Text

Proposal for Information Collection - North Anna Power Station Submittal for Agency Review and Comments on 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures
	ML051150244
Person / Time
Site:	North Anna
Issue date:	02/16/2005
From:	Faggert P; Dominion, Virginia Electric & Power Co (VEPCO)
To:	Bowden J; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, State of VA, Dept of Environmental Quality
References
	Download: ML051150244 (252)
	v • d • e

Pamela F.FaggertD Vice President and Chief Environmental Officer mi on Dominion 5000 Dominion Boulevard, Glen Allen, VA 23060 Phone: 804-273-3467 Certified Mail Return Receipt Requested February 16, 2005 Mr. John D. Bowden - Regional Deputy Director Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Northern Regional Office 13901 Crown Court Woodbridge, Va. 22193 Re: Proposal for Information Collection - North Anna Power Station Submittal for Agency Review and Comments 316(b) Cooling Water Intake Structures

Dear Mr. Bowden:

Dominion has prepared this Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) for North Anna Power Station in accordance with requirements set forth in EPA's Final Regulation to Establish Requirements for Cooling Water Intake Structures at Phase II Existing Facilities (40 CFR Part 125 Subpart J). In accordance with the rule and because North Anna Power Station is on a reservoir it is exempt from the entrainment requirement and only the impingement mortality reduction requirement is applicable.

Dominion will prepare the Comprehensive Demonstration Study citing credits for past, and ongoing restoration activities. As part of the CDS, appropriate cost benefit tests will be performed to verify that restoration efforts are already being employed at a level sufficient to meet the performance standard. For several key reasons that are explained more fully in the PIC, Dominion proposes to conduct no new technological, operational, restoration or impingement mortality biological studies for the North Anna Power Station and Lake Anna.

The reasons are summarized below.

The reservoir was constructed by Dominion in the early seventies to provide cooling water for the North Anna Power Station. Impingement studies conducted during the 1980s concluded that numbers were too low to have a significant biological impact on Lake Anna, a conclusion that was accepted by the Virginia State Water Control Board when the final study report was submitted in 1985. Significant time, effort and resources have been invested in monitoring of Lake Anna by the state and the Company over nearly 32 years and demonstrate a stable and productive fishery in Lake Anna.

A-Ol

Mr. John D. Bowden February 16, 2005 Page 2

Ongoing studies by Dominion and the VDGIF since the early 1970s have also documented the recovery of the North Anna River from a stream severely impacted by acid mine drainage to one sustaining a valuable smallmouth bass/largemouth bass fishery.

Dominion has constructed artificial fish structures to enhance fish habitat within Lake Anna. Striped bass and walleye are routinely stocked to enhance the warmwater recreational fishery, and Dominion has proactively stocked herbivorous sterile grass carp to control the spread of Hydrilla.

It is for these reasons that Dominion proposes no new technological, operational, restoration or impingement mortality biological studies for North Anna Power Station and Lake Anna in order to comply with the requirements of the 316(b) regulation. We do propose to continue the ongoing and joint management of the reservoir to maintain its optimal fisheries management. We will be contacting you to set a time to discuss your comments on this proposal. Please contact Joyce Livingstone at (804) 273-2985 or Bill Bolin of Dominion Electric Environmental Services with your questions at (804) 271-5304.

Sincerely, Pamela F. Faggert Attachments cc:

Mr. Mike Gregory - VDEQ 629 East Main Street Richmond, Va. 23219 Mr. Tom Faha - VDEQ Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Northern Regional Office 13901 Crown Court Woodbridge, Va. 22193 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II Atlanta Federal Center 61 Forsyth St., SW, Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303 RE: North Anna Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-338/50-339 License Nos. NPF-4/NPF-7

Mr. John D. Bowden February 16, 2005 Page 3 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 RE: North Anna Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-338/50-339 License Nos. NPF-4/NPF-7 Mr. M. S. King NRC Senior Resident Inspector (acting)

North Anna Power Station

'0Dominion Proposal for Information Collection Final Rule for Phase II Facilities Cooling Water Intake Structures NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Lb. ! 1 40 - * .4

- - 7. .- I~ - -Z February 8, 2005

OF Dominion PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION COLLECTION NORTH ANNA POWER STATION TABLE OF CONTENTS ATTACHMENT 1. Regulatory Requirements ATTACHMENT 2. Options to Be Evaluated ATTACHMENT 3. Economic Studies ATTACHMENT 4. List and Description of Historical Studies ATTACHMENT 5. Previous Impingement Study ATTACHMENT 6. Correspondence with Fish & Wildlife Agencies ATTACHMENT 7. Facility Fact Sheet - NORTH ANNA POWER STATION ATTACHMENT 8. Notes

DDominion ATTACHMENT 1.

FINAL RULE FOR PHASE II FACILITIES COOLING WATER INTAKE STRUCTURES REGULATORY OVERVIEW PROPOSAL FOR INFORMATION REQUIREMENTS Prepared by:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services January 31, 2005

Regulatory Overview and PIC Requirements 1.0 FinalRulefor Phase II Facilities- Cooling Water Intake Structures 1.1 Regulatory Overview On July 9, 2004, EPA published its final rule prescribing how "existing facilities" may comply with Section 316(b) of the Clean WaterAct. 69 Fed. Reg. 41575, 41683 (July 9, 2004). For most existing facilities, this rule will require a large amount of data to establish "best technology available" for the facility's intake structure and to demonstrate compliance with the rule.

Facilities that meet the definition of a "Phase II existing facility" within the meaning of 40 CFR 125.91 are required to comply with the Phase II rule, and in particular to submit the studies and information required by 40 CFR 125.95 to establish what intake structure technology or other measures will be used to comply with the rule. Ordinarily this material is to be submitted with the facility's next application for renewal of its NPDES permit. See 40 CFR 125.95, 122.21(r)(1)(ii), 122.21(d)(2). For permits that expire less than four years after the rule was published on July 9, 2004 (that is, before July 9, 2008),

the operator may have up to three and half years to submit the information, so long as it is submitted "as expeditiously as practicable." See 40 CFR 125.95(a)(2)(ii). The facility may have even longer, until the end of the permit term, under 40 CFR 122.21(d)(2)(i), if the permitting agency agrees.

According to 40 CFR 125.95(a)(1), the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) must contain the items listed in 40 CFR 125.95(b)(1). We are seeking your comments and agreement with this Proposal or your feedback of any needed changes within 60 days.

See 40 CFR 125.95(a)(1), 125.95(b)(1).

1

Regulatory Overview and PIC Requirements 1.2 Proposal for Information Collection (PIC) Requirements

§125.95(b)(1). Proposal For Information Collection. You must submit to the Director for review and comment a description of the information you will use to support your Study.

The Proposal for Information must be submitted prior to the start of information collection activities, but you may initiate such activities prior to receiving comment from the Director. The proposal must include:

(i) A description of the proposed and/ or implemented technologies, operational measures, and/or restoration measures to be evaluated in the Study; (ATTACHMENTS 2 & 3)

(ii) A list and description of any historical studies characterizing impingement mortality and entrainment and/or the physical and biological conditions in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structures and their relevance to this proposed Study. If you propose to use existing data, you must demonstrate the extent to which the data are representative of current conditions and that the data were collected using appropriate quality assurance/quality control procedures; (ATTACHMENTS 4 & 5)

(iii) A summary of any past or ongoing consultations with appropriate Federal, State, and Tribal fish and wildlife agencies that are relevant to this Study and a copy of written comments received as a result of such consultations; and (ATTACHMENT 6)

(iv) A sampling plan for any new field studies you propose to conduct in order to ensure that you have sufficient data to develop a scientifically valid estimate of impingement mortality and entrainment at your site. The sampling plan must document all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for sampling and data analysis. The sampling and data analysis methods you propose must be appropriate for a quantitative survey and include consideration of the methods used in other studies performed in the source waterbody. The sampling plan must include a description of the study area (including the area of influence of the cooling water intake structure(s)), and provide a taxonomic identification of the sampled or evaluated biological assemblages (including all life stages of fish and shellfish). (NOTE: New field studies are not proposed for North Anna Power Station. Refer to Attachment 2 for additional details.)

2

ki

.'I-4Dominion ATTACHMENT 2.

OPTIONS TO BE EVALUATED NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared by:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services Nuclear Engineering January 31, 2005

Options To Be Evaluated - North Anna OPTIONS TO BE EVALUATED Measures for which Dominion will seek credits - past, present, future Additional impingement and entrainment studies are not proposed for North Anna Power Station. The facility is exempt from requirements to conduct further entrainment studies because its water source is a freshwater lake. Additional impingement studies are not warranted for the following reason. The studies conducted during the 1980s (see Attachment 4), documented that relatively low numbers of fish were impinged, and that the species of fish impinged in the largest numbers were gizzard shad (an abundant forage fish). Studies by both Dominion and VDGIF conducted since the 1980s have indicated that the species composition of Lake Anna's fish community has not significantly changed. These facts indicate there is unlikely to be any difference in the relative impacts of impingement at Lake Anna from the 1980s to the present day. Because during the 1980s relatively few fish were impinged and those being impinged in the greatest numbers were numerous in the lake, the effects of impingement were considered relatively minor. The significant investment in time, effort and resources in quarterly monitoring of Lake Anna by the state and the Company over nearly 32 years, all of which demonstrate a stable and productive fishery in Lake Anna, preclude the need for any additional data collection.

Specifically, Dominion will seek credits for:

Transforming a severely damaged North Anna River ecosystem into a rich biological community and a thriving recreational fishing hotspot,

Past and ongoing ecological monitoring (30 + years) to document and protect the biological successional stages of the reservoir,

The previous 316(b) demonstration in 1985 that concluded the numbers were too low to have a significant biological impact on Lake Anna, a conclusion that was accepted by the Virginia State Water Control Board, and

Past and future support to the state resource agencies and lake community landowners by funding enhancement programs that promote ecological wellness so the reservoir can be utilized to the extent possible.

Background

In 1972, Virginia Electric and Power Company (Dominion) impounded the North Anna River creating Lake Anna, a 3885 hectare (9600 acre) reservoir that provides condenser cooling water for Dominion's North Anna Nuclear Power Station. Adjacent to Lake Anna is a 1376 hectare (3400 acre) Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTIF) that receives the cooling water and transfers excess heat from the water to the atmosphere before discharge into the lower reservoir.

2

Options To Be Evaluated - North Anna Dominion and the VDGIF have conducted a variety of environmental studies of Lake Anna, the WHTF and the lower North Anna River since the early 1970s (see Attachment 4).

Comprehensive environmental monitoring programs were conducted on the North Anna River prior to impoundment. The programs were continued after the lake was formed in order to follow the biological successional stages in the new reservoir. Hydrothermal modeling studies were conducted prior to construction and following the Nuclear Regulatory Commission issuing the Operating License for Unit 1 in November 1977, and Unit 2 in April 1980. Complementary biological monitoring studies were conducted through the construction and operational phases of project development, and have continued through the project's recent relicensing in March 2003. In brief, these studies documented the recovery of the North Anna River from a stream severely impacted by acid mine drainage to one sustaining a valuable smallmouth bass/largemouth bass fishery, and the establishment of a productive largemouth bass fishery in Lake Anna supplemented by stocked striped bass and walleye. Measures of biological diversity and balance have remained relatively stable through the 1990s and early 2000s.

Of particular interest are the impingement studies conducted at the North Anna Power Station cooling water intake structure during the early to mid 1980s (see Attachment 5).

Weekly data were collected from 1978 through 1983. Impingement estimates ranged from 4.6 x 104 in 1979 to 5.8 x 105 fish in 1983. Gizzard shad, a forage species in the lake, was numerically dominant in the impingement sampling programs. The conclusion of the study was the impingement numbers were too low to have a significant biological impact on Lake Anna, a conclusion that was accepted by the Virginia State Water Control Board when the final study report was submitted in 1985.

In 1983 Dominion began a comprehensive 316(a) demonstration on Lake Anna and the North Anna River. With the successful completion of this demonstration in 1986 it was agreed to continue annual biological studies of Lake Anna and the North Anna River. These biological surveys consist of electrofishing, gill netting and temperature monitoring. These surveys are conducted quarterly and summarized in an annual report beginning in 1987 and continuing through 2004. These reports have consistently indicated a healthy and balanced biological community exists in both Lake Anna and the North Anna River.

Dominion has also enhanced fish habitat within Lake Anna by use of artificial fish structures.

During the 1980s the company constructed 20 fish structures in Lake Anna that required approximately 36,000 cinderblocks, 132 hardwood treetops and 414 cedar trees. The company produced a brochure that it distributed to the public showing the location of each structure and the materials that went into its construction. More recently, Dominion has worked with the VDGIF to coordinate volunteer efforts to construct and install commercially 3

Options To Be Evaluated - North Anna produced plastic fish structures. In the early 1990s using the artificial structures 9 additional locations were constructed and marked on the lake. Since the installation of these stations the refurbishing of the fish structures has continued annually by a volunteer group of fishing guides on the lake, lake property owners and businesses around the lake with guidance from VDGIF and Dominion.

Fish stocking is another fisheries management tool that has been put to productive use. As noted previously, striped bass and walleye are routinely stocked in Lake Anna to enhance the warmwater fishery. Since 1993, 1.6 million striped bass and 2.3 million walleye fry or fingerlings have been stocked in Lake Anna by the VDGIF. In the early 1990s the nuisance aquatic plant Hydrilla verticulata was introduced to Lake Anna and rapidly expanded. The company responded in 1994 by stocking 6,200 triploid grass carp, a sterile herbivorous fish in the WHTF that has effectively controlled Hydrilla in Lake Anna. The company, in consultation with the VDGIF, has also employed stocking in the lower North Anna River.

Smallmouth bass fry were experimentally stocked in the river near the Lake Anna Dam in the mid 1980s. Monitoring in subsequent years documented an increase in smallmouth bass abundance in the river that was believed to be at least partially due to this stocking.

4

Oh IDominion ATTACHMENT 3.

ECONOMIC STUDIES Benefits Valuation Study Cost-Benefit Comparison Cost-Cost Comparison Prepared for:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, VA 23060 Prepared by:

Triangle Economic Research 2775 Meridian Parkway Durham, NC 27713 January 31, 2005

Economic Studies The Comprehensive Demonstration Study may include requests for site-specific 316(b) determinations based on the criteria of Alternative 5, EPA's national benefits analysis, and generally accepted biological, statistical, and economic methods. Section 1 will describe the Benefits Valuation Study (BVS) methodologies that may be used.

Section 2 will describe the determination of "significantly greater" in a cost-benefit comparison and outline an appropriate approach. Section 3 will provide a general description of the application of the cost-cost test.

1. BENEFITS VALUATION STUDY According to EPA's Final 316(b) Rule for Phase II facilities (The Rule), the Benefits Valuation Study (BVS) must use a comprehensive methodology to value the impacts of complying with 316(b) performance standards. There is also the potential that a peer-review could be required.

The Rule requires that the BVS include a description of the methodologies used to value commercial, recreational, and ecological/nonuse benefits, documentation of assumptions, uncertainty analysis, and a description of any non-monetized benefits including a qualitative assessment of their magnitude and significance. Thus, for all situations, it will be important to describe the approach for calculating use (recreational and commercial) and nonuse (or ecological) benefits estimation and conducting uncertainty analysis.

This section will also provide text on developing annual impingement with sample data, evaluating population and yield impacts from annual impingement estimates, accounting for catch timing impacts with discounting, estimating commercial fishing benefits, estimating recreational angling benefits, evaluating nonuse impacts, and incorporating uncertainty into the analysis. The intent is to provide a set of methods that are appropriate for most situations, allowing straightforward presentation of study plans that are commensurate with requirements.

Economic Methods

2. COST-BENEFIT COMPARISON APPROACH BVS-based compliance requires a demonstration that compliance costs at a facility are "significantly greater" than benefits. In developing the Final Rule, EPA does not provide specific guidance on the exact nature of this comparison, the determination of "significantly greater", and the role of uncertainty in this determination. The EPA's extensive efforts to measure economic benefits indicates support for conclusions that are based on economic theory. The potential for peer-review of BVS also indicates a potential for economic decision-making. The EPA's requirement of sensitivity analysis of BVS' and phrasing of "significantly greater" support decision-making based on statistical criteria. However, the EPA's mandate supports the primacy of environmental issues in decision-making. For these reasons, the discussion of "significant difference" will be based on economic concepts and statistical methods with the understanding that protection of the environment is preferred.

3. COST-COST COMPARISON APPROACH The 316(b) "cost-cost" test will potentially allow for reduced performance requirements based on a determination that the costs of achieving the Final Rule's performance goals at a given facility are "significantly greater" than the cost EPA has estimated.

EPA developed costs for each facility using one of 13 technical costing modules.

Based on information EPA received from the Phase II facilities in the Detailed/Short Technical Questionnaire, EPA assessed whether each facility, as currently configured, is likely to meet the relevant impingement mortality performance goals. EPA has assumed that one of 13 technological approaches will allow the facility to achieve 316(b) compliance. The technology selection is based on the performance goals, the water body type, the gross configuration of the intake, and the cooling water flow rate.

EPA has also estimated the costs associated with installation of this technology with some consideration of site-specific factors. Costs associated with permitting and performance monitoring are not considered in the cost-cost test.

iO Dominion ATTACHMENT 4.

LIST AND DESCRIPTION OF HISTORICAL STUDIES NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared by:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services January 31, 2005

List and Description of Historical Studies - North Anna NORTH ANNA POWER STATION - Lake Anna Anna Point Marina Fishing Report - http://www.annapoint.com/fishing.htm Barton, J. 1984. Water Quality Characteristics of a Thermally-Influenced Virginia Reservoir, Lake Anna, Related To Eurhythmic And Mesothermic Species Preferences. International Symposium Proceedings - North American Lake Management Society.

Dominion. 2004. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site (NUREG-181 1). Prepared for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Dominion. 2001. North Anna Power Station, License Renewal Application, Appendix E Environmental Report. Submitted to US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

High Point Marina Fishing Report - http://www.highpointmarina.com/fishing.html Lake Anna Fishing Report - http:llwww.lakeannabuzz.com/recreation/fishing.htm Lake Anna: A Twelve Month Fishery - http://www.lakeannaonline.con/Fishing.html McCotter, C.C.. Stripers or Lake Anna. http:llwww.lakeannaonline.com/articles.html#program K> Odenkirk, J. July 2003. SCUBA Evaluation of Habitat Structures in Lake Anna, Virginia. Virginia Wildlife. http://wtviv.vabass.comn/Features/2003/Jily.htmn Odenkirk, J. March 2001 - DJ Grant F-111-R-9, Project I. Large impoundment investigations: Lake Anna.

Odenkirk, J. March 2002- DJ Grant F-111-R-10. Large impoundment investigations: Lake Anna.

Odenkirk, J. March 2002, Lake Anna Fisheries Management Report - Federal Aid priject - F111-R11.

Reed, J. R., Jr. and Associates. 1979. Annual Report - January 1, 1978 - December 31, 1978 -

Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia.

Reed, J. R., Jr. and Associates. 1980. Annual Report - January 1, 1979 - December 31, 1979 -

Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia.

