA Atlantic Large Whales 0 0 NIA In or Near Critical Habitat 1 12,665.77 NIA Atlantic Sturgeon 6 65,049.14 NIA Shortnose Sturgeon 1 12,932.21 NIA Atlantic Salmon 0 0 NIA Sea Turtles 0 0 NIA Atlantic Large Whales 0 0 NIA In or Near Critical Habitat 1 12,665.77 NIA Atlantic Sturgeon 6 62,340.28 NIA Shortnose Sturgeon 1 12,702.45 NIA Atlantic Salmon 0 0 NIA Sea Turtles 0 0 NIA Atlantic Large Whales 0 0 NIA In or Near Critical Habitat 1 12,479.58 NIA Atlantic Sturgeon Feature ID Species Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From (2) Until (2) Area(acres) 1 ANS JAM SU Atlantic Subadult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 B_MAF sturgeon Foraging 2 ANS JAM JU Atlantic Juvenile Migrating & James River 01101 12131 NIA NIA 12,932.21 V_MAF sturgeon Foraging 3 ANS JAM AD Atlantic Adult Staging James River 05101 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 U_STG sturgeon 4 ANS JAM AD Atlantic Adult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 U_MAF sturgeon Foraging 5 ANS JAM YO Atlantic Young of year Migrating & James River 01101 12131 NIA NIA 6,660.15 Y_MAF sturgeon Foraging 6 ANS JAM PY Atlantic Post Yolk-sac Migrating& James River 03115 07/15 811 1131 6,660.15 l_MAF sturgeon Larvae Foraging Shortnose Sturgeon FNturelD Specl* Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From(2) Untll(2) A-(acrea) 1 SNS JAM AD Shortnose Adult Migrating & James River 01/01 12131 NIA NIA 12,932.21 u MAF sturgeon Foraging In or Near Critical Habitat Specl* In or near Crttlcal Habitat Unit Area(acree) Atlantic Sturgeon Chesapeake Bay Unit 5: James River 12,665.77 , Page 156 of 1631 Atlantic Sturgeon Feature ID Species Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From(2) Until (2) Area(acres) 1 ANS JAM SU Atlantic Subadult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 B_MAF sturgeon Foraging 2 ANS JAM JU Atlantic Juvenile Migrating & James River 01/01 12131 NIA NIA 12,932.21 V_MAF sturgeon Foraging 3 ANS JAM AO Atlantic Adult Staging James River 05101 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 u_sfo - sturgeon 4 ANS JAM AO Atlantic Adult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,932.21 U_MAF sturgeon Foraging 5 ANS JAM YO Atlantic Young of year Migrating & James River 01/01 12131 NIA NIA 6,660.15 Y_MAF sturgeon Foraging 6 ANS JAM PY Atlantic Post Yolk-sac Migrating & James River 03115 07115 811 1131 6,660.15 L_MAF - sturgeon larvae Foraging Shortnose Sturgeon Feature ID Species Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From (2) Untll(2) Area(acres) 1 SNS JAM AD Shortnose AduH Migrating& James River 01/01 12/31 N/A NIA 12,932.21 U_MAF sturgeon Foraging In or Near Critical Habitat Species Atlantic Sturgeon Chesapeake Bay Unit 5: James River 12.ees.n Atlantic Sturgeon Feature ID Species Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From (2) Until (2) Area(acres) 1 ANS JAM SU Atlantic Subadult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,702.45 B_MAF sturgeon Foraging 2 ANS JAM JU Atlantic Juvenile Migrating & James River 01101 12131 NIA NIA 12,702.45 V_MAF sturgeon Foraging 3 ANS JAM AO Atlantic Adult Migrating & James River 03115 11130 NIA NIA 12,702.45 U_MAF sturgeon Foraging 4 ANS JAM AO Atlantic Adult Staging James River 05101 11130 NIA NIA 12,702.44 u_sfo - sturgeon 5 ANS JAM YO Atlantic Young of year Migrating & James River 01/01 12/31 N/A N/A 5.765.24 Y_MAF sturgeon Foraging 6 ANS JAM PY Atlantic Post Yolk-sac Migrating & James River 03/15 07115 8/1 1/31 5,765.24 l_MAF sturgeon larvae Foraging Shortnose Sturgeon Feature ID Species Life Stage Behavior Zone From Until From (2) Untll(2) Area(acres) 1 SNS JAM AO Shortnose Adult Migrating & James River 01/01 12131 N/A NIA 12,702.45 U_MAF sturgeon Foraging In or Near Critical Habitat Species Atlantic Sturgeon Chesapeake Bay Unit 5: James River 12,479.58 , Page 157 of 1631 DISCLAIMER: Use of this App does NOT replace the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 consultation process; It is a first step in detenninlng if a proposed Federal action overlaps with listed species or critical habitat presence. Because the data provided through this App are updated regularly, reporting results must include the date they were generated. The report output! (map/tables) depend on the options picked by the user, including the shape and size of the action area drawn. the layers marked as visible or selectable, and the buffer distance specified when using the "Draw your Action Area" function.