Reed, J. R., Jr. and Associates. 1981. Annual Report - January 1, 1980 - December 31, 1980 -

Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia.

Reed, J. R., Jr., and G. M. Simmons, Jr. 1976. Pre-Operational Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia - Final Report - March 1972-December 1975. 6 Volumes.

2

List and Description of Historical Studies - North Anna Saunders, James F. 1975. A Study of the Zooplankton Communities of Lake Anna, 1973-74.

Thesis. VPI&SU. Blacksburg, Virginia.

Simmons, G. M., Jr. 1977. Pre-Operational Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia - Annual Report - 1976.

Simmons, G. M., Jr. 1978. Pre-Operational Environmental Study of Lake Anna, Virginia - Annual Report - 1977.

Smith, J. 2004. Fish Structure Enhancement Program. www.lakeannaonline.comfarticles.html#program Sturgeon Creek Marina Fishing Report - http://www.sturgeoncreekmarina.com/fishingreport.htm Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries. 2003. Lake Anna Annual report.

http://www.dgif.state.va.us/fishing/lakes/lake anna/documents/lakeannareportL2003-)0 I.pdf Virginia Power. 1983. Section 316(a) Demonstration Study Plan of Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River.

Virginia Power. 1986. Section 316(a) demonstration for North Anna Power Station. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1987. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1986. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1988. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1987, includes summary of 1986-1988, Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1989. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1988. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1990. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1989. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1991. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1990, includes summary of 1989-1991, Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1992. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1991. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1993. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1992, includes summary of 1992-1994, Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1994. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1993. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

3

List and Description of Historical Studies - North Anna Virginia Power. 1995. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1994. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1996. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar year 1995. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1997. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1996, includes summary of 1995-1997, Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1998. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1997. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 1999. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1998. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 2000. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River.

Annual report for calendar 1999, includes summary of 1998-2000, Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Virginia Power, Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Power. 2003. North Anna Early Site Permit Application Part 3-Environmental Report.

http./Iwww.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/new-licensing-fileslnaesp-60.pdf Biological Communities of Lake Anna, North Anna Early Site Permit Application.

4

iDominion ATTACHMENT 5.

PREVIOUS IMPINGEMENT STUDY - 1985 NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared by:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services

IMPINGEMENT STUDY FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION 1978 - 1983 Prepared by:

Water Quality Department Virginia Power P. 0. Box 26666 Richmond, Virginia 23261 May, 1985

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page List of Tables . . ... . . . . . .. . . . . .

..

i

. . . . l ..

List of Figures .. . . . . *.- . . e' 1 Executive y . . . . . . . . . .

1.0 Introduction . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.0 Site and Environmental Description . . . . . . . * . .

2.1 Physical and Hydrological-'Characteristics . . . . . . . -

2.2 Limnetic"Characteristics ;. .-. . . . . . . .

.... . . 14 3.0 Station Description . . . . . 0 . . . . . 31 3.1 Location and General Site Featuires .. . .. . .. 0

. . . . . 31 3.2 Heat Exchanger-Components-,. .-. * . . *

0 . . . . . 31 3.3 Intake Structure * * * * .-. *

I

. . * * * . .* 33 4.0 Station Operation History * . . ,. . . . . * . * .

5.0 Methods and Materials . . . . . . . . . . 46 5.1 Impingement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

.8*.*

5.2 Entrainment .

. 0. * . 0

. . . . . 47 6.0 Results and Discussion *.* . . . 49 6.1 Impingement . . . . . . 49 6.2 Entrainment . . * * * . * . . . . . .. . 84 7.0 Impact Assessment . . 106 7.1 Impingement . . . . . . . . . 106 7.2 Entrainment . . . . . . . . . 116 8.0 Summary . . . . .. . . . . . . . 122 Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . 127

... . !. I . .,- ,I, Appendix A - Summary'of Nrth Anna;Environmenta Reot

. 1 I- - . 133 Appendix B - Technical Specifications for Station Components . . . . . 138 i ..

List of Tables I

Table Number Title Page Table 3.3.1 Intake water velocities measured at each bay 0 34 during two-unit operation, 9/30/81.

Table 4.0.1 Suimmary of combined power levels, combined 39 pumping capacity, air temperature recorded at Byrd Airport, Richmond, Virginia, and surface intake water temperatures at Endeco NALINT by month for the study years, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.1 The total catch, percent and estimated catch of 61 fishes impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.2 The number and weight (gms.) of individuals for 64 selected fish species and totals for other species impinged at North Anna Power Station by sample date, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.3 Estimated numbers and weights, average length and 75 average'weight for selected fish species and totals for other species impinged during 1978-1983 at North Anna Power Station.

Table 6.1.4 Mean seasonal impingement estimates by species, 76 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.5 Length-frequencies'and percent of Dorosoma 77 cepedianum impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.6 Length-frequencies and percent of Poxomis 77 nigromaculatus impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.7 Length-frequencies and percent of Perca- 77 flavescens impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.1.8 Length-frequencies and percent of Lepomis - 78 macrochirus impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

ii .i

Table Number Title Page Table 6.1.9 Length-frequencies and percent of Morone 78 americana impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.1 The total catch and percent of fish larvae . 89.

entrained at North Anna Power Station during 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.2 Larvae entrained during sample dates at 90 North Anna Power Station during 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.3 Total larvae collected'by year and sample 99 time at North Anna Power:Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.4 Total larvae collected by species and sample .100 time at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.5 -Total larvae collected by species and sample 101 depth at North Anna .Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.6

Total larvae collected by year and sample .102 depth at North Anna':Power Station, 1978-1983.

Table 6.2.7

Estimates and~associated-95% confidence limits 103 for larvae entrained .1978-1983 at North Anna Power Station.

Table 7.1.1 Impact assessment summary for selected species, 114 "comparing average annual impingement rates with average annual-'standing crop, average fecundity and creel estimates whe'n available, at'North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

_.__Table 7.1.2 _ .~~Lake~ Anna fingeling

_nr!..k in stocking history 1972-1983.

'_ 115 Table 7.2.1 Results of the equivalent adult analysis of 120

entrainment dataiat North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983. ' <

I..

- Q^, i.

I jif-I- -.

F C -.

iii

U-List of Figures Figure Number Title Page Figure 2.1.1 Map of the Lake Anna Reservoir and Waste Heat 11 Treatment Facility.

Figure 2.1.2 York River Basin. 12 Figure 2.1.3 Geologic map of the Piedmont Province in the 13 vicinity of the North Anna Power Station.

Figure 2.2.1 Daily mean water temperatures (0 C) for, 1978 from 16 intake Endeco NALINT.

Figure 2.2.2 Daily mean water temperatures (IC)for 1979 from 17 intake Endeco NALINT.

Figure 2.2.3 Daily mean water temperatures (IC)for 1980 from 18 intake Endeco NALINT..

Figure 2.2.4 Daily mean water temperatures (0C) for 1981 from 19 intake Endeco NALINT.

Figure 2.2.5 Daily mean water temperatures (0 C) for 1982 from 20 intake Endeco NALINT.

Figure 2.2.6 Daily mean water temperatures (IC)for 1983 from 21 intake Endeco NALINT.

Figure 2.2.7 Annual temperature'and dissolved oxygen cycles by 22 month at the intake station, and corresponding North Anna Power Station operation, 1978.

Figure 2.:

2.8 Annual temperature and dissolved oxygen cycles by 23 month at the intake station, and corresponding North Anna Power Station operation, 1979.

Figure 2.:

2.9 Annual temperature and dissolved oxygen cycles by 24 month at the intake station, and corresponding North Anna Power Station operation, 1980.

Figure 2.2.10 Annual temperature and dissolved oxygen cycles by 25 month at the intake station, and corresponding North Anna Power Station operation, 1981.

Figure 2.2.11 Annual temperature and dissolved oxygen cycles by 26 month at the intake station, and corresponding North Anna Power Station operation, 1982.

iv

Figure Number _Title Page XJ -

Figure 2.2.12 Annual temperature and dissolved oxygen cycles by 27 month at the'ifitAkestation, and corresponding North Anna Power Station-operation, 1983.

Figure 2.2.13 Annu'al N0-NWmeansljor Lake Anna since 1972. '28 Figure 2.2.14 Annual NH3-N means for Lake'Anna since 1972. 29 Figure 2.2.15 .Annual-T-P04-P means for"Lake Anna since 1972. 30 Figure 3.1.1 Intake cove to the North Anna Power Station. 35 Figure 3.2.1 Diagramnratic'representation of the steam-electric 36 and waste-heat-dissipation system for the North Anna Power Station.

Figure 3.3.1 Intake bay withKtrash rake, traveling.screen and 37 circulating water pump.

Figure 4.0.1 NorthAnna Unit1,daiily'power level (%) and 41 circulating water pump operation for 1978.

Figure 4.0.2 North Anna Unitlf.daily power level (X)and 41 circulating water-pump operation for 1979.

Figure 4.0.3 North Anna Unit 1,daily power level (%) and 42 circulating watir.'pumpoperation for 1980.

Figure 4.0.4 North Anna Unit 2 daily power level (%) and 42 circulating water pump operation for 1980.

Figure 4.0.5 North Anna Unit 1 daily power level (%) and 43 circulating water pump operation for 1981.

Figure 4.0.6 North Anna Unit 2 daily power level (%) and 43 circulating water pump operation for 1981.

Figure 4.0.7 North Anna Unit 1 daily power level (%) and 44 circulating water pump operation for 1982.

Figure 4.0.8 North Anna Unit 2 daily power level (%)and 44 circulating water pump operation for 1982.

Figure 4.0.9 North Anna Unit 1 daily power level (%)and 45 circulating water pump operation for 1983.

Figure 4.0.10 North Anna Unit 2 daily power level (X)and 45 circulating water pump operation for 1983.

V

ffi VI Figure Number Title Pa4e Figure 5.2.1 Typical intake structure showing entrainment 48 sample locations.

Figure 6.1.1 Length-frequency distribution of Pomoxi s 79 nigromaculatus impinged at North Anna Power Station, 17-1983.

Figure 6.1.2 Length-frequency distribution of Dorosoma 80 cepedianum impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Figure 6.1.3 Length-frequency distribution of Perca flavescens 81 impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Figure 6.1.4 Length-frequency distribution of Lepomis 82 macrochirus impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Figure 6.1.5 Length-frequency distribution of other fish 83 impinged at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Figure 6.2.1 Total entrainment catch per pump of selected 104 abundant species at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Figure 6;2.2 Estimated total number of fish larvae entrained 105 per year at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

vi

1

; EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

The following report:'surmarizes and analyzes impingement and entrainment data collected fromitheecooling water'intake structure (CWIS) of Virginia Power's North Anna P6wer 'Station located-on Lake Anna, in Louisa County, Virginia. Included are datascbllected weekly from early 1978 through 1983. In addition to impingement and entrainment data, the report includes a description of the site,'station-*and operating history. Analyses of the data appear to demonstrate'-from a-holisticapproach that the biological-impact of impingement'and entrainment is having a;minimal impact on the ecosystem of Lake Anna.

In 1972, Virginia Power impounded the North Anna River creating Lake Anna, resulting in a 3885 hectarec (9600 acres) reservoir that -provides condenser cooling water for its North Anna Power Station and a 1376 hectare (3400 acre) Waste Heat Treatment'Fc'ility'that receives the cooling water and transfers the' heat from the water totthe-atmosphere before discharge into the reservoir. Lake Anna is 27 km (17 illes) long with over 438 km (272 miles) of shoreline and is located in'Louisa;.Spotsylvania and Orange Counties within the Piedmont province of Virginia7! No~fnal1lake elevation' is 76.2 m (250 feet) above sea level and the mean'depth is approximately 8m. - From its inception, Lake Anna was designed as:a-multipurpose facility to accommodate both the power

-station and recreational users.- When'flooded, the'rolling terrain'of the-North Anna River valley'created a dendritic lake with countless coves :and. fingers.

Shoreline development of permanent and iacation homes soon followed, along with development of several marinas 'andfrcampgrounds. A state 'park is under development 'using Lake Anna" ass-its keystone. Abandoned roadbeds were left er'

2 intact to serve, where accessible, as paved boat ramps. Clearcutting the lake bottom prior to filling has resulted in acres of water safe for skiers, power boaters and sailboaters. The Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries recognized Lake Anna's multiple use potential and began a management plan by stocking several species of fish. The result to date has been the creation of a lake with ever-increasing popularity for sport-fishermen.

The North Anna Power Station consists of two nuclear units with a total design rating of 2,910 Mgt. Commercial operation for Unit 1 began in June 1978; Unit 2 became commercial in December 1980. Eight circulating water pumps (4 pumps/Unit), each rated at 13.9 m3/s, are located at the intake structure. The once-through cooling water system is filtered by a single rotating traveling screen (9.5 mm mesh) in front of each pump. The nominal temperature change across the condensers is 7.80C.

Impingement estimates, representing 34 species, ranged from 4.6 x 104 in 1979 to 5.8 x 105 in 1983. Entrainment estimates within five dominant species ranged from a total of 8.4 x 107 fish larvae in 1982 to 2.5 x 108 in 1981. As supported in text discussions, these numbers are considered too low to have a significant biological impact on Lake Anna. No fish eggs were entrained during the study as all reproducing fish species in Lake Anna are nest builders and/or have adhesive eggs. Gizzard shad, yellow perch, black crappie, bluegill and white perch were the most commonly impinged and entrained fishes. Gizzard shad, a forage species in the lake, numerically dominated the collections by representing over 60% of the total in both CWIS sampling programs. Total impingement and entrainment rates generally have declined over the study period due primarily to the reduction in gizzard shad collection numbers. In contrast, white perch collection numbers have increased over the

3 period and match the increase in the size of adult white perch samples from the lake. Generally, fluctuations in the impingement and entrainment rate have closely followed population densities as reported by cove rotenone studies.

Black crappie, a popular panfish, was the second most commonly impinged species with an average annual impingement number of 28,437 compared to an average of 116,646 for gizzard shad from 1979-1983. Estimated annual creel numbers of black crappie were always higher than impingement numbers.

The percentage of small crappie (<100 mm) impinged has decreased since 1978, supporting the premise of a declining population which is consistent with other biological data. This population decline could possibly reflect a natural cyclic trend of the species or it possibly could be attributed to the lack of preferred habitat in the lake. Results of cove rotenone studies in 1984 have indicated a slight increase in the black crappie standing crop.

A comparison of impingement numbers to standing crop estimates of the lake indicated that the percentage of the population affected by impingement is very low. The average percentage of the gizzard shad standing crop that was removed annually by impingement was 0.38% by number and 0.32% by weight. For crappie, percentages averaged 3.1%. (number) and 3.8% (weight). Values for other species were less than 1.0%. As generally found in new reservoirs, Lake Anna exhibited an initial high fish abundance during 1973 and 1974 followed by a decline in succeeding years. Since 1978, the mean standing crop of fishes in Lake Anna has remained relatively stable. The first station unit did not become operational until mid-1978; therefore, it seems apparent from standing crop comparisons that impingement from the power station has not caused significant reductions or fluctuations IVa; art in the fish community.

4 A significantly greater number of fish (75% of the total) were impinged during the winter season. Lower water temperatures during the winter months tend to make fishes sluggish and therefore more susceptible to impingement. Water velocities recorded in front of the CWIS were less than 0.2 m/sec, and therefore, nearly all fish appear to be able to avoid the intake screens during other seasons. There is some evidence that fish in poorer condition during warmer seasons may be more susceptible to entrapment at the CWIS.

Goodyear's Equivalent Adult Analysis Model was used to determine the impact of entrainment on the Lake Anna fishery. It provided a conservative estimate of entrainment impact because of the moderate biological assumptions used in the analysis. The result of the model analysis indicated the percent cropping from the lake fish populations by the power station varied among years and species. Values ranged from a low of 0.01% (black crappie in 1978 and 1979 and sunfishes in 1982) to a high of 4.13% (gizzard shad in 1980). These values when compared with other studies are considered less than any that could cause a significant impact on the Lake Anna fishery.

Natural compensation, which forms an integral, if not the underlying foundation of modern fish management, should offset any individual losses from impingement and entrainment. The principle of compensation or the capacity of a population to ameliorate, in whole or in part, reductions in numbers is an operant reality for fish populations subjected to exploitation whether by the sport fishery, natural predators or impingement and entrainment. In general, when individuals, particularly larvae and juveniles, are removed from a population, the reproductive, survival and growth rates among the remaining individuals tend to increase. In this manner the sheer numbers of individuals

5 impinged or entrained by the NorthAnna CWIS are not necessarily indicative of adverse environmental impact. This report demonstrates by comparing data from other biological programs and by the use of a model that the effects of impingement.and entrainment at the CWIS of North Anna Power Station are minimal and do not seem to adversely affect the fish populations of Lake Anna.

'1*,

, I

6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The cooling water intake structure (CWIS) at an electric generating station is one area where contact between the environment and the power station is most evident. The environmental influences of operation are readily observable here because they are primarily physical in nature. In a once-through cooling system, a relatively large volume of water is.utilized to condense the steam that is produced to turn the electric turbines. This water is pumped from a source, such as a lake or river, by a circulating water pump (CWP). Intake screens in front of the CWP's at power stations (usually 9.5 mm mesh) filter the water and provide protection to the cooling system from damage and clogging. Two fundamental biological effects at CWIS's are impingement, the entrapment of organisms in front of the screens, and entrainment, the passage of organisms through the intake water system.

Some of the fish that are too large to pass through the intake screen mesh may stay in front of the screens and eventually will tire and become impinged. Screens are periodically cleaned using a spray wash system and the impinged fish washed from the screens are either discarded or returned to the waterway. Observed and/or latent mortality of these fish may approach 100%,

although some CWIS modifications at power stations have been designed to mitigate the environmental influence (White and Brehmer 1976; Scotton and Anson 1977; Schneeberger and Jude 1981; Zeitoun et al. 1981; and Hadderingh 1982). The number of fishes impinged is a function of many variables (water temperature, intake design, etc.) and the significance of the numbers should be evaluated only with reference to the particular site in question. Entrainment refers to those organisms that are smaller than the screen mesh and pass through the cooling system. The degree of mechanical, thermal and chemical

7 activity within the cooling system is the key factor in determining survival rates (Ecological Analysts, Inc. 1977). Entrainment can result in a reduction in the ichthyoplankton (fish ,eggs and larvae) population, which in effect, is similar to an increase in natural predation. Predation and other mortality causes affecting larval populations are important factors in determining the stability of the adult fishery stock and its recruitment success.

Considerable information on impingement and entrainment has been published. Four national workshops have been held and proceedings have been printed listing various methodologies, program results, impact assessments, design modifications and survival restimates for many site locations in the country [held 1972, 1973, 1976, 1977; Loren P. Jensen, Editor; available through either Electric Power Research.Institute (EPRI), Palo Alto, California; or EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., Melville, N. Y. (formerly Ecological Analysts, Inc.)]. Also EPRI has published several annotated bibliographies on- impingement and entrainment (EPRI, EA-1049 1979; EPRI, EA-1050 1979; EPRI, EA-1855 1981).

!* r': '..

The main objective of biological studies at intakes is to obtain sufficient information to determine if the technology selected by the industry is the best available to minimize adverse environmental impact (EPA 1976). A guidance manual has been developed by EPA to assist industry in evaluating the potential adverse impact of cooling water intake structures (EPA 1977).

Generally, regulatory agencies have recognized that a certain degree of influence at intakes can be acceptable and that each case must be evaluated on a site specific basis.

~~11_

Impact assessment from a biological standpoint should be related to the total effect on the ecosystem and not solely on numbers impinged or entrained. This holistic approach allows scientists to consider the resiliency of biological systems from imposed perturbations. The present stability of an ecosystem and the extent of introduced stress to the system are important considerations in the final analysis of total effect on the environment (Zeitoun et al. 1980).

This impingement and entrainment report covers work conducted from 1978-1983 in accordance with Section 316(b) of Public Law 92-500 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, and in compliance with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Environmental Technical Specifications (Section 5.6.1.1) for North Anna Power Station (Docket Nos. 50-338 and 50-339), and the Virginia State Water Control Board's NPDES Permit No. VA0052451 under Special Conditions: Environmental Studies. The sampling program conducted and the amount of data available for analysis, as submitted in this report, should allow for a holistic evaluation of the environmental influence of the North Anna Power Station intake structure on Lake Anna, Virginia. A 100% mortality of impinged fish and entrained ichthyoplankton is assumed in this study, representing a worst case estimate of cropping by the power station.

9 2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESCRIPTION 2.1 Physical and Hydrological Characteristics The Lake Anna dam (latitude 38°42'10", longitude 77042s39H) was closed by Virginia Power in 1972 impounding 53 km of the North Anna River basin (Figure 2.1.1). This created a reservoir source of cooling water for the North Anna Power Station and a smaller Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF). Both of these bodies of water share the burden of dissipating waste heat from the power station to the atmosphere though the major portion is dissipated within the WHTF. Lake Anna has since been utilized to a large extent by the public for recreation and is being considered for hydroelectric power production.

- . ,.I ,

Lake Anna has a surface area of 38.85 km2 (9600 acres), a volume of 3.0 x 10 m and an average depth of 7.6 m. The maximum depth at the dam is 24

m. The WHTF has a surface area of 13.76 km2 (3400 acres), a volume of 7.5 x 10 73 m3, an average depth of 5.5 m and ].Ia maximum depth of 15 m in the vicinity of the dikes. The average annual inflow to the lake is about 7.6 m3/s and lake level is maintained by three radial gates in the dam and two near-surface skimmers. The minimum allowable discharge to the river is 1.1 m /s but the annual discharge averages 6.2 mrls.' The annual average evaporation from the lake surface is estimated to be 1.7 m /s. The design elevation of the lake is 76.2 m (250 feet) above mean sea level; the highest recorded lake level during the study period was 76.5 m (251.0 ft.) (January 28, 1976) and the lowest recorded level was 75.4 m (247.4 ft.) (October 24-25, 1977).

Lake Anna is 27 km (17 miles) long with over 438 km (272 miles) of shoreline and is located in Louisa, Spotsylvania and Orange Counties. It is in

10 the headwaters of the York River and drains 888 km2 (York River drainage = 6889 km2) (Figure 2.1.2). A tributary reservoir, Lake Anna is typified by a relatively small drainage area/surface area ratio (22.9) and a long hydraulic retention time (465 days). The efficiency of a water system to process and trap organic input is critically dependent on the length of the retention time.

Reservoirs with long retention times are generally dominated by autochthonous production.

This lake basin is characterized by igneous and metamorphic rock underlayments (Figure 2.1.3) that typically produce soft to moderately hard sodium bicarbonate water. Iron is often present in troublesome amounts in groundwater, along with sulfides and acidic conditions. Three inactive pyrite mines and mining spoils piles (0.12 denuded km2) are contributing high concentrations of dissolved metals and acid leachate to Contrary Creek, which drains 60 km2 of Louisa County and discharges into Lake Anna 3 km upstream from the power station. The average annual flow of Contrary Creek is 0.2 m3 /s where it empties into Lake Anna.

The effects of acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek were evident for several miles downstream prior to the impoundment of Lake Anna. However, the reservoir has ameliorated the negative effects of peak pollutants downstream from the dam by diluting the influent.

- x- -

t 'D (7

Orange Co.

LAKE ANNA PAM UNKEY 612 CREEK

.I Rl Spotsylvonta Co.

NOR t-

.ANNA R; RIVERA.

'%.N

. C

,^.Washinglon, DC Loul'sa CO.

Lake Anna -

Richmond, Va.

CONTRARY CREEK-DAM 2 KM

.:0:::Waste H eat Treatment Facility NORTH 2 MILES

'ANNA RIVER FIGURl E 2. 1 .1 . MAP OF THE LAKE AURA RESERVOIR ANf WASTE HEAT TREATMENT FACILITY.

( (. (.

YORK RIVER BASIN SELECTED STREAMS VA.

-W. MD.

KY.

.N.C,

. .'..,4$f :...'.

) a .8t, ; ......

1. YORK RtVER

2. *MATTAPONIRIVER

3. PAMUNKEY RIVER

4. NORTH ANNA RIVER

5. SOUTH ANNA RIVER CONTRARY CREEK -

,1 S.

SCALE . WiES to . 0 la .1ht lS=__

FIGURE 2.1.2. YORK RIVER BASIN (VSWCB, WATER QUALITY INVE11TORY, 305(b) REPORT, 1976, p. 328).

r,..

1-"

13 A

N-EiCOMPLEX FORMATIONS OF IGNEOUS AND METAMORPHIC ROCKS (PRECAMRIANZ AND PALiEOZOIC)

El- '4TAORPMIC OGRANITE

3GRANITE AND GNEISS EE3 MAETAMORPHIC V(CANIC AND SEOIMENTARY ROCKS E 3GABBRo ES TERTIARY SEDiMENTS (COASTAL PLAINSPRVNE

E2.1.3 . GEOLOGIC H1AP OF THE PEF.'1OlIIT PROVINCE IN THE VICINIITY OF THE N4ORTH AJNNA POU4ER STATIOU., ('II.I'JIA DEPARTPEIT CF CONiSERVATION ANlf ECONOIC I)EVELOPMENT/QIVLSION OF ':ATER RES-NiPCE5,1970).

14 2.2 Limnetic Characteristics Lake Anna is an oligo-mesotrophic, second order dimictic reservoir by definition. (Reid and Wood 1976). ,Anoxia occurs throughout the hypolimnion in Lake Anna during summer stratification to. varying degrees depending on the oxygen demand of organic.decomposition and aquatic life present. Because of thermal density resistance to mixing, stratification usually persists through the summer in Lake Anna until cooler inflows and weather conditions produce.the fall overturn. . .

Surface intake cove water temperatures recorded hourly by continuous recorders (Endeco) were tabulated; daily means for 1978-1983 are shown in Figures 2.2.1-2.2.6. Temperature and dissolved oxygen isopleths for the intake station are shown in Figures 2.2.7-2.2.12, and the third plot in each figure shows the level of station operation (% of total power load and pumping capacity). Station operation is discussed in more detail in Section IV. In general, the lake was vertically homothermous from mid-September until April.

Thermal stratification was usually evident to some degree-from May-August but appeared to be the most pronounced in 1982 from July-August (Figure 2.2.11).

This period of pronounced stratification coincided with anoxia below 8m contrasting with the results for 1983 (Figure 2.2.12) at which time there was a higher degree of station pumping and lake circulation.

In general, the headwaters of the York River Basin have been known for excellent water quality attributed to low level development and the general paucity of municipal and industrial dischargers. Annual means for nitrate nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen and total phosphorus are shown in Figures

IL 15 2.2.13-2.2.15, respectively. The location of this reservoir in the headwaters of the drainage basin may be related to generally low levels of total phosphorous (less than 0.05 ppm) in the lake water; the geologic nature of this region may account for the typically low alkalinity levels (0-40 ppm as CaCO3 ).

Both of these parameters indicate low to fair organic productivity in Lake Anna, but within the reservoir, the shallow upper reaches are more fertile than the lower reservoir and are typified by higher alkalinities and levels of autochthonous and allochthonous input. Appendix A gives a complete listing of environmental reports available describing the current and historical physical, chemical and biological parameters of Lake Anna and the North Anna River.

I C C

' EAR- 7 a T .

E 25-

' 1

-3.'

it flI -.

I' C , 4

'. 'i

_ .i FEB MAR APR MAY t;U tJ J UL AUG SEP OCT t 0V DEC IMOMITH L ECE N D S I TE N I NT NA II

), % I I E -R . MUALY MNEA1 WATER TElMPlERATUlREG FROM INITAXE ENDECO NALINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSING LINE 6

.- I3..... *-. .* 'I i*l;.-.... i. IE gr it,. J !C

- rJ.3 t.

i i

I YE AR -7.9 E 3 J-4

'# 1' '- \/

p(

A 1 1

1; - .

-4 LI 1 IAM' FE ' 1APR APR 3A( JU N JUL AUG SEP OCT NOv DEC lMONTH LECEND: SI.E NAL INT Wi'lJRE -2.. [PlAilY HEl W.TER TEMPERATURES FROFM !ITAKE EINIDECO NALINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSING LINE I Q!

t:.'! .l-:,.D T

'JJIMG I SA

I 1. C l

i.(' (.

'YEAR-aO T

E 30-f

- 'i

.: *12

.R:E 151 C 15

.4

.,,, 1.

4! q _,w.r

.4

. . Ul E

I A ,I aI I A.PR MAY *.UIN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV OEC U 0NTH LEGE NDD S I TE NAL I NT i e .1.5 If-r ) DAIL I MEAN WATER TEMPERATURES FROM INFTAKE ENDECO NALINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSINO LINE ZEEC.X!NT'S INTD!CATE Aldl SI DATA.

l YEAR-6a 1

':54 T

E3 AN 9iE 25--4A, I IV 1 _r1

- J r-LG:D S1T HHAL INu PC I J ill F-E ?4A;R APR HAAY JUNt JUL AUCI SEP OCT NtOV DEC

&(0 NT H LECENhD: 5SiTE COAL iNT l'.jL;. R L'rlLI ::,LN 'tATER TE.pEATI E 0F E E'DECc' Di'T0A1 N!LINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSING LINE gFYh1., INHi! C.AT.E IN DAT11i.A.

I: . !

(. (,,

'(EAR-82 E 30i4

_25-i ,,.f

. I i, I, Jr '- , '

\,

. '~ -.

f

- 9 a

i AH FEB MAl9 APR M 'A II*-IH *JUL .AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC I 0 'T I H LcECED! SITE ?JALINT 0

iiR .E. D-Lf M.iWA' TER TEHMPEpATUIJRFS Fr"iM liWATAE ENDECO NALINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSING LINE IT It. I d

.. ~~~IC*- I.. . -J.".L._l ....

'YEA R-8 3 T

3i Jwo

'4

_~ _-

1I 4 I T J r

-d I.'v I!

-1 1-'

1 ,i4

-J 1

v

. i.-4 4

.1 4-1, .- !...%

>4-

.; . FE MA.R APR ? C.'f J IN JUI AUG SEP OCT Noy DEC MON TH LEGEND: S i 7E NAL I NIT F-i.'RED ... Z D..%tiXl.4'1 WATER TELMPERATURES F'Ok INTAKE EIDECO NALINT. STRAIGHT OR MISSR"I'^ LINE ilID' C', DA TA

22 1978 n

w

MAY'- -JUN --JUL AUG SEP .

z TEMRERATURE

_ !I .:

2 w

ci APR -MAY 2-JUN JUL'. AUO SEP . OCT DISSOLVED t OXYGEN MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT POWER MJ PUMPS E (UNITS 1 6..2 COMBINED)

FIGURE 2.2.7. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY-MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND'CORRESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER STATION OPERATION

(% OF TOTAL POW'ER LOAD'AND PIIMPING CAPACITY BY MONTH).

Il 23 1979 w

w z TEMPERATURE CLi Q

APR MAY - JUN JUL DISSOLVED OXYGEN POWER PUMPS E (UNITS 1 & 2 COMBINED)

FIGURE 2.2.8. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND nliSSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND CORRESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER STATION OPERATION

(% OF TOTAL POWER LOAD AND PUMPING CAPACITY BY MONTH).

24 I198 c/r (I,

CZ MAY APR T

E M.E `JUN 'R,...T JUL UAUG II z T EMP-ER-ATUR E w

a.

wd 03 APR . MAY -- JUII JUL AUG' SEP .- -OCT DISSOE ; _ OXYE DISSOLVtED ,-OXYGEN

.. . 14 . - " I..........

. - I APR MAY U' JUL -AU POWER r 4El. I-- .PUM

- PS (UNITS I s 2,COMBINE.D)

FIGURE 2.2.9. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE-AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND CORRESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER'STATION OPERATION

(% OF'TOTAL POWER LOAD AND PUMPING CAPACITY).

25 1981 w

w z TEMPERATURE C.

Lw l0 APR MAY - JUN - JUL - AUG - SEP DISSOLVED OXYGEN POWER El PUMPS (UNITS 1 & 2 COMBINED)

FIGURE 2.2.10. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND CORRESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER STATION OPERATION

(% OF. TOTAL POWER LOAD AND PUMPING CAPACITY BY MONTH).

26

. 1982

.2 4,

cn) 6' C,=

e iw I 10.

-JAN `FEB MAR APR '. MAY! ,-JUN . JUL -AUG .

z

- TEMPERATURE

. ~~ ~ -, . 4 Y. 1 I-

C m

LdI 0a

,.,.,a

!- ;........................ 'i,; - 0GE\

MAR -APR --MAY-7'JUN . - JUL AUG

SEP DISSOL)VED OXYGEN MAR APR - MAY ,,JUN-: JUL -AUG SEP -OCT-

-POWER [ED P.PUMPS E (UNITS 1 2 COMBINED)

FIGURE 2.2.11. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND CORESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER STATION OPERATION

(%OF TOTAL POWER LOADANl'PUMPING CAPACITY BY MONTH)'.

- Z -

27 1983 cn fr (I) c TEMPERATURE U

I-z 1-EL DISSOLVED OXYGEN POWER El PUMPS E (UNITS I & 2 COMBINED)

FIGURE 2.2.12. ANNUAL TEMPERATURE AND DISSOLVED OXYGEN CYCLES BY MONTH AT THE INTAKE STATION, AND CORRESPONDING NORTH ANNA POWER STATION OPERATION

(% OF TOTAL POWER LOAD AtID PUMPING CAPACITY BY MONTH).

( (S (

4-

\ :- . .,~- -... ...

REFERERCE LEVEL I~~cii ....I*1 197 2 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 YEAR FIGURE 2.2.13. ANNUAL NQ3-N MEANS FOR LAKE ANNA SItCE 1972. CONTRARY CREEK-DATA WERE NOT USED. FOR AN EXPLANATION OF REFERENCE LEVEL, SEE THE 1976 VSWCB PUBLICATION JTAThR QUALITY INVENTORY (305(B) REPORT),

SECTION ON THE YORK RIVER BASIN. co~

REFEUC.E LEVEL I .0 0 .0 O..

0.7 0 . 6.

H V .5.

0.4 O.,

0.

1q72 1M 1974 1975 1978 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Y'EAR FIGURE 2.2-.14. ANNUAL NH3-NJ MENS FOR LAKE ANtA SINCE 1972. CONTRARY CREEK DATA WERE NOT USED. FOR AN EXPL4A1t.0N OF REFERENCE LEVEL, SEE THE 1976 VSWCB PUBLICATION IhAZEFR QUAITY INV ENTORY (305(B) REPORT),

SECTION ON THE YORK RIVER BARN.

I I C

0 .6 0.5 0 .4 REFERENCE LEVEL T

Up 0 0.

4 p Z!

1- C's I.

5.,

0. -

. I I

.. .I I.' .

I _I 0.

.0 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 YEAR FIGURE 2.2.15. ANNUAL T-P04-P MEAN.S FOR LAKE ANNA SINCE 1972. CONTRARY CREEK DATA WERE NOT USED.

EXPLANATI0N OF REFERENCE LEVEL, SEE THE 1976 VSW0CB PUBLICATION TA2TR QUALIY IENM ORY (305(B) REPORT),

SECTION ON THE YORK RIVER BASIN.

0

- Ii 31 3.0 STATION DESCRIPTION 3.1 Location & General Site Features The North Anna Power Station was constructed in Louisa County in central Virginia 48 km (30 miles) northwest of Richmond and 64 km (40 miles) east of Charlottesville. The two units of the station are located on the south bank of a lake formed by a dam on the North Anna River 0.8 km west of the common junction of Louisa, Hanover and Spotsylvania Counties (Figure 3.1.1). A total of 76 km2 (18,643 acres) of land was purchased in these three counties for construction of a dam and reservoir, the power station, service roads, a spur railroad, and 1.5m (vertical) of surcharge capability.

Unit 1 was under construction beginning in 1969 and was ready for commercial operation in April 1978. Unit 2 construction began in March 1970 and was completed in August of 1980. Both units were expected to operate at annual average capacity of 65%, and thus far, Unit 1 is slightly underachieved, while Unit 2 is averaging slightly more than the expected 65%. The thermal conversion efficiency is approximately 33% for each unit.

3.2 Heat Exchanger Components The station has a once-through cooling system (circulating-water system) to dissipate waste heat from the turbine condensers and from the auxiliary cooling systems to the environment (Figure 3.2.1). When both units are operating, water is taken from Lake Anna at a rate of about 117 m3/s (1,858,000 gpm), circulated through the turbine condensers and service water system, and returned to the reservoir via the WHTF. Appendix B contains

32 technical specifications for some of the station components associated with the intake structure. During operation, the heat generated in each reactor is transferred through the primary-coolant system to the steam generators. Units 1 and 2 each have three separate closed-cycle loops with one turbine-generator per loop. The steam generators transfer the heat from the primary-coolant

. - J, ..

system (around 302 0C under 2235 PSI) to produce steam at a constant pressure in the secondary system. This steam is transferred through the closed-cycle secondary loops to the steam turbines, which drive the generators to produce electricity. After passing through the turbines, the spent steam is condensed and returned to the secondary sides of the steam generators to repeat the cycle. The station's NPDES permit limit is 13.5 x 109 Btu of waste heat per hour into the cooling water effluent (equivalent to about 66% of the total thermal power generated in the core). Units 1 & 2 have a design NSSS rating of 2910. MWt but is currently licensed to operate at the NSSS rating of 2785 MWt.

The maximum &T across the condensers during the summer is 8.00 C (14.50 F), and during the winter predicted is 10.2 0C (18.3 0F).