Serial No. 20-298, Page 158 of 1631 IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation u.s. Fish & Wildlife service I Pac resource list This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat (collectively referred to as trust resources') under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS) jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be directly or indirectly affected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and extent of effects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-specific (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specific (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed activities) information. Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS office(s) with jurisdiction in the defined project area. Please read the introduction to each section that follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section. Project information NAME Surry Power Station LOCATION Virginia r ~',1\\- Local office Virginia Ecological Services Field Office \\. (804) 693-6694 Iii (804) 693-9032 6669 Short Lane Gloucester, VA 23061 -441 O
http://www. fws. gov/northeast/virgin iafie Id/ Serial No. 20-298, Page 159 of 1631
Endangered species Serial No. 20-298, Page 160 of 1631 This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project level impacts. The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species. Additional areas of influence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of the species range if the species could be indirectly affected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a dam upstream of a fish population, even if that fish does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly impact the species by reducing or eliminating water flow downstream). Because species can move, and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the project area. To fully determine any potential effects to species, additional site-specific and project-specific information is often required. Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal agency. A letter from the local office and a species list which fulfills this cequlrement can only be obtained by requesting an official species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see directions below) or from the local field office directly. For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and request an official species list by doing the following:
- 1. Log in to IPaC.
- 2. Go to your My Projects list.
- 3. Click PROJECT HOME for this project.
- 4. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species 1 and their crittcal habitats are managed by the Ecoloiical Services Proiram of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the fisheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA Fisheriesl). Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list. Please contact NOAA fisheries for species under theirjurjsdiction.
- 1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more information.
- 2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially affected by activities in this location:
Mammals NAME Northern long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis No critical habitat has been designated for this species. https://ecos. fws.gov I ecp/species/9045 Critical habitats Serial No. 20-298, Page 161 of 1631 STATUS Threatened Potential effects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered species themselves. THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION. Migratory birds Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act 1 and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Actl. Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow<<ippropr1ate regulations and consider implementing appropriate conservation measures, as lescrit,ed below.
- 1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
- 2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
- Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
- Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds http://www.fws.gov/birds/managementlproject-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservatioo-measures.php
- Nationwide conservation measures for birds The birds listed below are birds of particular concern either because they occur on the USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) list or warrant special attention in your project location. To learn more about the levels of concern for birds on your list and how this list is generated, see the FAQ below. This is not a list of every bird you may find in this location, nor a guarantee that every bird on this list will be found in your project area. To see exact locations of where birders and the general public have sighted birds in and around your project area, visit the E-bird data mapping tool (Tip:
enter your location, desired date range and a species on your list). For projects that occur off the Atlantic Coast, additional maps and models detailing the relative occurrence and abundance of bird
Serial No. 20-298, Page 162 of 1631 species on your list are available. Links to additional information about Atlantic Coast birds, and other important information about your migratory bird list, including how to properly interpret and use your migratory bird report, can be found below. For guidance on when to schedule activities or implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce impacts to migratory birds on your list, click on the PROBABILITY OF PRESENCE
SUMMARY
at the top of your list to see when these birds are most likely to be present and breeding in your project area. NAME Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1626 Black-billed Cuckoo ~~ erythropthalmus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9399 Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Bonaparte's Gull Chroicocephalus philadelphia This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. BREEDING _SEASON. (I_F_A BREEDING SEASON IS INDICATED FOR_A_BIRD ON __ YOUR_ LIST,_THE BIRD MAY BREED IN YOUR P..~QJ.~Q ~~-~.?..C?.~ ~I~-~ \\f\\/lT_~I~ THE TIMEFRAME SPECIFIED, Y.\\.'.~.1-~t!.1?..~.Y.E.~Y. ~I-~-~~ -~-~!.!~~!~.9..~.!.~~ OA1£5 !.~i~ WHICH THE BIRD BReE&S~ROSS ITS ENJIRe'iANGE. "B~EEDS EL~HE~1"01CATE5 THAT THE BIRD~~~ ~OT_~l-~ELY __ BREEq IN YO~ PROJECT AREA) Breeds Oct 15 to Aug 31 Breeds May 15 to Oct 10 Breeds May 20 to Jul 31 Breeds elsewhere
Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos. fws.gov I ecp/species/6034 Buff-breasted Sandpiper Calidris subruficollis This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos. fws. gov/ecp/species/9488 Clapper Rail Rallus crepitans This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Common Loon gavia immer This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos. fws.gov/ecp/species/4464 Common Tern Sterna hirundo This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos. fws.gov/ecp/species/4963 Double<rested Cormorant phalacrocorax auritus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/speci es/3478 Dunlin Calidris alpina arcticola This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Great Black-backed Gull Larus marinus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Serial No. 20-298, Page 163 of 1631 Breeds Jan 15 to Sep 30 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Apr 1 0 to Oct 31 Breeds Apr 1 5 to Oct 31 Breeds May 1 O to Sep 1 0 Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 31 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Apr 1 5 to Aug 20