3.3 Intake Structure The cooling water for both the condenser circulating water system and the service water system is withdrawn from Lake Anna through two screenwells (one screenwell per unit) located in a cove north of the station. Each screenwell contains four individual bays, each bay (Figure 3.3.1) equipped with a trash rack, a traveling screen, and a vertical motor driven circulating water pump. The trash racks consist of 1.3 cm wide by 8.9 cm thick vertical bars spaced 10.2 cm on center (the velocity of the flow through the trash racks is about 0.2 m/s (1 fps) (Table 3.3.1). The traveling screens, constructed of 14-gage wire with 9.5 mm square openings, are designed to rotate once every 24

33 hours3.819444e-4 days 0.00917 hours 5.456349e-5 weeks 1.25565e-5 months or whenever a predetermined pressure differential exists across the screens. Debris collected by the trash racks are removed by horizontally traversing mechanical rakes and then collected in hoppers which discharge the debris into wire baskets for disposal as solid waste. Debris and fish collected by the traveling screens are washed into wire baskets for disposal as solid waste.

. - 34 Table 3.3.1. Intake water',velocities"'(mls) measured at each bay (approximately

- 5m out-from trish ratclsU)durlng two-unit operation,-9/30/81.

Clrculating Water Pump (4 Pumps/Unit)

Depth Unit 1 Unit 2 (meters) 1 F-.M 2 3 5 6 7 8 Sfc .12 i .14 .15 .16 .17 .16 .18 .16 1 .13 .24 .'15 '.21 .19 .21 .21 .18 2 .18 .21 .19 "\.22' .20 .19 .19 .17 3 .18 .21 .19 , --.22 .21 .24 , .20 .17 C.2. .

4 .18 .18' .18 !* .23 .20 .21 .18 .21 5 .18 .18 .18 ,* 22 .19 .22 .19 .19 6 .12 .21 .19 - 19 .15.. .23 .22 .16 7 .18 .15 .22 : 21 .18 .19 .19 .13 8 .15 .18 .17 21 .18 .21 .16 .12

Each pump rated at 13.9.m /s

,. I

-u

(..

"I 'S -

/ s*\

ft ft '

I i I

. 5--

'N I 7

'S h - / -. .-. . -.

(

I8

(,-S ubsta 0r~~~: D FIGURE 3.1 .1. Intake cove to the North Anna -

Power 'Z)TOT ion.

e . _ .:_

I % .

I 5. p I * *,.HTF

.j , .- Ij

A* , *

,,-L I

00'rTr ' r.z >

I:l

';3!5 .. -*-tt?.t, Q IU $; J- , ,U ,~'

l , u- ;u- ^x;.^*T ll l W

. 4ct= _ftstT

-; .' ; r u tft I LAKE Asiti kI TV4

. ~t- u41-*

L; - A A .: ., , A. . ea.t ttb t . .. .. - 2 ITu,. *-I.1t.;j

A.1L! .

I--. ,C . .. ' ., ' ,

l _ - C IATF, tfaxt p l

.tsrtIcI rHit1 . . . .-** _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

.. . rCt,?t. -. . it I ON* plye-af' t ~

FIGUREY .A -I R FIGURE 3.2.1.DIAGRAMATIC REPRESENTATION OF THE STEAM-ELECTRIC AND WASTE-HEAT-DISSIPATION Li 0%

SYSTEM FOR THE NORTH ANNA POWER STATION.

ARCMLue.-IRefr I-4 1. >.

I a k.P#,'kLI

. a-,

FIGUIRE 3.3.1. INTAKE RAY WITH TRA511 R.AKE, TRAVEL.ING SCREEN ANn CIPCOLATIN.; WATER PUMP.

w

38 4.0 OPERATING HISTORY.

Lake Anna began receiving thermal additions in April, 1978 when *the first nuclear unit became operational. It had been operating commercially for two years, as of June 1978, when Unit 2 was completed in August, 1980. Unit 2 went into commercial operation in December 1980. The daily operations;of each unit and the eight circulating water pumps for the study period (1978-1983) are shown graphically in Figures 4.0.1-4.0.10 and summarized by month in Table 4.0.1. These data are combined with air and intake water temperatures to. give an overall perspective on S'atiton operation (Table 4.0.1, Figures

'4!

4.0.1-4.0.10).

Throughout most of 1978, 'Unit 1 operated near full power (50%

capacity). From November through ,January (1978-1979) all eight pumps were operating. In April of 1979, Unit 1 went off line but then operated-near full power until mid-September when it-went into an outage.- By October of 1980, the station began to approach full oper-ating capacity (both Unit 1 and Unit 2 near full power); the pumps had been running at greater than 80% capacity since June. Power levels and pumps decreased activity during the winter of 1980-1981 (approximating 50% capacity) but geared up again in the spring and early summer of 1981. The level of pumping activity remained high, decreasing in the spring of 1982, but the power level dropped to 50-60% in July, August and October of 1981, and fell off almost completely during the summer of 1982. Power production came up to around 50% capacity in September and by the summer of 1983 both units were operating at near full capacity (from July-September, November and December). Refer back to Figures 2.2.7-2.2.12 for monthly bar graphs of power level and-pumping capacities.

I I I ii I I I I I I I I I I I I RECORDED AT BYRD AIRPORT, TABLE 4.0.1.

SUMMARY

OF COMBINED POWER LEVELS (%), COMBINED PUMPING CAPACITY (%), AIR TEMPERATURES 1978-1983.

RICHMOND, VA. {C), AND SURFACE INTAKE WATER TEMPERATURES (C) FOR THE STUDY YEARS, YEAR MONTH POWER CIRC. AIR NALINT LEVEL WATER TEMP PUMPS 78 1 0.0 5 0.8 3.3 2 0.0 14 -0.9 3.0 3 0.0 25 6.9 3.8 4 6.2 50 14.0 12.5 5 20.5 44 18.6 18.4 6 41.5 50 23.7 25.3 7 42.5 '74 25.3 27.7 8 47.4 52 26.7 28.8 9 36.0 44 22.7 26.5 10 42.4 74 14.6 19.6 11 47.4 85 11.4 15.3 12 46.6 100 5.8 10.4 79 1 41.4 93 2.4 5.7 2 43.0 56 -1.9 2.6 3 44.5 38 10.6 6.6 4 0.0 34 14.7 13.3 5 44.0 56- 19.5 19.1 6 48.7 46 21.6 M 7 47.4 50 24.9 28.2 8 49.5 50 25.4 27.4 9 35.1 69 21.7 24.8 10 0.0 31 14.6 18.6 11 0.0 25 11.8 13.7 12 0.0 32 7.4 8.8 80 1 5.0 64 3.8 5.3 2 38.4 59 2.2 3.6 3 48.8 58 8.6 6.6 4 42.7 38 16.2 14.2 5 35.2 70 20.2 20.3 6 32.5 82 22.7 24.4 7 47.4 93 26.7 28.0 8 50.3 81 27.1 29.1 9 62.6 92 23.7 27.2 10 85.4 79 13.8 20.5 11 47.2 66 7.9 13.5 12 63.5 71 3.7 8.2

I I I I I I I I

(. (I (

TABLE 4.0.1(CONT).

SUMMARY

OF COMBINED POWER LEVELS (%), COMBINED PUMPING CAPACITY (%).' AIR TEMPERATURES RECORDED AT BYRD AIRPORT, RICHMOND, VA. (C), AND SURFACE INTAKE WATER TEMPERATURES (C) AT ENDECO NALINT FOR THE STUDY YEARS, 1978-1983.

YEAR MONTH POWER CIRC. AIR MALINT LEVEL WATER TEMP PUMPS a 1 42.8 38 -0.4 3.5 2 48.7 39 5.7 4.6-3 47.0 44 7.0 7.7 4 82.0 90 15.9 14.4 5' 79.0 85 17.8 19.8 6' 78.6 84 25.5 26.8 7 47.4 88 .26.4 28.14 a 59.8 92 23.9 27.5 9 93.4 100 20.8 25.5 10' 55.6

92 13.6 18.6 - -

11 94.0 - 82 9.5 13.7 12 96.6 75 3.3 9.8 82 1 85.6 75 -0.2 4.1

2. 93.6 75 5.4 5.3 3 54.6 52 9.5 8.9 4 43.2 41 13.3 12.9 5 11.0 38 21.3 21.2 6 25.0 30 23.0 24.4 7 - 9.3 40 25.9 28.9 385 23.9 27.7 9 47.2 38 21.0 24.2 10 49.6 38 15.1 19.1 11 -47.6 64 11.0 13.8 12 48.3 64 7.8 10.6-

. . 3

- a:3 . 1.- 37.5 38 3.2 6.9 2 47.6 67 3.9 5.14 3 73.6 75 10.2 s8.9

4. 51.6 41 13.4 12.1 5 42.0 57 18.9 19.3 6; 79.3 -92 24.2 25.7 7 92.2 100 26.3 29.5 8a 99.4 98 25.4 M 9 95.8 100 20.4 27.2 10 60.8 92 14.5 21.1 11 96.6 75 9.4 14.8 12 *96.1 75 2.3 10.1 0

.Fe, ... I *.K. -% -1 mf m.ov r .

I- rln~x 100

TT- ': 1:T::~T~ :* ; :. : ; r : .- -I -- t 80 . _- KL !-i.'i

-J !- ' -I 1 !. I .: .: . .1 - j - j: .

60- _::..,: - ..,: ::,.......... *--- -. :- . . - : ..........

. -. .- ,7 ;:. ..........

[ . . i - - J II I

' i '; @11'_fi'3 -,@e* :." -_*l

-J a-0~ _____.._..__........

. . r-i.: I C

W

._-. ________ P s

it.A21 W" -V 'AA '.4A2 SaO. U4I:P cn Vif ZtOCSR

FIGURE 4.0.1. NORTH ANNA UNIT I DAILY POWER LEVEL (%) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1978.

.... I a... -V i.A.

- ;, - - - - - - .. . - . . . . : I ,U. _,: I ' - : . '. 1: L . : .I

r: *_.;. .. :. -e-:. - : ......

1 ! . :..: ; .:. . .. :!..

.. ... : . . ...I ... . ... . ...

X:-

i 2.

E. l @ l

- - - - - - I . - , . . . . . . . . I !;. - I . ..--- 7--

'I . .+ . . .. . . . o. . :&

s : : . : . !. .... . .-

100

_in¶1t!7r1nr1 FM ! F t-j i . -

z z .......

1 80

.4

__:__;11 7 '7' 11 ' I -J[ -

-- -. 1-11-1IA-- l" I

.I .

' :' 'I

- I I

' .1 I111

- .. l..Z

..: .: :. : : :: . : .;--r-r 1:I-u1---

r-- InI '!'

-J I - . _- __I a I-__ -4 I__ II w- ' '---r-I- : : .: ',' :11 '! . - t .: .... . . I :: ! -:- . 1 :.:.

: :1 W b( :

LLI

-J 40 -- _._._.§.

T- :- "l:

I.1 t_

1 '---1 I,

--'7:

I, I Ky-- -1 ,

.,__LI..........U J...

rI I-~:-

-:*..: I '

....- - -S111:.:

.=

. r..

.I r.-

I *, I .,

4 1.

!.-I I11 W

I I.

I r . T. . -: *_ :

_- *_ *.-i: _ - __-___ . -'--- ..- -L -- W '

1: ' ': . . . I . . -. . 1._

-ii I 1 cf. 2 0 - - -- - .

-. * ,. .. . ... . ... i .

-... I.

I :...I.

Co I V F . ..

CL .. ... 4.

t _ ... 1" ~ . 11: --- l, I hJM'WM# *4 ... . .. ... -.-.--------.-----.--..--------.-.-..--.-------. - . -

.I . I . -. - .

m- .I.________ . -

. . - - - 7- .

a I

.. t

' - n - - .r.s .... _vn, AdI 'P" I .. -.

A FIGURE 4.0.2. NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 DAILY POWER LEVEL(%) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1979.

C.,

aw-m no.."I .Wm W.-I. WI am C

AILY Uww pposit (9

- r-. 1: .,.,-:::!,

4 W Is .10 0-1% " Is

.S.F'_1:1N: r.- '1.1 ib ; ::;!:-.

.-. -T -- .TF-m :lz-

I.:-- :: :;7" l F w e ws s - We I:1 w W

................. i !i:7~ I

,p es - v F 71:; . : t. -.. :1l .::]I.'- .. I.;i,..,.,:.z---I.I:.;.!.I. .

-.-T'I " - ---

---T-,-T-T -!.1A1:!.I:,:I=-::

1.:.T._, : :

1nM ... ,. . ^ - .1 - - - - . .. . ......

... ... I.; - - - -

A: 1;.I=!;;;.h

........;1::;:_.+:-

..,I:tL L..ZV1,.K.It

.;. I . - -

I . --

.. :. I ;:: U I I l: .6:. Iw 1:4...:. -

r:.

I:-t~.r._: 1_::: I I ::: . 4.... l-;l.:e: :w 1_t: I ff.,

F] K~l h.,T:;1-::.T.

.r~~~~ ~~~ II .~; I J~I4~1~-~~~*4- 4

! 1. . e l _ 1-1: . 1--: -.++,

F1.i.:11...- __ __ilI. LI L.- II IAKEI2LLAU H:EI: I~C

.. l us

>J fl li-i I.

. - !....I -"11"," .. IT: . . .L-j"it

-: --. I :4fii. II f I,p -I.Ij

! -_I!

1:-_:i

.... II f' - I II ..

FE=

~ -I-II -"

E--L IM 1,11- 11rE,"K1f_"-_1,_,1 -1 M -I - I I- ...-F- -

"'."I F-1 :A-A-L;.L=.:.

I

I.

M.".." t:.:-11; -..I:..1: 14:

-r--, -,:Ii: -,I.--1: I1- I.- 72-F i:7_!:

7Q=d I it4.: ..I -'ff '- l- !'- -I.

44-I1fl,4I 1-!'!. .11 T-_:I_

H 4 -4

=-.. -_--W :;iE.

I4-4i--

Z.J_ .=[.;:F

__ __..j

+ -I-+-

=;:

. .1: Z: . I.

. ff . Z-71

t. ...

" -- 'i 1: A!-::.

-.+-I-.

11-1_,~~~~ ~~

I +-

-F. I:St:~le~ I1:7,ff: I 2La. l

~Z 4=4 :.I 'Ii-

' .I1 II-I-

S . I I4 . r

.... .. 9~... E E

-:-.;K].@ I..!. t -

II ~: It~ *o m 1- I : q.:-- J -_ E:-I-i I .4--_i E=: 1-7-1.F,F---:: P II1..IIIt; V 14 I :=:-- t_:K L.; ,-.-r::,

L:7-u..1 11-71 -- 1-7..:_1..1....1 ... I., ". 11I_

. :..:-I. : =A. .qn: f ...

-I... ..

III I.-- M-. 1- 1 1 I .; 1 F 111: - ! -- = I- t=l 11-1 -rit-MI-1-1 -I...

II .- ;:-- 1 1Y:L4:4'7.. ' 1. '-.-:" Pi r-t4 11'I 02Wi II 1, :. __.- _.1-I-1i.;.... i - 1 #-- 1.W.- 1 1..I -U. M j- I-*-ff__,_ ..I....j.. -1 I... j.. 11 11!-. ;, EI... ,-.;.

I.; I --. I II '-I[:I-,- F - - - r-.I:L, ... -1.=... I .. . .. .. .1. II:.

,I;- I:..1 8 1 1. ,I -. I- ,.LL I;.- _- 1-71 11 I .a1- Itt-r- IffT-t,#

, M lf.-t-=:--r-- lr :.- .1 ......l1.... PM l.... 1.-A.-II II... i...;r-tr f.I

. - 1 l- -:-:_a=:-

. 1 - -- .. ... I I

Of ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. .1.._.t-..I

". t-..1 ..1 : ...1;t' .... : ".tF .

C W

71,,,1 71-3-,1-'TZ 7 111"x . I A p S

FIGURE 4.0.3 .- NOROT ANA UNIT - DAILY POWER LEVEL (t) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1980.

. LEVEL .. %.)A. . . ..

.... CO. NORTH .. -,

~~~.-.---..->..-. .. .-..-.-. .,.."... ... 3 ~

p... ...... .v.s .. . f.#* . . ., ..

A.'sid" oti%.o of NW amPT o ""ban ft*0.1

? n l1w R n Z w 1wR n s n1v . ..

a s sw 1sw .n7 . . I w

__ - I:: .::[ .

,;. I : .1 .: ,. I ; , _.IL I ' I : . : I ' : .I : . ' ' I .. : I ' . :I: .I';:I. : I :' ' .: : I .;:'I t :::. LI : I -: . I jj " - : I I 1.;I :; I! . I : I ;I _. . I .. . . . .I ; ::; ::: 'I ;d ::

1 . . , :...r= :!%..I; 1:.::l :: ,., . .::

- [DT . _;,.,

'. . :, I , I :: . . - ...

.1

.,: .:: .. ! .. :1 . ., - _.. 7 r., = .,-: -:: .!,: :;, 1.1:.. -.. = :.,:

--__ -.1-T-,74.

... 2 § , 1.

-__-V M 1.

.. , . . .1::. I.: IL..] . I ::. I' : 1:.., ;.; ; I.; ::I .;:I;:i - j;:;:r7..

... -4 - ....

.1 ::p ....-:I..:: _. 1:L:-17. ... ::1_11

-... ; :::. [.1,- I.= .: - H . -_ -Z F.: I,- I.-.. : 17

- . : :.. p ::j; a: . 1:-;:I-. ....1.: I1;

L. I ::.:I

1

-:. 1 100 .... . . .. .. .. . .. .. . . . . ............. .............. ....... ..... ... ........ ...... .......... ........... ... ... .. ... ..... .... _ .. ... . ... . ..... ....... . . . .......

.. ...... ... .. ...... :1 . :1: .: w_ .. :...

a L_

11J 1 _ _ _ __ _ _ _ __ _L ULJ I -**N

I., *I, I II= MIr-

.-_*I.- -.--__--.

. .. .-- -.:1 ..1 1- 1.-.1:

r: 11 . 1: P-rAn--W=Em_

I-r=l: F. 1:

. i?!.--i1--.. --

i.-., -_..

I-:-- t-,:-.. tP--:!:-- 4"': -dW-f- .

-1'-- i:-- *-:1-:;1'-: -'1 -=1:

,.ga -t--IrtHII-=- M I

-" -r-- 111 I- FS II.

I.--"

Li M...

.;:.I...T:11.1, :1.1MIL..I= . ._

, , ... ... , L-. 11 ll- I':.-.. ;. t:Ez l --__ =1_= I

-J .. ; I.:.;

=11-ir: 31--ralf-1zd:+1: 1:

i=: =A;

.. ... .. _- .:. :.[::: = ; I:i ::,-, :,.,. .4 .i.V:IJ§: L-t 1- 1 .-- §---r : l l

-r-n-U - * "---1 ,., ._,_.,

I . I ..:

1I4=:;:r11 VA:=:: I I -.

I =L::--R-KI:Ll--.--.

.- :;.' :.'-' kl...:

_ t

T_ .- .--;:. b .:::: k;;4:.::4 ::;:1.: I.: :,:,.I.= :..:. =.: =: ...I.

1 -;-= t g Fel ,- j.l_ ,- 1F, 1 i .#1; 1 1: 1 l+ I HI h:_I_ ff I.d..

4:71. 1 1.;I .:

17 .

-_ !t.., . . .

Z.:

_1: I_

i . I 1 . H I I S 1:::;[I :! Il1 11 1 §#. : e .

. : 1. .. I . L e I I ._.1 ,t,., 1t_ .... . l- .1 E,m-20 IU --

I-::. 1;:-..p: I.;:; 1::..l !.:. 1::. I.... I.;.;

+1:1..:

-:1:

... _.... W U -

F-T.-7-71 .--

r^ _,.

,I:

.r-lt-- J..

I I -r-r::.:

_l1.

1. 1 :::

I.

P 1'7 iF: H__1 r .1. 111 F"- - , F:i A it I

C Hi- . . -

II 3 3: ,. , I I I

W p

I *"::Is o 2S n

X0 s 6 A. 'S - 0 is Jo lb . Io 1 i Jo. l.s . s IS *0 - a II it Jo n s sas i .4 :s*sat s ,

I ,_,,

Is _ Z% _ M Ss ;_T . it F_;,Alt as*1-m I FtGU RE 40.4 NORTH ANNA UN IT 2 DA ILY POWER LEVEL ()ANh ClRCULATtNG 14ATER PUMP OPERATtON FOR 1980. -

It,

ff - AAW~ AA-ft APll- S Xcs -

1~

-J t t I VI C r w

w

-J a,: '!I t l: I I _ _

w 0

aL.

I C0

\ c 14 p

t40II 1 - 1. . -. . II . ., X,T :t4 ., , .. I., vn - M t .. L";d(*1 II a, ,.t -T IU777 S

FIGllRE 4.0.5

NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 DAILY POJER LEVEL (%) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1981.

.-. , ".^.d 'p.' -1 4 "V -.. Al mmoa

.. , . . -. .. es Z...

PlOIIC, 71 I J, Al F7 -il 6O::,I I II'11:

-J LLi 4'rfJiLhHft~~

LLJ

-j I .111-

_0t. ' mn--

LLA a.

1:l:II 'I- I. !1.

I0 I- I. I

'I r-j-nI jr- T7II

T T I' r-I r !-

FkLLL FT-0

- 1 4- . N- . .

f I

C p

I

$ I 2.,. " ....

I44D

. I ft05 I 0I I,

. I .40 1. 14 1 I ;.X, 5 0 5 'S

-4i um&A

.. :., , 0, .$

actow I- .. . 1'. .

.0-1-no x J * !Q .1 ,.

01CLftR FIGURE 4.o.6 . NORTH ANNA UNIT 2 DAILY PnwER LEVEL (%) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1981.

( ",.a -MK NW AP4

( FAI AlWbs l~" Ml eolm

(

. . . .. Is IS 0 N 11 . " 4 0 11 A 1

.. .7 A .2 N M I m -q I.....fl. .. L.J. J Ll. n i

.. : :: : -. ;:-I-.

= . i:.;:..

..... ; I.;- I .. -r...; .:;. .;............

I -:

I

i. m; . G .

. I N- =4,"..

I IN:3-1.1.4T..A

... -- Z. .

. I::-

.. ..:I.; .

i.

1: ::.:.-1':' 1::':1 ;.:1:'-'1'.::' § ;. : I v I . I ; . . 1 _.S4_1 1 I .1 . . I . I .. 1 §

'Ir. ;: I , I - .. I . ;-],

. -.. ;. I. I : I : . -. I.... L' - , . -- I- : J.- -ji .:. I.: . ; 1; . ;J . :.. :.i: :..:T.. . .. -... ;. I.. . ..[d . . I 1:J;

.;:.; . -,1:A. J:". P; .. .

- -1 - -

9 r

1::. -:- .

.i. '

, ¶-

.. 1. . .. .. ..

I- I.

' -- I

..I

-1 . .1. :

i

..I : :<....1 ~ L. ;.

.: ., :. . . I .. .. . . .. .....

. ':..,n

.:.: ;1'. ':':::-

~7::.::

':1 I:r::.

L. 'IL.

,I

1.

II I.

-1.

II

§: .

..,;I .. I-...

5.

.11 F.1`1 I Fi.1-H-§ II's Is" :, 1 I-I_...

A.*r**I.:-5 I;; I.;;

- .S...*.*,. I. ... s.. .

- .. .. .... .5.... .-.

l

-J IL*

a:3 554 551

a- W~., .1..

F[GIRE ANAUNT e 07 *NORT 1DAIL POED.E~IL (~ AN CICULTINGWATR PMP PERAIONFOR198 I C

Is v1 C p S

-d 40 .:: 4 20M~.

.I I 0 II..:.t.I: I r IJLIJ% li t~aa~105A 45t I141)5?. 1145)5., 545)L1 5W55. 5))5 . S 5P. 555 1

-J LuI LuS 0r 0.

I II c C

I p4 I :: - - - - -::I.- I.i - I.!:- -- - - UI p

,i I U i am Is - ito lb as b e 91 is Se 1 is is as e I l i s 20 as X U l is M. as be is Xall A s N *W - s .s .. . Is Jo^ .s 1. I. .e it- 7 S fj4j . 1RA - 5S O - POWER L V EL .N C WA E - - '.

RtGUR.E 4..0.8 . NORTH ANNA UNIT 2.DAILY POWER LEVEL. (%) AND CIRCULATI Ng WATER PUMP. OPERATI ON FOR~1982.

... 1. .. .. I ., -1 .. . . -'T:, . .4JIlI 40ma (XcA.Km

-3

-J ... .. .. ... ...... ... ....... &

-J 00 . z zi: :.

CD

a. Osmv*Aww L kLe-m .. .. - .. . . ::,: :,:_

I . . . ... ...

.fi .. . , j. I . :. : ;: . I IC

~$I w

'Ifl .. IS ID I .) i . ..

. .t .* ( W:*21.b:. 40 b S- .. !

.1 .. I ,u. . -~ . A o . ;z . 0 z .*. -4 :)., . j .* T:42 .. 0 S 10 I$ .4 :51 I FIGURE 4.0.9. NORTH ANNA UNIT 1 DAILY POWER LEVEL (%) AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1983.

X30LA

. . . . _. . .1 I . .- . I . -1 - . . . .

i.

.I ., ::

- :, I ..

. . ::.. . .. ... .. , _. . .; . : L-.i: I .S..

. .: 1% I

1 .:

.,I - :. .. ::1

. - -1.

. .... ....II ..I- . A . ., . .;: ".

.. ..- . ..: ;.:, : .'A

... :. . . ::. _:._ I .v

I :.1 t I: :.

.,;. - 1: : I -

j;2-. . ... .1.:

_-. I.

- - .- Akim-A fixud" - A 2Ig.;

. -* n.

- .s... .j . .

Wm jlll

. I lkll r

Il nnrrn

.T J rmri

_- F111---U

,AF - II I , 1111

-15---111--rt i ....

I .. 1 II:..:!

. 111 . I 1 1-._

rror_

A ...

I ...

.......I ...... .

I . .

rw 80o 1~.

1II

. . . : i : : - - ~ . ___ ______ _____ ___ ..

6o-

_____ _____ _____ _____ ____ ____ I. ............

~:i.w . ___ ;: .. +/-::.7.7T

. ; . ; -4S .

! .., : , , : fiF

.1- .. ___X __S _ ...................

. :..: -I.;

I .

I II

..a . . ;. .

I.

I m m. . .. _

. - . - w- .

20- __._._ i__

a

- :. - - . : , _.e§___

. m. . . .. .. . .: , . .

..... ....--_-- 1- :--. -- =-, _7 1

: .. I I . . . . . . :. I ': :

I - . I gl . . .: . -. I C

- N! : :-

" I S k,. .1..;,. VI, ME. 'V, E .. trsio "%L-Am FIGURE 4.0.10. NORTH ANNA UNIT 2 DAILY POWER LEVEL (%I AND CIRCULATING WATER PUMP OPERATION FOR 1983.

46 5.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS 5.1 Impingement Impingement, as described in this report, is the collision and subsequent retention of fishes upon the traveling screens of the water- intake structure. Impingement samples were collected from April 1978 through December 1983 on a four-week cycle.

The sampling schedule for the first 3 weeks of a 4-week cycle consisted of two 24-hour samples per week collected on non-consecutive days.

During the fourth week, a composite sample was taken consisting of twelve continuous 2-hour samples. Screens were washed for 1/2 hour prior to beginning a 24-hour sampling period and the resulting debris and fish remains were disposed of. For each sample collection, environmental laboratory personnel washed each screen for a minimum of 10 minutes to insure all fish were removed.

All operable screens were washed when the corresponding circulating water pump was in operation. -The fish were washed into a catch basket at the end of a sluiceway and were removed and transported to the laboratory. Decayed fish that obviously had been dead for longer than 24-hours were excluded from the impingement sample. In the laboratory, up to 50 individuals of each species were measured (total length, T.L., in mm) and weighed (nearest 0.1 g). Those species numbering over 50 were enumerated and weighed in bulk. Water temperature, dissolved oxygen, weather conditions and numbers of operating screens and pumps were noted during each sample. All data were recorded on standardized computer data sheets.

It 47 Velocity profiles (measured with a Marsh-McBirney Model 201 electromagnetic current meter) were obtained from surface to bottom at one meter intervals in front of the trash racks.

5.2 Entrainment The 1978-1983 entrainment sampling program extended from March to July of each year. During this period, samples were collected at 0600, 1200, 1800 and 2400 hours0.0278 days 0.667 hours 0.00397 weeks 9.132e-4 months each week.

Samples were taken at the surface, mid-depth and bottom by placing paired conical nets in front of a predetermined intake forebay (Figure 5.2.1) for 10 minutes per depth. The mesh size of the netting was .505 and the conical measurements were 0.5 m x 1.5 m. After 10 minutes the nets were retrieved and the samples were rinsed into jars. Samples were returned to the laboratory, sorted and preserved in 3% buffered formalin. The collected individuals were identified to the lowest possible taxon. The volume of water filtered during the sample was determined using large-vaned, low-velocity-sensitive digital flowmeters (General Oceanics Model 2030 MK II).

Water temperature and dissolved oxygen levels were taken at each sample depth.

( ( (

CA-D"pl Of r4.

Ho l9s M46h

'- FIGURE 5.2.1. TYPICAL INTAKE STRUCTURE SHOWING ENTRAINMENT SAMPLE LOCATIONS..

Il 49 6.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6.1 Impingement Impingement studies have been conducted at North Anna Power Station for a period of five years and nine months, April 1978 through December 1983.

During this time, a total of 2.4 x 105 fishes weighing 5.7 x 103 kg have been impinged, representing 34 species and 13 families (Tables 6.1.1 and 6.1.2).

These collection totals extrapolate to an estimated total number of fishes impinged of 9.6 x 105 with an estimated total weight of 2.3 x 104 kg (Table 6.1.3).

The full year having the greatest number of fish impinged was 1979 (61%.of total) followed by 1981 (13%); 1980 (12%); 1982 (7%) and 1983 (5%)

(Table 6.1.3). During 1978 impingement sampling was not conducted for the entire year. Gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, comprised 77.6% of the 1979 impingement total, of which 64% (an estimated 2.9 x 105 were impinged between February 20 and March 20 of that year (Tables 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). It is significant, because of the large numbers of fish Impinged in 1979, that the lowest water temperature ever recorded (1975-1983) by Endeco temperature monitors in the intake area of Lake Anna was recorded on February 20, 1979 (1.18oC) (Vepco-unpublished data). Low water temperatures will notably reduce gizzard shad mobility (Griffith 1978; McLean et al. 1982). Winter kills (and high winter impingement rates) are common for this species when water temperature falls below 3.30 C (Jester & Jensen 1972), and the higher 1979 impingement rates were most likely influenced by the extreme cold experienced during February of that year.

50 Seasonally, most fish were impinged during the winter (75% of the total), followed by spring (13%), fall (9%) and summer (3%) (Table 6.1.4).

Higher impingement rates during winter and early.spring are a common occurrence in other areas (Reutter and Herdendorf 1979; Porak & Tranquilli 1981). Lower water temperatures encountered in winter tend to make fish sluggish so they may not be able to avoid the intake currents as easily (McConnell 1975; Latvaitus

.1976). . .

The estimated total numbers of fish impinged by species by season (winter: January-March; spring: April-June; summer: July-September; fall:

October-December) were calculated ,from the seasonal mean values, which were calculated from daily impingement values. Seasonal estimates were computed by multiplying the number of days in the season by the seasonal daily mean; yearly estimates are the sum of the seasons. To simplify computing, the 24-hour samples and the 12 2-hour samples were combined and both.considered 24-hour samples for this report. This is a different formula than used in.determining previous impingement estimates so there are slight differences between present

..- I ... .. ... . .

estimates and those of previous interim reports.

Water velocities were measured approximately 5m in front of six intake screens under varying. modes of operation (Table 3.3.1). The average intake velocity, across all eight bays,.with all eight pumps running, was less than 0.21 m/second (0.69 ft/sec). The maximum, at one meter:depth in front of bay two was 0.24 m/sec. This is somewhat lower than intake velocities encountered at the Kincaid Generating Station (maximum 0.34 m/sec) in Illinois (Porak and Tranquilli 1981).

Il 51 Adult fish swimming speeds are related to body morphology and length.

Burst speeds of 10 body lengths per second and cruising speeds of 3 body lengths per second are generally accepted for fish (Bainbridge 1958; Blaxter 1969). Burst speeds cannot be sustained for very long and are usually associated with escape responses.

From these data, fish larger than 24 mm total length (.24m/1O) should have no trouble escaping the intake screens if they are in good condition and not cold stressed. Impingement length-frequency figures (6.1.1 - 6.1.5) indicate that most impinged fish were larger than 25 mm. This would indicate that fish most vulnerable to entrainment by the power plant are individuals in poor body condition. These are the weaker individuals that would ordinarily be selected by natural predators in the lake.

The most commonly impinged fish during this study was gizzard shad, (61%); followed by black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus, (16%); yellow perch Perca flavescens, (16%); bluegill Lepomis macrochirus, (4%) and white perch Morone americana, (1%). No other species comprised more than 1.0% of the total number impinged (Table 6.1.1 and 6.1.3).

Gizzard shad comprised the majority of the fish impinged during 1979 (77.6% of the total); 1981 (51.9%) and 1983 (36.6%). During 1980 and 1982 black crappie were impinged most often (33.1% and 36.9% respectively) (Tables 6.1.1 and 6.1.3).

52 Gizzard shad is the major forage fish in Lake Anna; however, threadfin shad introduced in 1983 may eventually supplement gizzard shad as the primary forage species. Gizzard shad i1s.,an excellent forage fish when small but quickly.grows too large for sport fish predation. Adult gizzard shad compete with sport fish for food and habitat (Porak and Tranquilli 1981).

Gizzard shad is -the most abundant species in Lake.Anna in terms of biomass (kg!ha),(Vepco 1983 and 1984). This species generally frequents open surface waters but is found deeper in fall and early winter (Jones 1978).

Adult gizzard shad are large enough to avoid the intake current if healthy, therefore, they were. probably already physically impaired in some way when impinged; sluggish from-the cold water, possibly dying or already dead and

-floating or rolling along the bottom. .The emaciated condition observed in many of thesefish collected in the..summer-would tend to support this theory. If