Herring Gull Larus argentatus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. King Rail Rallus elegans This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https:// ecos. fws.gov/ ecplspeci es/8936 Least Tern Sterna antillarum This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9679 Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemaJ.!.s This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern {SCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagte Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. https:11 ecos. fws. gov/ecp/species/7238 Nelson's Sparrow Ammodramus nelsoni This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Serial No. 20-298, Page 164 of 1631 Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 31 Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 20 Breeds May 1 to Sep 5 Breeds Apr 20 to Sep 10 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds May 15 to Sep 5 Breeds May 1 to Jul 31 Breeds Apr 1 to Jul 31
Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Red-throated Loon Gavia stellata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Royal Tern Thalasseus maximus This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Ruddy Turnstone Arenarja ;nterpres aiorinella This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs} in the continental USA Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. https://ecos. fws. gov /ecp/species/9480 Serial No. 20-298, Page 165 of 1631 Breeds elsewhere Breeds May 10 to Sep 10 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds Apr 15 to Aug 31 Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere Breeds elsewhere
White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca This is not a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) in this area, but warrants attention because of the Eagle Act or for potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities. Willet Tringa semipalmata This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina This is a Bird of Conservation Concern (BC() throughout its range in the continental USA and Alaska. Serial No. 20-298, Page 166 of 1631 Breeds elsewhere Breeds Apr 20 to Aug 5 Breeds May 1 Oto Aug 31 Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds. Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any actAve nests and avoiding their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present on your project site. What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The Migratory Bird Resource List is COll]J?rised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern rBCCl and other species that may warrant special attention in yo~ pn;.tect locatfon. The migratory bird list generated for yaur project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network IAKNl. The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey. banding. and citizen science datasets and is queried and filtered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects, and that have been identitled as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle (Eagle Act requ~ements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to offshore activities or deYelopmeot. Agalp, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your project area, please visit the E-bird Explore Data Tool. What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location? The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network (AKNl. This data is derived from a growing collection of survey. banding. and citizen science datasets. Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link. How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
Serial No. 20-298, Page 167 of 1631 To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specified. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated, then the bird likely does not breed in your project area. What are the levels of concern for migratory birds? Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
- 1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BC() that are of concern throughout their range anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacific Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
- 2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the continental USA; and
- 3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in offshore areas from certain types of development or activities (e.g. offshore energy development or longline fishing).
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, efforts should be made, in particular, to avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics. Details about birds that are potentially affected by offshore projects For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird species within your project area off the Atlantic Coast please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also offers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review. Alternately, you may download the bird model results files underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf project webpage. Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird-tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring. What if I have eagles on my list? If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle Act should such impacts occur. Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern. To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your project area, please see the FAQ "What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specified location". Please be aware this report provides the "probability of presence" of birds within the 10 km grid cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at the survey effort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the "no data" indicator (a red horizontal bar). A high survey effort is the key component. If the survey effort is high, then the probability of presence score can be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey effort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and, therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to
Serial No. 20-298, Page 168 of 1631 confirm presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential impacts from your project activities, should presence be confirmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit the FAQ "Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds" at the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page. Facilities National Wildlife Refuge lands Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a 'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to discuss any questions or concerns. THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION. Fish hatcheries THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION. Wetlands in tbe National Wetlands Inventory Impacts to NWI wetlands c1nd other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes. For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District. WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at this location. Data limitations The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery. Wetlands are identified based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland boundaries or classification established through image analysis.
Serial No. 20-298, Page 169 of 1631 The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verification work conducted. Metadata should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems. Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or field work. There may be occasional differences in polygon boundaries or classifications between the information depicted on the map and the actual conditions on site. Data exclusions Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some deepwater reef communities (coral or tuberficid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery. Data precautions Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may define and describe wetlands in a different manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or p~uct'$ ofthis inventory, to define the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities involving modifications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or local agencies concerning specified agency regulatory programs and proprietal)' }w.i$dictions that may affect such activities.