.gizzard shad impinged during the. summer are already.in poor condition when impinged, as hypothesized above,,4this should show up in condition value comparisons. Condition values, K.= (Carlander 1969) were calculated for gizzard shad collected from the intake screens during 24-hour samples during October 1983 and compared with a sample of approximately equal length gizzard shad collected from lake gill nets during October 1983. These values (Gill Net-0.83; Impingement-0.60) were found to be significantly different at the 99%

level (S.A.S. proc. T-test). October was the only month tested because of the difficulty in obtaining large numbersof equal length gizzard shad.

The length-frequency data for, gizzard shad impinged at North Anna between 1978 and 1983 are bimodel with peaks for the 75-125 mmT.L. (48%) and

Il 53 175-225 mmT.L. (38%) groups (Figure 6.1.2). Cove rotenone data for the years 1981, 1982 and 1983 (the only years length-frequency data is readily available) also indicate low numbers of gizzard shad collected for the 127.0-152.4 mmT.L.

size class (4.1, 3.6 and 0.2% respectively) (Vepco 1983 and 1984). Therefore, this gap is probably a cohort growth anomaly rather than an impingement artifact. There was a large gizzard shad year class in 1979 when 92% of the total was less than 150 nmT.L. and the overall gizzard shad total was the highest impinged of all years (Table 6.1.5). The impingement data indicate there was a smaller gizzard shad year class in 1980, very small in 1981 (only 7% less than 150 mnT.L.), building in 1982 and relatively large in 1983 (86%

below 150 mmT.L. but smallest total of five year period). Threadfin shad were introduced into Lake Anna in the spring of 1983. Their impingement combined with gizzard shad (6% of total) in 1983 impingement (fall and winter) equals the 1982 impingement total for gizzard shad (-2.0 x 104) (Table 6.1.1).

Threadfin shad do not grow as large as gizzard shad and are available as forage throughout their life cycle and are therefore considered a better forage species. They are, however, more susceptable to mortalities due to low water temperatures than are gizzard shad (Griffith 1978).

Black crappie was the second most commonly impinged fish over the entire study period and the most commonly impinged during 1980 and 1982 (Table 6.1.1 and 6.1.3). Black crappie is a sought after game fish in Lake Anna but has been declining in number since 1979 when the creel harvest estimate "bottomed out" at 5.7 x 104 compared to the 1978 creel harvest estimate of 1.1 x 105 (Sledd and Shuber 1981).

54 Cove rotenone studies at Lake Anna have also shown a steady decline of black crappie since 1978 (Vepco 1983 and 1984). Although cove rotenone studies have sometimes proven inadequate as a basis for estimating black crappie standing crops in reservoirs (Carter 1958), the Lake Barkley rotenone study (Aggus et al. 1979) found that black crappie recovery from small coves did approximate their total standing crop. Black crappie feed primarily on minnows but also on aquatic insects and other organisms (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928; Eddy and Underhill 1943) and would be attracted to the intakes by the volume of planktonic food organisms, and the smaller fishes which feed on them, flowing through the system. Black crappie are also attracted to structure in deeper water (Pflieger 1975) and so might also be attracted to the intake structure for this reason. The decline in the population over the study period may be partly due to the lack of structure in the lake, as the lake was completely clear-cut prior to impoundment. Black crappie prefer to spawn in or near underwater structure, and the lack of structure. in -the lake may limit its spawning success. rI More than 60% of the-black crappie impinged during the five plus year study were larger than 150 mmT.L. (Figure 6.1.1). This is similar to cove rotenone data for the years 1981,_1982 and 1983 when 52%, 75% and 60%

respectively of the black crappie collected were larger than 150 mmT.L. (Vepco 1983 and 1984). The percentage of small crappie (< 100 mmT.L.) impinged has decreased dramatically since 1978;,from 32% of total crappie impinged in 1978 to 1% in 1982 and 1983 (Table, 6.i.6). This is symptomatic of a relative decline in population.

Il 55 Yellow perch was the third most frequently impinged species, during the study, at 16% of the total (Table 6.1.1). Estimated impingement declined during this period from a high of 8.7 x 10 in 1979 to a low of 3.5 x 103 in 1983 and averaged 2.9 x 104 Yellow perch is a sought after game species by anglers in the Northern states (Ney 1978); however, it is insignificant as a sport fish in the South (Clugston et al. 1978). It's primary importance in Lake Anna is as a forage fish. During the 1976-1979 North Anna-creel surveys, yellow perch was listed as a non-game species, however, an estimated yearly average of 1,828 were creeled during that period (Sledd and Shuber 1981).

During the 1983 creel survey, the estimated total number of creeled yellow perch was only 107, or 0.3% of the total fish caught.

North Anna cove rotenone data also indicate that the standing crop of yellow perch has been declining in the lake since 1976, from 17.98 kg/ha to 4.22 kg/ha in 1983 (Vepco 1983 and 1984). Rotenone samples in Keowee Reservoir and Jocasse Reservoir in South Carolina indicated much lower yellow perch standing crops than North Anna, ranging from 0.1 to 2.2 kg/ha (Clugston et al.

1981). As Lake Anna cove rotenone samples were collected in August in generally shallow areas, it is quite possible that the standing crop of yellow perch is underestimated as they may have been concentrated in the deeper, cooler water at this time. Yellow perch generally prefer cooler water (18-21%C for adults and 20-24%C for juveniles) (Ferguson 1958; McCauly and Read 1973).

Relative changes in yellow perch standing crop determined from cove rotenone data probably reflect actual population changes. This agrees with the declines noted in impingement and creel survey data.

56 Yellow perch feed primarily-on small crustaceans, insects and fish spending the day in deep water while moving inshore to feed in the evening (Pflieger 1975). Therefore, their presence in front of the screens is not unexpected for the same reasons as those given for black crappie.

Most of the yellow perch (92%) impinged during this study were smaller than 150 mm in length (Figure 6.1.3). This compares favorably with lake population studies (rotenone) which indicates that most of the yellow perch population is from year class 0 to year class 11 (0-150 mmT.L.); during 1981, 97.3% of the yellow perch collected were less than 150 mm; 1982, 99.3% and 1983, 92.6% (Vepco 1983 and 1984). The number of small yellow perch

( <100 mmT.L.) impinged has decreased yearly from 1978 through 1981 and then increased slightly in 1982 and 1983 (Table 6.1.7). This might indicate *a leveling off of the yellow perch population decline.

Bluegill was the fourth most often impinged fish during the five plus year study period at 4% of the total and an annual average impingement rate of 7.5 x 103 (Table 6.1.1 and 6.1.2). Bluegill impingement increased in 1980 and again in 1981,then decreased considerably during 1982, with a slight increase during 1983 (Table 6.1.3). Bluegill is the numerically dominant species in

j ; .

Lake Anna (Vepco 1983 and 1984) and is considered

. . . 4.441-,

4.

4-; i4 a game fish in the

4_

lake (Sledd and Shuber 1981).; It is also one of the primary forage fishes in the lake, at small sizes (determined from laboratory game fish stomach analysis)

( Ve c -1 - - X (Vepco 1983).

iI J;. 1, . i; .

Il 57 Annual cove rotenone data indicate a fairly steady standing crop of bluegill in the lake since 1979, that ranges from 58.8 kg/ha to 74.2 kg/ha with an average of 65.3 kg/ha. Although bluegill feed on the same general food items as black crappie and yellow perch, they prefer to forage in weed beds in shallow areas (Eddy and Underhill 1943). Their presence.in impingement samples is therefore probably more related to their numerical dominance in the lake than to their preferred habitat.

The majority of the bluegill (73%) impinged during this study were small (< 100 mmT.L.) (Figure 6.1.4). This concurs with rotenone data for 1981, 1982 and 1983 when fish in the bluegill population less than 101.6 mmT.L. was estimated at 88%, 78% and 89% respectively (Vepco 1983 and 1984). It appears from these data that a slightly greater percentage of larger bluegill was impinged than exist in the population as a whole. This may be because larger bluegill are attracted to the intake area to feed, especially in the spring, when schools of them can be seen feeding on the surface in front of the intakes, presumably on fish larvae and insects.

Small bluegill (< 100 mmT.L.) as a percentage of total bluegill impinged annually has increased steadily, from 30% in 1978 to 70% in 1983 (Table 6.1.8). The estimated total number impinged has also increased annually (Table 6.1.3) indicating a thriving bluegill population in the lake. This is supported by the previously mentioned rotenone data.

White perch was the fifth most often impinged fish during the five plus year study period, and the last species comprising more than 1% of the

58 total (Table-6.1.1). This species comprised 1.4% of the total number impinged with an. estimated annual.average.of 2.7.x 103 (Table 6.1.1 and 6.1.3). White perch impingement generally increased.over the study period, matching the increase of white perch in the.lake. White perch were first documented in the Lake in 1973 and were not collected again until 1976. Since 1976, the white perch population has increased.dramatically.in Lake Anna according to results of ongoing adult.fish and ichthyoplankton survey programs (Cooke 1984).. Since 1977, the increase in white perch population has been accompanied by a decrease in the black crappie population. Black crappie comprised 15.0% of the reservoir standing crop in 1976.and white perch 0.02% (from.rotenone data). By 1983, black crappie comprised 1.5% and white perch 8.2% of the total standing crop (Vepco 1983 and 1984). This exchange of relative dominance is probably not directly related to white perch, as the major decreases in the-size of. the crappie population occurred during 1976 and 1977 when white perch still comprised an insignificant portion of the standing crop.

White perch was considered ajnon-game species, during the 1976-1979 creel survey when a annual estimated average of 86 fish were creeled (Sledd and Shuber 1981).. During the 1984 survey an estimated 2.6 x 103 (6.8% of the total) white perch were creeled._.Currently, its main.contribution to the Lake Anna fishery, however, is as.a.forage.fish at small sizes (Vepco 1983). White

,perch is a sought ,after,.game fish in estuarine and~tidal fresh waters, but usually becomes stunted and a urough"Jfish in impoundments. (Hildebrand and Schroeder .1928; Mansueti 1964; Hergenrader and Bliss 1971; Wallace 1971; St.

Pierre and Davis.1972). . .

Il 59 White perch feeds primarily on small fish (Hildebrand and Schroeder 1928) as do black crappie and yellow perch. Being primarily an open water species its presence in impingement samples is not unexpected. As the total number of white perch increased annually in impingement samples, the percent of small fish (< 200 mmT.L.) also increased. This is indicative of an expanding population; however, combined with a relative lack of larger individuals, this change may also indicate a stunting of the population (Table 6.1.9). These data are similar to rotenone data (Vepco 1983 and 1984).

The majority of the remaining species (68% of the total) collected were small, less than 150 mmT.L. (Figure 6.1.5). This is probably a reflection of the total lake standing crop, comprised of mostly smaller, younger individuals.

Generally, new reservoirs show a trend of high initial productivity followed by decline. This is primarily due to high nutrient levels from freshly inundated vegetation and soil. Environmental conditions tend to stabilize 5 to 10 years after impoundment and fish biomass stabilization follows (Jenkins 1977). Lake Anna exhibited high initial fish abundance during 1973 and 1974 followed by a decline in 1975 (Reed and Simmons 1976, Appendix A). During 1976, the Lake Anna mean standing crop was 295.9 kg/ha (from cove rotenone data). The most productive area (at least in future samples),

Pamunkey Creek Arm, was not sampled that year. During 1977, with all four coves sampled, the mean standing crop was 332.0 kg/ha, which decreased during 1978 to 262.4 kg/ha. Since 1978, the mean standing crop has fluctuated but averaged 267.8 kg/ha for the following 5-year period.

60

- Lake Mean Year Standing Crop (kg/ha)

: C.

1976 295.9 1977 332.0 1978 262.4 1979 233.1 1980 321.1 1981 263.3 1982 "265.8 1983 257.3' These data would appear to indicate a stabilization of standing crop, as haslbeen predicted by Jenkins (1977), which.,'#' -1. ' ',."

unaffectedby impingement rates.

. . . I . . . . .

C. c..' . .

7 .

I e

I- ..

II

i I I I I I I i I I II STATION, 1978-1983 TABLE 6.1.1. TilE TOTAL CATCH. PER CENT AND ESTIMATED CATCH Of FISHES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER SPECIES COMMON 1978 1979 FAM ILY CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE NAME CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE ANGUILLA ROSTRATA American eel 0.0 4.00 62 0.0 243 ANGUILLIDAE APIIREDODERIDAE APHREDODERUS SAYANUS pirate perch CATOSTOMIDAE CATOSTOMUS COMMERSONI white sucker 1 ERIMYZON OBLONGUS creek chubsucker 0.0 4.33 7 0.0 ACANTIIARCHUS POMOTIS mud sunfish 0.0 28 CENTRARCHIDAE 2 redbreast sunfish 0.0 8.71 1 0.0 4 LEPOMIS AURITUS 4 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS pumpkinseed 4 0.1 17.43 11 9 0.0 43 LEPOMIS GULOSUS wa rmouth 0.1 17.33 0.4 35 163 3.1 705.33 626 0.0 2463 LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS bluegill LEPOMIS MICROLOPHUS redear sunfish 2 0.0 8 36 0.7 153.05 8 31 MICROPTERUS SAL4OIDES largemouth bass 9750 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS black crappie 21914 42.0 9121.05 6.5 38349 CLUPEIDAE ALOSA AESTIVALIS blueback herring DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM gizzard shad 777 14.9 3276.95 11569i 77.6 452950 DOROSOMA PETENENSE threadfIn shad CYPRINIDAE EXOGLOSSUM MAXILLINGUA cutlips minnow 21 golden shiner 9. 0.2 38. 33 0.0 83 NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS NOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS satinfin shiner 0.0 4. 33 NOTROPIS CORNUTUS common shiner PIIOXINUS OREAS mountain redbelly dace 0.0 4 PIMErIPALES NOTATUS bluntnose minnow CYPRINODONTIDAE FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS mummlchog ESOCIDAE ESOX NIGER chain pickerel ICTALURIDAE ICTALURUS CATUS white catfish ICTALURUS NATALIS yellow bullhead 3 0.1 13.00 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS brown bullhead 155 3.0 673.33 160 0. 1 629 channel catfish 2 0.0 8.71 5 0.0 20 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS PERCICHTHYIDAE MORONi AMERICANA white perch 8 0.2 34.62 311 0.2 1220 MORONE SAXATILIS striped bass 37 0.7 151.00 253 0.2 1003 PERCIDAE ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEDI tessellated darter PERCA FLAVESCENS yellow perch 1821 34.9 7890.81 22070 14.8 86389 STIZOSTEDION VITREUM walleye PETROMYZONTIDAE PETROI4YZON MARINUS sea lamprey 0.0 28 UMBRIDAE UMBRA PYGMAEA eastern mudminnow