VaFWIS Search Report Compiled on 10/9/2018, 10:18:05 AM Serial No. 20-298, Page 170 of 1631 Known or likely to occur within a 3 mile radius around point 37,10,00.7 -76,41,11.5 in 093 Isle of Wight County, 095 James City County, 181 Surry County, 700 Newport News City, VA \\'ie" Map of Site Location 624 Known or Likely Species ordered by Status Concern for Conservation (displaying first 40) (40 species with Status* or Tier l** or Tier 11** ) 80\\'A Status* Tier** Common Scientific Confirmed Code Name Name Turtle. Lepidochelys 030074 FESE la Kem12's BOVA ridle\\ sea kempii WoodQecker. Picoides 040228 FESE la red-borealis BOVA cockaded Database(s) 010032 FESE lb Sturgeon. Acipenser Ye. B0VA,TEWaters,Habitat,Spp0bs,HU6 Atlantic oxyrinchus Turtle. Dermochelys 030075 FESE Ic leatherback BOVA coriacea sea Turtle. 030071 FTST Ia loggerhead Caretta caretta BOVA sea 040144 FTST la Knot red Calidris canutus BOVA,HU6 rufa 050022 FTST la Bat. no11hern Myotis BOVA long-eared septentrionalis 040120 FTST Ila PIO\\ er. Charadrius BOVA melodus QIQ111g 010347 SE la Sunfish. Enneacanthus BOVA black banded chaetodon Turtle. Deirochelys 030064 SE la eastern reticularia BOVA chicken reticularia 040110 SE Ia Rail. black Laterallus BOVA,HU6 Jama1cens1s 050020 SE Ia Bat. little Myotis BOVA bro\\\\ n lucifugus Bat. Corynorhinus 050034 SE Ia Rafinesgue's rafinesquii BOVA,HU6 eastern big-eared macrotis
050027 SE Ia Bat. tri-colored 020052 SE Ila Salamander. eastern tiger 030013 SE Ila Rattlesnake. canebrake 040096 ST Ia Falcon. peregrine 040293 ST Ia Shrike. loggerhead 040379 ST Ia Sga1TO\\\\, Henslow's 020044 ST Ila Salamander. Mabee's 020002 ST Ila Treefrog. barking Shrike. 040292 ST migrant Joggerhe.:id TeIT.:tpin. 030067 cc Ila northern diamond-backed 030063 cc Illa Tunlt>. spotted 010077 Ia Shiner. bridle 040040 Ia Ibis. gloss, 070131 le lsopod. Phreatic 020063 Ila Toad. oak Duck. 040052 Ila Amt>rican black 040033 Ila Egret. snow,* 040029 Ila Heron. little blue Night-heron. 040036 Ila ,ellow-crowned 040192 Ila Skimmer. black 040181 Ila Tern. common Perimyotis subflavus Amby stoma tigrinum Crotalus horridus Falco peregrmus Lanius ludovicianus Ammodramus henslowii Ambystoma mabeei Hyla gratiosa Lanius ludovicianus mtgrans Malaclemys terrapin terrapin Clemmys guttata Notropis bifrenatus Plegadis falcinellus Caecidotea phreatica Anaxyrus quercicus Anas rubripes Egretta thula Egretta caerulea caerulea Nyctanassa violacea violacea Rynchops niger Sterna hirundo Potential Yes Potential Pokntial Yes Potential Potential Pc)tential Potential Potential Serial No. 20-298, Page 171 of 1631 BOVA BOVA BOV A,Habitat,HU6 BOV A,BBA,Spp0bs,HU6 BOVA HU6 BOV A,Habitat,HU6 BOVA,HU6 BOVA BOV A,Habitat,HU6 B0VA,Spp0bs,HU6 BOV A,Habitat HU6 BOVA BOV A,Habitat,HU6 BOV A,BBA,HU6 BOVA,BBA BOVA BOVA BOVA BOV A,BBA,HU6
040320 Ila Warbler. cerulean 040140 Ila Woodcock. American 040203 lib Cuckoo. black-hilled 040105 lib Rail. kinu 040304 Ile Warbler. S\\\\ ainson's 100003 Ile Ski1212er. rare To view All 624 species View 624 Setophaga cerulea Scolopax minor Coeeyzus erythropthalm us Rallus elegans Limnothlypis swainsonii Problema bulenta Serial No. 20-298, Page 172 of 1631 BOVA,HU6 BOVA,HU6 BOVA BOVA BOVA,HU6 HU6
- FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; FP=Federal Proposed; FC=Federal Candidate; CC=Collection Concern
- l=V A Wildlife Action Plan - Tier I - Critical Conservation Need; II=V A Wildlife Action Plan - Tier II -
Very High Conservation Need; III=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier III - High Conservation Need; IV=VA Wildlife Action Plan - Tier IV - Moderate Conservation Need Virginia Widlife Action Plan Conservation Opportunity Ranking: a - On the ground management strategies/actions exist and can be feasibly implemented.; b - On the ground actions or research needs have been identified but cannot feasibly be implemented at this time.; c - No on the ground actions or research needs have been identified or all identified conservation opportunities have been exhausted. View Map of All Ouen Results from All Observation Tables Bat Colonies or Hibernaeula: Not Known Anadromous Fish Use Streams ( 3 records) View Map of All Anadromous Fish l 'se Streams Stream ID Stream Name Reach Status Anadromous Fish Species @] Different Highest Highest Species TE Tier p lc41 IILawnes creek EJ Lower Chi okes creek lc92 II.James Ri\\ er I Impediments to Fish Passage NIA llconfirmed !confirmed llconfinned Colonial Water Bird Survey ( 5 records) Colony_Name 1n Latest Date 1 2 3 6 IV IV View Map of All Ouen Results Colonial Water Bird Survey IIYes I I~ IIYes I N Species Ill