I I I I II

(.* (I T(

POWER STATION, 1978-1983 TABLE 6.1.1I(CONT). THE TOTAL CATCH, PER CENT AND ESTIM4ATED CATCH OF fISHES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA FAMILY SPECIES 1980 1981 CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE ANGUILLIDAE ANGUILLA ROSTRATA 6 0.0 23.5 3 0.0 12.1 APHREDODERIDAE APHREDODERUS SAYANUS CATOSTOMIDAE CATOSTOMUS COMM ERSONI ERIMYZON OBLONGUS .

CENTRARCHIDAE ACANTHARCHUS POMOTIS 0.0 24.1 3 0.0 12.0 LEPOMIS AURITUS 12 0.0 46.6 5 0.0 19.9 LEPOHIS.GIBBOSUS 31 0.1 119.2 12 0.0 48.0 LEPOMIS GULOSUS 9 0.0 35.6 12 0.0 47.6

3839 12.1 15321.0 LEPOMIS HACROCHIRUS 2460 8.7 9638.2 LEPOMIS MICROLOPHUS 1 0.0 4.0 MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES 30 0.1 117.6 14 0.0 56.0 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 9361 33.1 36773.9 7733 24.3 31154.6 ALOSA AESTIVALIS ' 5 0.0 19.2 14 0.0 56.0 CLUPEIDAE 16474 66491.6 DOROSOHA CEPEDIANUM 6808 24.1 27031.0 51.9 DOROSOMA PETENENSE . . 1 00.

CYPRINIDAE EXOGLOSSUM MAXILLINGUA 0.0 4.0 NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS 16 0.1 63.5 24 0.1 . 96.4 HOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS 3 0.0 12.0 NOTROPIS CORNUTUS . 1 0.0 4.0 PHOXINUS OREAS 0.0 ,

iPIMEPHALES NOTATUS * , ' ! 0.0, 8.2

^ '.

-' :t~': iiCYPRINODONTIDAEi',;FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS ; i. I

--',, .) .3' I -, . * ... "

ESOCIDAEi ',v' `ilC!ESOX NIGER t! . 0.00 : 4.1 d,,

ICTALURIDAE , ICTALURUS CATUSf 0.0 ,1 . ..

.s .II i' ., ,-ICTALURUS NATALIS

1-r-. ,i-,ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS 46 - 'l 0.2 186.0 87 0.03 ,' 346.1 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 7 0.0 27.2 3..3 0.0 .12.1

'PERCICIITHYIDAE -MORONE AMERICANA 174 - 0.6 679.9 613 1.9, 2445.9 MORONE SAXATILIS 739 2.6 2846.9 1110 3.5 4482.5 PERCIDAE ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEDI 1 0.0 3.9 1 0.0 4.0

:PERCA FLAVESCENS 8573 30.3 33674.7 1812 5.7 7385.4

' STIZOSTEDION VITREUM PETROMYZONTIDAE 'PETROMYZON MARINUS 1* 0.0 3.9 UMBRIDAE 'UMBRA PYGMAEA

(%

POWER STATION, 1978-1983 TABLE 6.1.1(CONT). THE TOTAL CATCH, PER CENT AND ESTIMATED CATCH OF FISHES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA 1982 1983 TOTAL FAM ILY SPECIES CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE ESTIMATE PERCENT CATCH CATCH PERCENT ESTIMATE 8 0.0 31. 3 2 0.0 7.8 321 0.0 82 ANGUILLIDAE ANGUILLA ROSTRATA 4.0 4 0.0 1 APHREDODERUS SAYANUS 0.0 APHREDODERIDAE 0.0 4.0 4 0.0 1 CATOSTOIIIDAE CATOSTOMUS COM14ERSONI i 14 0.0 4.0 8 0.0 2 ERIMYZON OBLONGUS 4 15.8 814 0.0 2t ACANTIIARCHUS POMOTIS 1 0.0 4.0 0.0 CENTRARCHIDAE 1 0.0 3.9 11 0. 1 44.7 128 0.0 32 LEPOMIS AURITUS 4.4 288 0.0 73 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS 14 0.1 55.3 1 0.0 4 0.0 15.8 15 0.1 60.3 212 0.0 53 LEPOI4IS GULOSUS 12.7 5753.7 37893 3.9 9504 LEPOMIS MACROCHI RUS 1012 6.0 4011.8 11404 2 0.0 7.8 4 0.0 15.8 35 0.0 9 LEPOMIS MICROLOPHUS 56.3 442 0.0 109 MIiCROPTERUS SALMOIDES 7 0.0 28.0 114 0.1 6260 36.9 24593.8 2756 24.9 11018.0 151011 15.7 38054 P014OXIS NIGROMACULATUS 117.1 208 0.0 50 ALOSA AESTIVALIS 4 0.0 15.7 27 0.2 CLUPEIDAE 4050 36.6 17164.1 586508 61.4 148800 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 5000 29.5 19594.7 640 5.8 2794.6 2795 0.3 640 DOROSOMA PETENENSE 4 0.0 1 CYPRINIDAE EXOGLOSSUII MAXILLINGUA 123.4 1481 0.0 120 NOTEMIGONUS CRYSOLEUCAS 19 0.1 76.3 31 0.3 1 0.0 1.0 20 0.0 5 NOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS 8 0.0 2 NOTROPIS CORNUTUS 1 0.0 11.0 4 0.0 1 PIIOXINUS OREAS 8 0.0 2 PIMEPIIALES NOTATUS 0.0 11.8 12 0.0 3 CYPRINODONTIDAE FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS .0 3 3 0.0 11.8 20 0.0 5 ESOCIDAE ESOX NIGER 4 0.0 1 ICTALURIDAE ICTALURUS CATUS 1 0.0 11.0 17 0.0 4 ICTALURUS NATALIS 75.1 2088 0.2 512 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS 45 0.3 178.8 19 0.2 6 0.0 23.7 10 0. 1 39.7 131 0.0 33 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 4081.1 13630 1.4 3421 14ORONE AMERICANA 1312 7.7 5168.3 1003 9.1 PERCICHTHYIDAE 153 601* 3 10023 1.0 2529 1MORONE SAXATILIS 237 1.4 938.6 1.4 8 0.0 2 PERCIDAE ETHEOSTOMA OLMSTEDI 3582.1 150700 15.8 38194 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3008 17.8 11778.1 910 8.2 1 0.0 3.9 0.0 4.0 8 0.0 2 STIZOSTEDION VITREUM 31 0.0 8 PETROMYZONTIDAE PETROM4YZON MARINUS 1 3.9 4 0.0 I UMBRA PYGMAEA 0.0 UMBRIDAE aw

I'-

Kz (

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS -LEPONIS NACROCHIRUS, DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUH, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUSj PF - PERCA FLAVEFSCNS, LMA MA. - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE'SUFFIXES ARE T;- NUMBER AND W -WEIGHT.

PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE DCT DCW PNT PNW 98 2893.0 ;' 1468 8160.3 3 164.6 0 0.0 11 . 571.3 1736 .15788.9 780411 156 3999.7 205.5 0 0.0 5 44.0 202 4027.8 780413 52 1271.5 49 1607.0 93 899.8 3 581.4 18 823.7 17 400.7 1 130.4 0 0.0 2 105.7 56 2041.9 780418 181.. 0 ,0.0 0.0 49 1548.6 780420 23' 621.1 12 529.5 9 96.2 5 301.8 10.. 235.7 15 126.3 3 224*5 0 0.0 3 ' 129.8 66 1670.6 780425 35 954.3 0 0.0 4 220.1 102 2595.2 780427 55 1465.6 25 548.9 15 180.0. 3 180.6 507.6 22 613.2 18 400.5 4 152 2 0 0.0 4 32.5 59 1706.0 780502 11 1 78.1 179 2915.3 780509 13 529.6 27 997.0 130 907.6 8 403

0 0 0.0 15 627.1 33 1097.7 11. 152.6 2 13.0 0 0.0 594.2 68 2484.6 780511 3 44.9 0.0 15

.7 1679.5 95 -4863.8 780516 7 272.1- 65 2760.4 5 106.9 00 3562.1 2 41.6 7 349.0 -0.0 .7 '784.7 91 5422.6 780518 15' 685.2 60 0 0.0 12 1305.5 144 8706.6 780523 6 234.7 112 6719.3 12' 265.0., 2 182.1 0 136.1 58 3266.0 3 102;3 4 151.9. -0.0 4 372.0 71 4028.3 780525 2 0 0.0 17 2178.1 93 5307.6 780601 99.1 61 ' 2691.3- 9 64.3, 4 274118 130.0 20 817.2' 2 214.6, 2 141.3 1 16.3 9 1745.3 37 3064.7 780606 3 0 0.0 7 724.7 45 2553.7 780608 3 200.6 25 1065.9 - 1 5.5' 9 557.0 11 789.3'.' 0 0.0 4 227.2 0 0.0 5 377.3 -20 1393.8 780613 .0 0.0~~ 0 0.0 18 1942.2 -31 2667.3 780615: 0. 0.0- 6 ,, 296.77--, 3 140.9 4 287.5 3 90.0..] 0 0. 0.0 9 .807.1 23 '1473.7 780620.? Op 58.9, 10 ,- 517.7';-n 465.6 s'->'980,7 12 .r-503.1.-.-, 0 0** 1 12.0 0.0 4 780622? .0.0. O' 0.0 7 >430.1 r-- 675.0 780627., 1.7" 4 :-, 242.6e-; 1. 0-s6.1 0 O')

' ;"1 2- 2.2.'. 5 249.5 0.0 *1 123.1 -'41 , t;691.7 780704: 25; 29.41x

8 ,287. 5:-. "22517.8 11 22.2

2 155.5- 0. 0.0.. 2 148.8 0.. 0.0 2 191.3 17 780706 0. 0.0 2 . 97.3 1l19 ' "621.0 780711 9 160.3 7 ;; 309.0

0 0.0. .1: 54.4 7.0 5 351.8'.. 0 0O.0. 2 81.4. 0 0.0 1 106.8 '547.0 780713 5 143.1, 1 2.9 1 '59.2 13 637.5 780718" 0 0.0 9 , 432.3 0 0.0 2 0 0.0 19 154.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 223.6 23 377.9 780720' 281.7 1 2.3 6 -12.0 61 730.6 780725 10 43 3 39 391.3 0 0.0 50 304.8 0 0.0 1 81.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 -18 432.7 780801 6; 46.4 11 1 96.4 1 52.8 2 123.2 9 455.6 780803 1 44.3 4 138.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 263.0 1 72.7 1 109.1 13 1036.7 780808' 1 53.5 7 538.4"- 10 725.0 60.0 7 503.3 0 0.0 . 1 76'.5 0 0.0 1 85.2 780810 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 -':14 373.4 780815 3 13.2 5 233.3' . 1 25.4 5 101.5..

9 15.1 0 0.0 3 456.5 30 - 829.5 780817 2 135.7 16 222.2 ' 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 4.7. 1 4.8 6 303.4 70 899.8 780822 0 0.0 57 586.9

0.0 7 114.6 6 16.6 0 0.0 1 98.0-: 0 0.0 0 780823 0 0.0 1.- 3 196.9 12 '692.3 1 15.1. 3 141-.9 - 0 0.0 4. 176.5, 161.9 780829 297.6, 0 0.0 8 763.6 22 '1590.2 780831 1 7.8 8 521.2 0 0.0 5 0 0.0 5 229.1 0 0.0 6 601.6 20 1343.7 780905 0 0.0 9 513.0 103.5 10 375.3 5 103.2 0 0.0 4 168*6 0 0.0 1 780907 0- 0.0- 0 0.0 2 83.5 8 397.7 0~ 0.0 5 311.9 0 0.0 1 2.3 780912 10 83.8 0 0.0 6 413.7 ,i 24 667.0 780914 0~ 0.0 8 169.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 259.8 0' 0.0 5 363.4 29. 994.6 780919 0°t0 0.0 20 - 371.4 0 0 0.0 0; 0.0 0 0.0, 0 0.0 0 780926 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 O' 0.0 780928 3 96.4 0 0.0 1 4.1 59 1384.1 781004 0 0.0 55 -1283.6 0_ 0.0.

0 0.0' 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 174.4 50 800.0 781006 0 0.0 43 625.6 0.0 29 642.9 28 ' 623.5 0 0.0 ,1 19.4 . 0 0.0 0.-

781010 0 0.0 1 48.0 1 4.5 92 1648.4 781012 0 90 -1595.9 - 0 .0.0 - 0 .031 1285.6

-" 944.1 , 0 0.0 - 5 .341.@5 0 0.0 0 0.0 53 781017 0.0 48 0'.

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

DCW PNT PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT o0W TFISH TWT DATE DCT 16.7 38 836.9 0 0.0 1 42.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 41 895.6 781024 2 0.0 38 9 8.5 781026 3 69.4 34 848.6 0 0.0 1 70.5 0 0.0 0 46.8 47 1011.3 0 0.0 1 35.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 50 1093.6 781031 2 0.0 50 1466.0 781102 1 78.9 49 1387.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 13.5 101 2294.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 12.0 103 2319.9 781108 1 0.0 61 1883.7 781110 3 72.3 58 1811.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 15.7 105 3550.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 14.5 109 3580.2 781114 1 5.8 77 2771.8 781120 1 10.9 75 2755.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 3 117.6 0 0.0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 73.2 4 190.8 781122 0 10.8 130 3800.6 781128 1 66.3 126 3721.2 0 0.0 1 2.3 0 0.0 2 43.9 57 2295.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 44.0 67 2383.0 781130 5 8.3 81 4022.4 781205 6 83.4 74 3930.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 103.0 21 1181.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 22.8 36 1307.0 781207 11 42 2396.7 781212 9 91.0 26 1304.9 1 113.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 6 887.5 476.3 28 1716.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 13.0 75 2205.4 781219 45 28.5 63 1966.0 781221 41 383.5 18 1514.1 0 0.0 1 39.9 0 0.0 3 1005.8 56 4203.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 20.8 153 5229.9 781227 95 3 313.5 73 2336.8 781229 54 798.3 16 1225.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 934.9 49 2749.7 1 176.5 1 37.7 0 0.0 3 15.4 139 3914.2 790103 85 81.9 198 3195.5 790105 177 1718.1 16 1355.6 2 39.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 1888.0 17 1156.8 3 259.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 35.9 197 3340.6 790109 172 0 0.0 381 5463.3 790116 362 4019.9 18 1349.3 1 94.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 6637.1 52 3905.8 0 0.0 1 54.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 592 10596.9 790118 539 42.0 5402 8239.8 790124 5345 4009.0 414 3757.4 4 365.0 2 66.4 0 0.0 7 10066.7 22 1818.0 4 201.1 2 182.5 0 0.0 3 150.2 6346 12418.5 790126 6315 2 94.6 1609 9798.9 790130 1572 7752.5 32 1931.6 2 19.4 1 0.8 0 0.0 52867.7 44 3445.0 1 77.7 2 115.9 1 12.0 5 34.0 4081 56552.3 790201 4028 84.3 6224 77043.6 790206 6175 73290.0 45 3463.3 1 100.6 1 105.4 0 0.0 2 1902.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 186 1902.6 790214 186 31.9 439 6644.0 790216 418 5703.4 16 908.7 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 85317.3 78 1999.7 5 47.9 1 2.7 0 0.0 3 19.1 6456 87386.7 790221 6369 39.8 5790 79423.2 790223 5719 77795.3 59 1489.1 5 67.3 1 2.2 3 29.5 3 11597.9 198 10758.3 322 11512.3 3 39.6 5 158.0 20 1202.1 7948 35268.2 790227 7400 34 3403.6 13586 222855.4 790301 12384 174682.1 475 20920.0 683 23497.2 4 214.9 6 137.6 192249.1 1366 53326.1 1904 48549.4 34 2089.2 100 4157.2 34 3758.0 16954 304129.0 790306 13516 11522 193481.2 790313 9287 132363.7 348 25021.7 1847 33588.3 15 623.0 6 373.3 19 1511.2 121253.1 1310 77367.5 2160 44061.2 10 510.4 6 244.2 23 2729.1 13709 246165.5 790315 10200 117.3 12373 187567.6 790320 9480 119755.6 406 26187.9 2460 40487.2. 23 1009.0 2 10.6 2 91212.4 282 19166.0 4616 51909.6 23 1057.1 1 5.0 6 509.5 11418 163859.6 790323 6490 3447.8 6434 122907.5 790327 2034 30645.4 443 25279.2 3900 62944.3 14 507.8 5 83.0 38 20946.4 1065 45104.8 3477 43729.9 9 352.9 5 140.6 17 1214.3 6398 111488.9 790329 1825 18 1731.1 1640 26674.1 790403 777 10203.7 375 10004.4 461 4394.6 7 311.9 2 28.4 2827.0 36 1431.6 6 129.3 3 148.5 2 52.0 2 16.5 300 4604.9 790410 251 0 0.0 434 9711.7 790412 289 3637.2 125 5470.6 20 603.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 2371.5 77 2552.5 15 280.9 1 62.5 2 50.1 3 108.5 278 5426.0 790417 180 1 121.1 247 4889.6 790419 144 1943.0 80 2335.0 17 369.3 4 103.2 1 18.0 735.9 59 1885.6 10 300.1 2 4.7 0 0.0 1 6.4 127 2932.7 790424 55 3 27.9 161 3300.4 790426 89 1076.6 64 2040.2 3 133.0 1 4.1 1 18.6 452.8 52 1603.9 17 351.1 10 129.6 2 92.2 6 575.9 107 3205.5 790501 20 1031.9 48 3199.4 790508 4 206.6 32 1926.1 2 25.8 4 9.0 0 0.0 6

( f'

(.

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISHTOTALS SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER.'THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - HEIGHT. I PNW PFT PFW LMAT LHMW MAT MAW OTT OTH TFISH .T1T DATE DOCT 'DCW PNT 1658'.8 8 170.5 9 205.5 0 0.0 3 333.5 88 2413.1 790510 4 44.8 64 13 1168.0 107 4988.5 6 232.4 ' 73 3247.9 3 111.4 12 228.8 0 0.0 790515 14 755.1 1 86.6 10 814.2 3767 90425.9 790517 3612 84740.9 69 3441.2 61 587.9 3650.0

- 977.2 28 1835.2 0 0.0 8 521.4 2 159.7 3 156.5 85 790522 44 2 156.8 48 2640.7 11 257.4 25 1763.3 0 0.0 9. 392.5 1 70.7 790524 0.0 4 372.1 82 5103.8 790529. 9 304.6 36 2016.5 1 10.3 32 2400.3 0 30 266.0 8: 189.4 0 0.0 .3 433.9 108 3421.1 790605 17 514.9 50 2016.9 125.0 52 1955.0 23.4 36 1510.0 2 23.6 12' 273.0 0 0.0 1 790607 383.0' 0 0.0 16 1997.7 94 4009.1 790612 20.6 .46 1607.8 0 0.0 31 12 481'.0 0 0.0 19 206.3 0 0.0 6 710.4 37 '1397.7 790614 .0 0.0 0.0 8 1020.7 26 1860.4 790619 0.0 13 '745.7 o -0.0 5 94.0 0 0 .8. 12.0 0 0.0 4 57.4 14 147.8 790621 0.0 . 2 '-78.4 .0 0.0 0 0.0 .4 273.1 20 947.7 790626 1 69.9 , 10 595.2 0 0.0. 5 9.5. 19 624.2 1 1.2 6 200.5 0 0.0 2 249.3 1075.2

.790703 *0 0.0 10 111.6 14 826.6 790706 *0 0.0 8 628.0 0 0.0 5 87 0 0. 0.0 '2 0 0 .0 7' 502.9 1 1.0 220.5 12 -899.2 790710 0 0.0 2 -174.8 -0 0.0 3 '167.0

.0 '0.0 3 167.0 0 0.0- 0 '0.0 0 0.0 790712 ; 615.6 1 164.3 2 85.1 -15 1100.7 790717 . 0 . 6 235-.7 '0 0.0., 6

'441.4 '1 -10.7.: -2.0, 0 0.0 .3 319.5 14 828.'6

790718 0 ' 55.0 7 -:0 0.0 :11 - ;280.-2 1s790724 1:, -,3.9 *;; 3 234.5 .3 23.6j 34:) 18.2 0 0.0 333.2 O0 .0O.Ot 112.31 2 4.3 .1 '90.4 :1.4 .!540.2

' 790731 0 0 -0.0 0.0 -'I4 -83.1

790802 0 0 46 64.1 "'2 14.9'1 1 " 17 0 261.7 0 0'0. 71 156.1- 4 '9.8 '2 186.7 '- -614. *3 790807 -0 188.9 '13 448.2

'790809 231.6 'O 0.0 I; ,4.-3.1 7 23.4 1 5 405.6 '0 0.0 2 -1.7 0 0.0 2 57.0 10 515.3 790814 51.0 0.0 '3 .165.1 .15 892.2 790816 3 356.2 5 323.1 0 O.O 4 47* 8 0 5 '296.1 0 0.0. 7 208.0. 0 0.0 0 0.0 13 514.2 790821 1 10.1 1 147.3 '14 1049.5 790828 2 23.6 7 646.5 0 0.0 4 232.1 0 0.0 7 537.8 0 0.0 3 28 8 1 109.0 3 237.8 14 913.4 790830 0 O.O 1 95.8 8 518.5 790905 0 - 0.0 3 275.4 0 0.0 2 2.2 2 145.1 9 -622.1 0 0.0. 7 151.7 0 0.0 1 3.7 17 777.5 790907 0 '0.0 0.0 19 1263.7 1 62.8 8 553.0 0 0.0 4 99.00 6 548.9 0 790911 6.5 563.2 0 0.0 10 863.2 790913 .0 0.0 2 -173.5 1 120.0 2 5