N Different Obs Species Southside. Hog Island. IOI May 4 201311 1 Surn IHog Island I ID Apr 28 20031 1 IHog Island 2 ID Apr 28 2003 1 IHog Island WMA IOI Jun 11993 I 1 IHOG ISLAND REFUGE II 6 II Jun 1 1991 11 2 Displayed 5 Colonial Water Bird Survey Threatened and Endangered Waters ( 15 Reaches) \\'iew Map of All II II II Serial No. 20-298, Page 173 of 1631 Highest Highest View Map TE Tier,~ I~ ~ Yes I Yes I Threatened and Endan!!:ered Waters T&E Waters Species View Stream Name Highest Map TE BOVA Code, Status, Tier, Common & Scientific Name James River FESE !010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes
{0154595) Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE !010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes
{01 55813) Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE !010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes
{0160401 ) Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0162815}
Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE 81 FESE IG Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes {0163971 } Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE Ell FESE IG Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes {0164393) Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0168836}
Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE !010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0172182}
Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0173836)
Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE !010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0175258)
Atlantic oxyrinchus James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, Acipenser Yes (0175357)
Atlantic oxyrinchus II lr--11 II
Serial No. 20-298, Page 17 4 of 1631 James River FESE t:JI FESE ltJ Sturge?n, (0180351} Atlantic James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, (0181134}
Atlantic James River FESE 1010032 II FESE IG
- Sturgeon, (0183195}
Atlantic To view All 15 Threatened and Endangered Waters records View 15 Managed Trout Streams NIA Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts are present. ( 9 records) \\'iew Map of Bald Eagle Concentration Areas and Roosts ~ Observation \\Authority Year D DI Bryan Watts (Center for Conservation Biology) 28 112009 Jeannette Parker (VDGIF) 29 112009 Jeannette Parker (VDGIF) 32 112009 Jeannette Parker (VDGIF) 33 112009 II Jeannette Parker (VDGIF) Center for Conservation Biology at IIType I Roost II Roost II Roost II Roost II Roost Summer Acipenser oxyrinchus Acipenser oxyrinchus Acipenser oxyrinchus !comments Count 54 Count 25 Count 32 Count 5 Count 3 EJI 2006 _ 20071 the College of William and Concentration Eagle_use MaryNirginia Commonwealth High University Area EJB Center for Conservation Biology at Summer 2006 _ 2007 the Coll~g~ ~f William and Concentration MaryN1rgmia Commonwealth Area University EJI 2006 _ 20071 Center for Conservation Biology at Winter the College of William and Concentration MaryNirginia Commonwealth Area University EJB Center for Conservation Biology at Winter 2006 _ 2007 the Coll~g~ ~f William and Concentration MaryNlfgmia Commonwealth Area University Bald Eagle Nests ( 25 records) View Map of All Ouerv Results Bald Eagle Nests II Eagle_use Moderate Eagle_use Low Eagle_use Moderate Yes Yes Yes I~ I~ II Yes I II Yes I II Yes I II Yes I B B B B __J
L::JIN Obsll Latest Date II DGIF IIView Mapl Nest Status l1woso2II 2 May 15 2005 HISTORIC II Yes !W0802 I 8 Apr 18 2011 Unknown II Yes IW9601 I 2 Apr 15 1996 HISTORIC Yes lsuo101 II 2 May 1 2001 HISTORIC Yes lsuo201 II 10 Mar 9 2008 UNKNOWN Yes lsuo,oJII 2 May 1 2002 HISTORIC Yes lsuo301 JI 2 May 1 2003 HISTORIC Yes lsu03osll 2 May 1 2003 HISTORIC Yes lsuo4o 111 13 Apr 16 2010 HISTORIC Yes lsuo402II 15 Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsuo403JI 15 Apr182011 UNKNOWN I Yes lsuoso1 II 14 Apr 18 2011 Unknown II Yes lsuos03 11 12 Mar 2 2011 UNKNOWN Yes lsuo701 JJ 10 Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsuo901 II 6 I Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsu1001 JI 4 JI Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsu1101 11 211 Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsu1102 11 2 JI Apr 18 2011 Unknown Yes lsus101 II 6 II May 8 1986 HISTORIC Yes lsu900,J 1 Jan 1 1990 HISTORIC Yes lsu9101 I 1 Jan 1 1991 HISTORIC Yes Jsu9,01 I 2 Jan 1 1993 HISTORIC Yes Jsu9202I 1 Jan 1 1992 HISTORIC Yes lsu96o411 19 II Mar9 2008 UNKNOWN Yes lsu9701 II 9 JJ Apr 24 2000 HISTORIC Yes Displayed 25 Bald Eagle Nests Species Observations ( 178 records - displaying first 97, 97 Observations with Threatened or Endangered species ) obsID class Date Observed Feb 10 IUSFWS 1998 Jan 13 1998 lusFWS Jan 13 1998 iusFWS Observer I I Serial No. 20-298, Page 175 of 1631 \\"ie\\\\ Man of All Ouen Results Species Obserrntions N Species View Different Highest Highest Map Species TE Tier I~~~
- =======:
,~~, Yes I
- =======:
I~~~
- =======: lrmll I
II Yes I
LJLJIJan 12 199811 163146 llsppObs II Nov 5 19971iusFWS 163144 llsppObs IINov 5 199711usFWS 163145 llsppObs II Nov 5 199711usFWS 163 IO I llsppObs II Nov 4 19971iusFWS 63102 1Spp0bs Nov 4 1997//usFWS 63103 /sppObs II Nov 4 199711USFWS 1631 os lisppObs II Nov 4 199711usFWS 163071 llsppObs II Nov 4 199711usFWS 163099 llsppObs IINov 4 19971iusFWS 163097 llsppObs IINov 4 1997llusFWS 163100 /lsppObs/l Nov 4 I99711USFWS 163109 llsppObs II Nov 4 199711usFWS 63142 /sppObs "Nov 3 199711USFWS 63133 /sppObs "Nov 2 1997/IUSFWS 163 132 llsppObs II Nov 2 199711usFWS 163 13 I llsppObs II Nov 1 1997/lusFWS 163129 llsppObs IINov 1 199711usFWS 163130 llsppObs IINov 1 199711usFWS 163091 /lsppObs I Oct 31 /usFWS 1997 163086 llsppObs 1 Oct 30 iusFWS 1997 63090 isppObs I Oct30 iusFWS 1997 63035 lsppObs I Oct 30 lusFWS 1997 II II II I I I I I I Serial No. 20-298, Page 176 of 1631
163137 IISppObs II Oct 3011USFWS 1997 163139 llsppObs 1 Oct 30 IUSFWS 1997 163085 llsppObs I Oct 29 IUSFWS 1997 163087 llsppObs I Oct 29 IUSFWS 1997 163089 llsppObs I Oct29 JusFWS 1997 163092 llsppObs 1 Oct29 lusFWS 1997 163088 llsppObs 1 Oct29 lusFWS 1997 163032 1\\sppObs I Oct28 lusFWS 1997 163033 llsppObs 1 Oct28 lusFWS 1997 16303 I \\lsppObs I Oct 28 lusFWS 1997 163028 1\\sppObs I Oct 27 JusFWS 1997 163025 llsppObs I Oct27 \\usFWS 1997 163027 \\lsppObs I Oct 27 JusFWS 1997 163084 llsppObs I Oct26 lusFWS 1997 163026 llsppObs 1 Oct26 lusFWS 1997 163019 \\\\sppObs I Oct 26 IUSFWS 1997 163020 llsppObs I Oct 26 IUSFWS 1997 163024 ilsppObs I Oct 26 IUSFWS 1997 163022 JJsppObs I Oct26 lusFWS 1997 163023 llsppObs I Oct26 lusFWS 1997 163021 IJsppObs I Oct 26 IUSFWS 1997 163082 \\lsppObs I Oct 25 lusFWS 1997 163081 llsppObs I Oct 25 lusFWS 1997 II II II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Serial No. 20-298, Page 177 of 1631 I I I I I I I I 0 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I I 1 I 10 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I 1 I II I
'SppObs II Oct 2511USFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 25 IUSFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 25 IUSFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 24 IUSFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 23 IUSFWS 1997 63059 lsppObs I Oct 23 iusFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 23 lusFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 22 lusFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct22 lusFWS 1997 JsppObs I Oct22 iusFWS 1997 JsppObs I Oct22 lusFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 22 IUSFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 22 IUSFWS 1997 63052 isppObs I Oct22 iusFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 22 iusFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 22 IUSFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 21 iusFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct21 iusFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 21 IUSFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct 21 IUSFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct 2111USFWS 1997 isppObs I Oct20 iusFWS 1997 lsppObs I Oct20 lusFWS 1997 I II II 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II Serial No. 20-298, Page 178 of 1631 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
163069 \\\\SppObs II Oct 201\\USFWS 1997 163070 llsppObs I Oct 20 jusFWS 1997 163046 llsppObs 1 Oct 12 IUSFWS 1997 1632 I 7 llsppObs I Oct 11 jusFWS 1997 163045 llsppObs 1 Oct 10 \\usFWS 1997 163044 llsppObs II Oct 7 l 99711usFWS 163056 llsppObs II Oct 6 l 99711usFWS 163055 llsppObs II Oct 6 l 997llusFWS 163065 llsppObs II Oct 4 l 99711usFWS 163066 llsppObs II Oct 4 l 9971iusFWS 163064 llsppObs II Oct 4 l 99711usFWS 163063 llsppObs II Oct 3 l 99711usFWS 163062 llsppObs II Oct 3 l 9971iusFWS 16306 I llsppObs II Oct 2 l 99711usFWS 163058 llsppObs 1 Sep 29 lusFWS 1997 16300 I llsppObs I Sep 29 lusFWS 1997 162997 llsppObs 1 Sep28 lusFWS 1997 162986 llsppObs 1 Sep24 jusFWS 1997 162995 llsppObs 1 Jul 18 1997 lusFWS 162988 llsppObs II 11~ 9~21jusFws 162998 llsppObs 1 May 19 jusFWS 1997 62990 lsppObs I Feb 15 jusFWS 1997 608471 lsppObs I May 13 IBryan; Watts 2010 II I I I Serial No. 20-298, Page 179 of 1631
Serial No. 20-298, Page 180 of 1631 LJ ISppObsl May2l CenterforConservation LJLJT LJLJ Yes 2009 Biology, College of William and Mary - VCU J29732 JJsppObs Jl= JJan= l =19=0o==lJ;,=JM=it=ch=el=l,=J.=C=.======nJJ===1===:JJ SS JJ III JJ Yes J Displayed 97 Species Observations Selected 178 Observations View all 178 Species Observations Habitat Predicted for Aquatic W AP Tier I & II Species ( 2 Reaches) View Mao Combined Reaches from Below of Habitat Predicted for WAP Tier I & II Agua tic S[!ecies Tier Species Stream Name Highest View TE BOVA Code, Status, Tier , Common & Scientific Name Map 81 FESE IG Sturgeon, Acipenser James River Atlantic oxyrinchus (20802061) 1010011 IDG Shiner, bridle Notropis bifrenatus James River 010032 FESE lb
- Sturgeon, Acipenser (20802061)
Atlantic oxyrinchus Habitat Predicted for Terrestrial W AP Tier I & II Species ( 4 Species ) \\'iew Map of Combined Terrestrial Habitat Predicted for 4 WAP Tier I & II Species Listed Below ordered by Status Concern for Conservation Yes Yes BOVA Status* Tier** Common Name Scientific Name View Code Map 030013 SE Ila Rattlesnake. canebrake 020044 ST Ila Salamander. Mabee's 030067 cc Ila Terra12in. northern diamond-backed 020063 Ila Toad. oak Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks ( 7 records) Crotalus horridus Yes Ambystoma mabeei Yes Malaclemys terrapin Yes terrapin Anaxyrus quercicus Yes View Map of All Quen* Results Virginia Breeding Bird Atlas Blocks Breeding Bird Atlas Species BBA ID Atlas Quadrangle Block Name
- View Map Different Species Highest TE Highest Tier J57052 JJ sacons Castle. NE 2
Yes J57051 JJsacons Castle, NW 27 III Yes 157064 II Hog Island, CE 56 II lives J57063 JJHog Island, CW 76 II JJYes 157062 II Hog Island. NE 105 II IIYes J57066 JJ Hog Island. SE 64 ST I JJYes II II II II II I
Serial No. 20-298, Page 181 of 1631 1157065 JJHog lsland, SW II 80 II II III J!Yes II Public Holdings: ( 2 names) Name I Agency IILeveII Hog Island Wildlife Management Area JvaDGlF ID I Chippokes Plantation State Park II VA Dept. of Conservation and Recreation II State I s ummary o fBOVA S 1pec1es A . t d
- th Cf ssoc1a e WI 1 1es an dC f
oun 1es o fth C e ommon wealth of Virginia: IFIPS Code!iCity and County Name Different Speciesllmghest TE Highest Tier 1093 II Isle of Wight 1095 !!James Cit\\ l1s1 l!su1-r\\* 1100 l!New12ort News Cit\\ USGS 7.5' Quadrangles: Bacons Castle Hog Island USGS NRCS Watersheds in Virginia: NIA 42111 FESE I 42011 FESE I 44511 FESE I 41611 FESE I USGS National 6th Order Watersheds Summary of Wildlife Action Plan Tier I, II, III, and IV s ipec1es: IHU6 Codell USGS 6th Order Hydrologic Unit l!mfferent SpeciesllHighest TEIIHighest Tier l1u3 l!James Ri\\'er-Lower Chi1212okes Creek ssll FESE II I JL35 j.James River-Skiffes Creek 98 11 FESE II I JL36 jLawnes Creek ss ll FTSE II I !JL37 IIJames Ri\\'er-Morrisons Creek 9s ll FESE II I Compiled on 10/9/2018. JO: 18:06 AM 1938432.0 repor1=all search Type"" R dist= 4827 poi= 37.10.00.7. 76.41.11.5 Pixe1Size=64: Anadromous=0.033256: BBA=0.088079: BECA R=0.040319: Bats=0.017709: Buffer=0.215834: County=0.11791: HU6=0.154228: lmpediments=0.019176: lnir-0.315292: PublicLands::Q.058024: Quad=-0.09954 7: SppObs=0.4 71526: TEWaters=0.058631: TierReaches=0.091 656: TierTerrestrial=0.1 71 83: Tota1=2.074833: Trad..ing_BOV A=0.204959: Trout=0.029068: huva=0.084928
Serial No. 20-298, Page 182 of 1631 Appendix D Engineering Calculations of Through-Screen Velocity
1-)~ Dominion Energy Inc. I Surry Power Station Through-Screen Velocity for Existing Traveling Water Screens Originator: Reviewer: Approver: Spencer Nush, EIT Wade Cope, PE Revision No. 0 Calculation Summary: Revised by: Approved by: I I I Estimated Throu h-Screen Veloci Estimated Through-Screen Velocity at Mean Low Water Estimated Through-Screen Velocity at Mean Sea Level 1 of 4 Serial No. 20-298, Page 183 of 1631 Description Units Unit 1 fps 3.15 fps 2.99 Revision* o Issue Date: 11/2/2018 Unit2 10/31/2018 11/1/2018 3.15 2.99
Serial No. 20-298, Page 184 of 1631 1-)~ Dominion Energy Inc. I Suriy Power Station Through-Screen Velocity for Existing Traveling Water Screens System
Description:
Surry Power Station is a two-unit nuclear-fueled power station located on the James River in Surry County, VA. The James River acts as a cooling water source for the nuclear power plant. Calculation
Purpose:
Calculate the design through-screen velocity at Dominion's Surry Power Station cooling water intake structure. Calculation Objectives:
- 1. Identify the screen physical parameters, and design intake flow rate.
- 2. Calculate the fraction of the screen open for water flow.
- 3. Calculate the design through-screen velocity under typical low water elevation/flow conditions, as well as normal and high water elevations/flow conditions.
Calculation Methodology: Formula 1 where: Formula 2 where: Formula 3 where: Formula 4 where: V :Q / (WD
- OA *TW* K)
Units:fps a = flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) V = through-screen velocity in feet per second (fps) WD = wetted screen depth in feet (ft) OA = proportion of screen open area to total screen area TW = nominal screen basket width (ft) K = 396 for through-flow screen or 7 40 for dual-flow screen OA: (W
- L) / ((W + D) * (L + d))
Units: unitless d = horizontal (shute) wire diameter in inches (in) D = vertical (warp) wire diameter (in) W = width of mesh opening (in) L = vertical length of mesh opening (in) EOA= pc
- oA Units: unitless EOA = proportion of effective open area PC = screen percent clean (%)
V.., = Q / (WD
- EOA *TW* K)
Units: fps Ven = effective through-screen velocity 2 of 4 Revision 0 Issue Date: 11/212018
1-)~ Design Inputs: Assumptions:
References:
Serial No. 20-298, Page 185 of 1631 Dominion Energy Inc. I Surry Power Station Through-Screen Velocity for Existing Traveling Water Screens Number of screens Plant datum Elevation at bottom of intake Mean Low Water Mean Sea Level Screen basket width Mesh size (L) Mesh size (W) Wire gauge type Vertical wire gauge number Vertical wire diameter Horizontal wire gauge number Horizontal wire diameter Screen percent clogged Number of circulating water pumps Circulating water pumps Name Plate Rating Unit 1 4 MSL -25.25 -1.3 0.0 14 0.125 0.500 W&M 14 0.08 14 0.08 0% 4 220,000 Unit 2 Units References 4 [1] MSL [2] -25.25 feet [2]
- 1.3 feet
[2] 0.0 feet [2] 14 feet (1] 0.125 inch [1] 0.500 inch (1] W&M Assumption 6 14 aauae Assumption 8 0.08 inch Assumption 8 14 aauae Assumption 8 0.08 inch Assumption 8 0% % Assumption 7 4 [1] 220,000 aom [1]
- 1. Water elevation inside screen house is same as in the source waterbody immediately outside the trash racks.
- 2. Intakes have not been modified since dates of references used.
- 3. All screens function similarly.
- 4. Flow rates are pump design maximum and are most conservative.
- 5. The constant in Formulae 1 and 4 include units conversion (gpm to cfs) and other screen factors.
- 6. Gauge type is Washburn and Moen or Steel Wire.
- 7. Screens are completely free of clogging, unless specified otherwise.
- 8. Vertical and horizontal wire gauge number are assumed to be 14 gauge.
- 9. It is assumed that the spray wash system draws water from the circulating water pumps.
[1] HOR. 2018. Surry Power Station 2015-2017 Entrainment Characterization Study Report [2] Virginia Power North Carolina Power. 2001. Arrgt Intake Structure Surry Power Station - Unit 1. Drawing No. 11448-FM-55B. Revision 9. 20 Jul 2001. [3] Virginia Power North Carolina Power. 1999. Intake Structure Trash Rack, Seal Plate & Details Surry Power Station. Unit 1. Drawing No. 11448-FC-9K. Revision 6. 3 Mar 1999. 3 of 4 Revision 0 Issue Date: 1112/2018
Dominion Energy Inc. I Surry Power Station 1-)~ Through-Screen Velocity for Existing Traveling Water Screens Calculations:
- 1. Screen Physical Parameters and Design Intake Flow Rate Given:
Unit 1 Unit 2 Units 880,000 880,000 gpm O,o1a1 = Q= D= d= L= 220,000 220,000 a om/screen W= WD= K= TW= PC= 0.08 0.08 0.125 0.500 24.0 396 14.0 100% 0.08 in 0.08 in 0.125 in 0.500 in 24.0 ft 396 14.0 ft 100%
- 2. Proportion of Effective Open Screen Area to Total Screen Area Formulae Used:
Formulae 3 and 4 Given: Screen parameters as above Calculate: Screen OA = (W
- L) / ((W + D) * (L + d)) =
EOA= PC* OA = Calculations: cont.
- 3. Design Through-screen Velocity Formulae Used:
Formula 4 Given: Screen parameters as above and calculated screen open area proportion Calculate: Ve11= Q/(WD
- EOA *TW
- K) =
4 of4 Unit 1 0.526 53% Serial No. 20-298, Page 186 of 1631 Revision 0 Issue Date* 11/212018 Unit 2 0.526 53%}}