'0 15 647.4 1 207.9 5 288.2 8 841.0 0.0 29 1984.5 790918 0 0.0 0 .0.0 3 188.0 0 0.0 2 54.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 134.0 790919 872.2 13 1062.8 1 2.8 47 3029.6 790925 1 64.5 20 1027.3 0 0.0' 12 2064.2 2 220.0 20 801.5' 15 1511.4 2 56.3 116 4753.4

'790927 2 100.0 75 1747.1 4 142.4 131 4501.2 791002 85.4 89 1835.1 0 0.0 17 691.2 20 4348.2 0 0.0' 16 421.8 13 1001.2 7 145.9 193 5957.0 791004 39.9 156 819.8 55.4 50 2127.3 791009 0 0.0 34 1156.8 0 0.0. 5 95.33 10 0 0.0 15 387.5 9 . 794.3 2 53.0 69 2904.2 791011 1 58.7 42 .1610.7 3832.4 3 *58.2 .109 2578.8 I., 82.0 16 654.5- 6 382.8 3 76.1 138 791016 66.3 370.0 3 128.3 54 1890.0 791023 0 0.0 44 1325.4 0 0.0 2 5 0 0.0 11 204.8, 5 277.7 0 0.0 32 879.8 791025 0 0.0 16 397.3 0 0.0 180 4541.9 3 121.7 -164 3908.5 0 0.0 12 371.1 1 140.6 791030 127.6 3 255.7 2 116.6 45 1538.1 791101 4 130.5 31 907.7 0 0.0 5 74

0. 0.0 8 438.8 2 134.2 4 37.4 2086.2' 791106

3 87.3' 57 1388.5 5 74.7 38 1028.6 791108 44.6 19 545.6 1 25.1 .4 103.5 4 235.1

5. 1 24.8 10 405.6 1 129.7 .5-.. 101.9 34 1342.3 791113 196.0 12 484.3 8 132 ,4822.0 2 8.1 115 4177.1 1 224.3 '3. 57.4 .3 285.8 69.3 791119 0%

.- 0

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PH - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

DCW PNT PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW Tf2SH TWT DATE DCT 1 199 5877.7 0 0.0 13 523.7 0 0.0 14 146.4 227 6583.5 791121 35.7 127.1 2 116.1 13 154.3 67 2552.0 2 55.1 47 2099.4 0 0.0 3 791127 0.0 4 138.8 3 371.7 12 131.0 92 3790.0 791129 4 27.6 69 3120.9 0 106 4402.8 0 0.0 3 94.8 0 0.0 13 113.5 123 4656.4 791204 1 45.3 1 77.3 13 129.1 186 6602.9 4 205.7 164 6102.4 0 0.0 4 88.4 791206 0.0 6 124.5 1 66.8 23 222.3 73 2989. 1 791211 6 217.6 37 2357.9 0 0 4 493.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 7.4 855 500.5 791218 0.0 39.8 22 332.4 4034.0 8 227.8 53 3403.2 0 0.0 1 30.8 1 791220 0 0.0 3 28.7 0 0.0 8 79.4 159 8248.8 791227 14 328.3 134 7812.4 405.6 84 5859.9 1 35.5 0 0.0 1 51.6 4 37.0 105 6389.6 791229 15 2 43.1 0 0.0 5 36.7 71 4223.0 800103 9 408.7 55 3734.5 0 0.0 39 2910.4 0 0.0 8 326.3 2 148.6 10 83.2 64 3615.0 800105 5 146.5 0.0 407.5 2808.4 27 756.8 25 1577.1 0 0.0 2 67.0 0 3 57 800108 0 0.0 8 373.9 0 0.0 7 70.1 91 4268.5 800115 49 1765.2 27 2059.3 74 1465.2 18 1256.5 0 0.0 9 351.1 0 0.0 8 674.0 109 3746.8 800117 0 6 265.2 0 0.0 4 28.8 338 10502.3 800122 248 3280.7 80 6927.6 0.0 2751.9 47 3305.7 1 36.6 3 9.0 1 201.7 7 112.9 229 6417.8 800124 170 231.1 0 0.0 4 29.3 169 6576.4 800129 109 2925.1 46 3325.2 2 65.7 8 3703.4 23 1670.1 0 0.0 6 129.1 1 165.3 3 1287.0 163 6954.9 800131 130 310.4 0.0 6 45.2 135 4297.7 93 2504.0 18 1388.1 1 50.0 17 0 800205 68.0 4 122.8 0 0.0 1 11.0 92 1859.0 800212 77 1226.8 7 430.4 3 1799.6 10 599.4 3 79.1 7 171.4 0 0.0 2 12.4 115 2661,9 800214 93 5 190.6 1 129.6 3 93.9 139 3712.9 800220 99 2192.1 11 397.1 20 709.6 1943.8 14 472.9 32 1061.7 9 348.9 0 0.0 4 28.5 138 3855.8 800222 79 239 667.7 0 0.0 15 141.3 577 17149.6 800226 260 6433.8 53 3378.5 6528.3 10 5299.2 65 4541.8 319 8329.5 8 377.1 0 0.0 12 88.6 639 18636.2 800228 235 670 1 69.2 8 76.2 955 24565.8 800305 213 6278.9 60 3399.9 14670.7 3 70.9 5138.5 81 4583.0 1419 34132.5 34 1319.6 2 114.5 7 57.9 1725 45346.0 800311 182 18 753.4 2 169.5 10 114.2 1728 40663.0 800313 351 8743.0 116 4472.7 1231 26410.2 491 34305.8 1214 23223.1 7 380.9 2 106.2 10 177.3 2287 70172.1 800318 563 11978.8 113.1 16 250.6 2402 57881.6 410 9872.2 297 16595.4 1667 30686.4 10 363.9 2 800320 10046.3 32 1181.7 1 60.0 7 196.1 1732 58420.1 800325 388 10433.7 631 36502.3 673 10991.3 228 10637.8 493 7084.1 9 353.0 3 223.1 8 187.7 960 29477.0 800327 219 22 436.3 3 147.2 5 243.3 1201 38162.7 800401 369 16870.7 324 15400.1 478 5065.1 313 11958.9 41 611.3 8 348.1 0 0.0 8 168.1 881 28585.9 800408 511 15499.5 196.6 0.0 4 193.9 676 25429.6 424 16387.8 217 8241.5 21 409.8 10 0 800410 123.5 10 141.9 0 0.0 3 14.9 516 20402. 3 800415 378 15150.6 121 4971.4 4 143 5518.3 14 214.2 19 284.6 0 0.0 1 9.3 337 12848.1 800417 160 6821.7 2 165.1 168 6142.9 84 3468.7 53 2118.9 8 134.8 21 255.4 0 0.0 800422 31 246.2 1 13.2 2 170.7 152 4982.0 800424 54 2277.0 62 2242.2 2 32.7 33 1313.3 2 284.0 33 303.6 2 103.2 0 0.0 72 2095.1 800429 2 91.0 0.0 3 106.2 86 4969.8 4 293.4 69 4412.9 1 27.2 9 130.1 0 800506 0.0 37 542.4 1 9.9 2 200.5 171 8265.5 800508 3 135.2 128 7377.5 0 178 12169.5 2 71.9 23 316.6 5 249.9 1 31.9 212 12985.9 800513 3 146.1 1 278.4 5 490.1 259 15978.3 2 108.7 200 14483.7 21.0 47 596.4 4 800515 0 0.0 32 1350.7 2 102.7 4 229.3 197 11996.2 800520 4 81.4 155 10232.1 196 3 127 8143.9 1 22.0 54 2010.8 6 349.2 5 592.4 11256.4 800522 138.1 0 1030.9 1 53.9 1 10.9 112 5442.9 800527 1 24.2 73 4323.0 0.0 36 7 382.1 1 27.5 30 441.4 1 62.2 2 3143.4 42 4141.7 800603 1 85.1 5 227.6 3 161.7 96 2317.2 a' 800606 0 0.0 25 1277.9 0 0.0 63 650.0

r' TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR.SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

POMOXIS NIGROHACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA.-LEPOMIS. MACROCHIRUS, DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN .-

MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE-SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W,- WEIGHT.

PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW' MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE DCT DCW PNT 19 1187.2 0 0.0 69 877.7 2 108.4 2 ,120.5 93 2437.6 800610 1 143.8 50 1897.0 0 0.0 17 1203.7 0 0.0 27 159.3 2 183.0 14 351.0 800612 .3 291.7 37 1726.6 800617 -- 2 155.6 10 .851.6 0 0.0 21 394.7 1 33.0 818.7 1 121.2 12- 320.0 2 62.7 1 11.0 28 1412.5 800619 1 78.9' 11 30 1005.2 0 0.0 10 723.9 0 0.0 14 276.1 0 0.0 6 5.2 800624 0 0.0 2 59.2 22 884.6 800701 - 0 0.0- 8 583.4 1 1.3 11 240.7 0.0 4,, 102.9 0 0.0 125.0 11 704.4 800703 2 126.8 4 349.7 - 0 37 1520.5 3 168.8 12 868.3 0, 0.0 16' 216.3 3 70 2 3 196.9 800708 6 -17.2 57 , 2273.3 800710 2 38.6? 21 1884.3 0 0.0 28 333.2 0 0.0 8 0 0.0 22 337.5 5 131.6 3 '19.9 42 ,1211.0 800715 14 8.2 8 713 , 2590.8 5 79.1 7 488.8 0 0.0 18 145.1 2 - 6.o 1 1871.8 33 800717 31 41.0 92 925.5 800722 5 19.4 13 522.9 1 2.0 148 282.5 22 57*7 0.1 0.0- 12 202.3 0 0.0 170*4 29 1486.7 800729 0 0.0' 16 1114.0 1396.8 887.8 0' 0.0 23 454.6 0 '0.0 4.5 37 800731 1 .1 49.9 12 23 .377.3 1 91.1 5 233.2 0- 0.0 16' 48.1 0 4.9 800805 O.O. 1 3.1 0 0.0 22 961.3 800807 ' 2 132.'6; 8 700.0 0 0.0 11 125.;6 0 0.0 96, 331.7' 3 28.7 2 7.4 106 , 785.3 800812 , 1 ;l 83.8' 4 333.7 .553.3 5.0" 7'~ 403-S - 2 6.2.. 54 60.3 .72.7 -. 5.6 71 800814 1': 87 " '094.4 1; 54t 5, 3821.7 A ,0.0 30' 68'0 16 800819 - ; 5' 9 .o 40 20.3' 1 5.2 1 0 C'O%+,.0 31 .893.9 800820'.,l 0 0; 0 124' 868.4- 16:

0, 0.0.'; 281 1634.8"- 01,,

O~jj 3.2 26, 58.7" 9 29.7 0 64 -',;'1726.4 800826 '0.0 58 '..2,.1890.8

800828-,,' 2 ; 59.1-'> 2 23 1290.8 r 0.0 .33 540.9' 0 00.0 20 387.14' 3 1327.5 83 ,3757.0 800903,. 1 9.0'^' 38' 1969.7i; 0'!; , 0. 37' 0.- :0.0 27' 101'.5: 4 183.4 3 -;118.9 70 , 2262.9 800905-' 1 77.0 *' 35i 1782.1 0- :1694.4 2 I 72.8 25 1513. 1i O'* ;0.0 27 102.4' 0 ;' 0;0 2 " 56.

800909. 340.5 74 3592.8 800911' 5 172.3't ' 45' 2804.9 , 0.0 22 244.7 1 30.4 2 141.2 24' 1224.3 0 0.0 16 207.3' 1 3.4 3 ' 73.1 46 . 1649.3 800916 0.0 2 11.2 47 1063.4 800923 0 0.0' 32 971.6 0' 0.0 13 80.6 0 34 0. 0.0 13 85.8 1 125.7 0 0.0 49 1989.8 800925 1 22.6 1755.7 178 - 724.0 800930 4 266.0 111 3776.5 1 35.2 60 638.3 0 0.0 2 8.0 2 69.2 2 ' 96.9 228 . f592.2 801002 7,. 309.7 181 4641.8 1;i 39.7 35' 434.9 5403.4' 0 0.0, 23 298.1 01 0.0 5 22.4 197 !,871.0 801007 " 3 147.1' 166 192 6982.9 3 140.3 157 6120.2 0- 0.0 24 412.6 5 301.6 3 8.2 801014 3 4 17.5 247 8669.4 801016- 3' 157.0 , 216 8253.1 0 0.0 21 151.2 90.6 0 0.0 29 129.0 5 310.4 2 19.0 149 4797.0 801021 4 190.5- 109 4148.1 172 ' 3569.4 2 54.6 96 2671.2 0 0.0 71 789.6 1 49.5 2 4.5 801023 - 6 188.6 2 120.2 670 e8652.8 801028..' 4 145.2 634 27918.8' %0 0.0 24 280.0 0.0. 28 432.8 3 59.5 4 - 36.1 610 211849.2 801030 9 474.0 566 23846.8 0 664 '-',25461.2 9 501.6', 610 24196.0 0.0 37 622.7 3 119.8 5 21.1 801104 0 3 194.3 12 822.7 238 5818.0 801112 8 389.8 ' 91 3740.7 0.0 124 670.5 0' 0.0 70 327.9 1 8.0 16: 105.2 191 14960.5 801114. 11 567.2 93 3952.2 0 '10442.8 8435.8 0.0 198 913.8 1 119.4 30 172.3 419 801118 20 801.5 170 0 22 349 , 11792.7 14 549.7.- 224 10142.9 0.0. 85 650.2 4 182.7 267.2 801120 0. 1 39.8 19 ,-158.7 131 5040.5 801124 13 578.0 78 4007.0 0.0 20 257.0 0 0.0 28 153.1 . 2 22.4 32 265.1 171 6235.0 801126 16 767.9 93 5026.5 0 227 8474.8 27 1409.4 104 6102.0 0.0 .18 81.9 1 123.1 77 758.4 801202 0 1 58.3 63 '.586.5. 188 7093.9 801209 38- .1969.8 66 4102.6 0.0 20 376.7

0 0. ,12 164.6 2 82.5 30 282.8 136 5501.7 801211 38 1765.7 54 3206.1 323 16680.9 3304.4' '155 12329.6 0 0.0 8 135.9 1 61.8 86 849.2 801216 73 101 968.4 265 11513.2 55 2816.9 91 7412.4 1 ;15.8 16 290.3 . 1 9.4 801218

IMPINGED TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES ARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

DCW PNT PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE DCT 77 3506.7 39 2233.0 0 0.0 12 233.9 2 62.7 39 421.6 169 6457.9 801223 512.8 273 9596.6 801227 166 6284.5 37 2358.3 1 29.9 17 315.5 1 95.6 51 72 4010.3 6 414.4 0 0.0 8 195.8 6 169.4 34 365.5 126 5155.4 801230 16 195.3 131 6843.7 810106 96 5683.8 13 814.1 0 0.0 6 150.5 0 0.0 713 43263.1 12 796.7 0 0.0 6 285.9 1 9.0 24 1876.9 756 46231.6 810108 150.8 1399 82476.0 810114 1358 80696.2 25 1463.6 0 0.0 3 158.8 1 6.6 12 92 6067.9 4 202.5 0 0.0 2 52.1 0 0.0 4 37.1 102 6359.6 810116 4 57.1 73 4005.7 810120 55 3247.8 8 427.2 2 203.1 4 70.5 0 0.0 119 8370.2 11 656.2 0 0.0 6 160.4 0 0.0 8 376.3 144 9563.1 810122 323.6 247 13565.8 810127 140 9251.2 61 3807.1 0 0.0 8 183.9 0 0.0 38 199 13519.6 28 1581.4 2 65.0 6 134.5 0 0.0 37 383.2 272 15683.7 810203 183.2 517 32931.5 810205 460 30813.0 30 1681.3 3 201.3 5 52.7 0 0.0 19 515 32495.4 65 3501.7 0 0.0 4 47.6 1 32.0 15 176.4 600 36253.1 810210 33 401.0 623 38217.4 810212 541 35253.9 36 2282.8 0 0.0 12 240.5 1 39.2 456 29231.6 88 4558.3 36 1041.1 19 385.1 0 0.0 16 147.2 615 35363.3 810218 44 490.2 538 25608.5 810220 124 7920.2 209 12226.0 150 4702.2 11 269.9 0 0.0 76 5492.6 234 13341.9 448 11839.0 35 868.2 3 256.1 40 479.5 836 32277.3 810224 36 385.2 762 33294.3 810303 119 7560.9 348 19302.4 242 5678.2 17 367.6 0 0.0 122 7515.7 143 8025.0 271 5842.4 14 259.0 1 6.0 37 350.0 588 21998.1 810305 13 143.9 420 21152.3 810310 173 11635.5 128 6908.0 96 2266.8 10 198.1 0 0.0 483 29976.6 164 8664.2 144 3185.6 8 190.4 0 0.0 15 165.7 814 42182.5 810312 19 248.4 1200 68990.6 810317 586 39204.9 513 27665.2 62 1514.0 20 358.1 0 0.0 1662 105209.5 359 19054.0 24 553.8 2 70.4 2 127.5 24 341.6 2073 125356.8 810319 240.3 926 54438.1 810324 693 45320.2 161 7628.6 40 992.7 10 208.6 1 47.7 21 500 28999.2 425 23766.2 82 1348.3 6 149.0 1 6.2 34 339.0 1048 54607.9 810331 576.1 1093 53845.1 810402 623 33953.2 338 17893.1 89 1198.0 15 213.0 1 11.7 27 1642 85724.4 232 8760.8 49 557.6 23 151.8 7 170.1 14 394.0 1967 95758.7 810407 85.5 1351 61710.7 810409 1198 56745.4 103 4452.9 21 148.9 8 54.4 14 223.6 7 70105.4 69 2733.8 11 103.7 73 309.7 32 838.2 10 149.3 1688 74240.1 810414 1493 659 29795.9 810416 496 26592.7 59 2141.1 5 55.2 77 300.7 17 304.2 5 402.0 128 6527.1 27 635.1 8 109.4 103 430.9 18 408.2 2 1026.6 286 9137.3 810421 3957.9 163 9035.5 810428 54 2641.1 41 1794.1 3 55.8 45 160.7 16 425.9 4 27 1532.8 32 1717.4 0 0.0 84 353.5 6 189.1 6 279.4 155 4072.2 810430 843.2 66 2421.6 810505 14 696.9 20 674.7 0 0.0 21 78.8 3 128.0 8 11 468.0 21 1148.1 1 69.5 42 256.4 6 207.1 10 586.3 91 2735.4 810507 4 2024.9 80 4383.1 810512 2 158.0 24 1797.4 0 0.0 46 309.4 4 93.4 0 0.0 22 1511.4 0 0.0 38 212.5 1 62.0 3 175.5 64 1961.4 810514 4 344.7 138 4467.6 810519 5 338.9 49 2953.2 1 41.9 74 554.5 5 234.4 2 93.0 54 3585.2 1 23.6 40 885.1 3 107.7 2 119.8 102 4814.4 810526 6 504.5 104 5853.3 810529 2 75.6 70 4816.3 1 10.4 25 446.5 0 0.0 3 103.2 25 1659.3 0 0.0 51 1130.7 2 90.1 3 298.1 84 3281.4-810602 4 189.5 79 1945.4 810604 2 114.7 14 1046.5 0 0.0 58 584.7 1 10.0 0.0 7 537.7 0 0.0 156 1122.9 2 141.7 0 0.0 165 1802.3 810609 0 129.3 177 2274.2 810611 1 29.4 13 1087.5 0 0.0 160 991.4 1 36.6 2 1 43.3 41 3746.0 0 0.0 80 1090.2 7 333.9 3 2171.4 132 7384.8 810616 0.0 33 1545.4 810623 3 156.2 6 540.0 0 0.0 16 423.7 8 425.5 0 1 50.4 10 720.7 0 0.0 10 215.0 5 312.3 2 2.1 28 1300.5 810625 1 74.3 28 1777.3 810630 1 59.4 12 943.1 0 0.0 7 253.2 7 447.3 1 37.1 20 1440.4 0 0.0 13 316.6 10 567.5 6 518.9 50 2880.5 810702 3 161.8 85 4173.5 810707 4 39.9 37 2677.0 0 0.0 25 371.8 16 923.0

C C. (.

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (CHS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMFPI NGED 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIOPHSARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE' PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, UMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES AREJT - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

PFW LMAT LMAW MAT I MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE DCT DCW PNT .PNW PFT 0 0.0 10 163.7 6 406,1 1 125.6 53 2819.8 810709 3 39.3 33 20 p85.1 102, 4776.4 59 36 48.9 0 0.0 30 244.4 7 371.4 '4 340.2 810714 2 171.5 249.9 4 125.9 47 2169.5 1 61.7 27 16 .73.7 0 0.0 10 58.3 5 810721 7 100.9 386.8 2 137.8 33 1756.4 810723 0 0.0 19 11 30.9 0 0.0 2757.6 20 22.0 0 0.0 19 109.4 6 336.4 3 233.0 60 810728 1 56.8 31 2714.7 28 1865.7 1 0.9 20 199.6 9 414.6 1 96.9 62.

810730 3 137.0 .109.8 2 111.3 50 2399.6 5 156.1 32 19 05.1 0 0.0 7 117.3 4 810804 21 130.1 10 458.3 5 453.0 64 2752.4 810806 5 267.6 23 ;1443.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 194 331.1 6 329.8 4 231.2 227 2381.1 810811 8 440.7 15 1048.3 129 2760.1 27 1800.2 0 0.0 85 161.6 8 291.1 2 223.0 810818 7 284.2 11 477.9 6 261.5 189 5464.4 810820 20 702.2 58 3623.3 0 0.0 94 399.~5 1 26.5 20 90.8 '5 244.0 3 203.9 106 4519.0 810825 7 174.1 70 3779.7 60 3145.7 45 2534.2 0 0.0 .3 4.7 7 328;2 1 119.1 810827 4 159.5 175.1 2 137.3 63 3529.8 7 ;416.4 149 27 83.2 0 0.0 1 17.8 4 810901 24.3 5 240.1 .2 64.9 S9' 2807.4

' 810903 ' 4 142.3 43 23 35.8 0 0.0 '.5 4269.7 31 51.5 0 0.0 16 264.7 6 343.3 2 96.6 96

.810910 9 '413.6 63 74.2 50; 2043.3 504.1 19 '12 28.7 0 :0.0 15 82.9 3 153.4 1 810916 12 194.7 2 82.2 52 1374.5

- A810918 9 '386.2 11 '5 16.1 0 0o.0 28 195.3 '2 49.4 - 0 .0.0 14 43.7 6 186;.6 ,3 25.4 169 7235.6 rj810922 14 °530.5 132 o:'64 6 .. 1 3329.4 6

623.7 ' 44 ;s:21 71.0 3 0 10.0 109.4 -8 353.4 71.9 75

,.,810924 116 3 ' 141.2 '0O r- .o0 92 3849.5

.,810929 14 !519.5 65 >'.31! 54.8 - I -11.3 *22.7 96 ' 441 48.6 0 0.0 .5 16.3 -4 '180.8 .5 94.1 119. 5074.3

-; 811001 *' 9 334.5 '

1 6 328.5 162 6754.7 13 127 'A'55' 77.6 ' '0 0.0 ; 13 -105.0 . 3 '158.2

-78110O6 585.4 24.6 4 '261'.6 .0 0.0 154 6462.7 811014 8 279.7 137 585;6.8 0 0.0 '5 82.2 2 -'78.6 -1 5.4 207 7907.3 811016 14 ' 738.7 '178 '701 02.4 . 0 -0. 0 '12 *aO. 6 169!50.4 0 '0.0 13 51.0 0 '0.0 .3 10.8 377 17902.5 811()20 22 890.3 339 148 8649.3.

445.9 113 76')2.5 - 0 0.0 1'6 88.3 '7 335.3 1 87.3

-811022 11 373.8 4 55.8 459 18917.3 22 '843.4 367 174' 72.9 0 0.0 59 171.4 7 811(27 301.5 9 *440.2 7 291.8 407 17417.5 811029 26 ' 843.3 288 155'40.7 0 0.0 .77 6142.5 361 00.2 0 0.0 180 535.8 10 403.7 12 241.9 315 811103 34 1360.9 79 794 12689.5 205 935 95.9 1 22.5 518 1508.8 8 427.7 31 232.0

.811109 31 '"1102.6 49 531.3 504 6871.1 811113 59 -2361.8 40 151 38.6 0 0.0 339 1573.0 17 816.4 2 48.5 106 391.7 18 .906.7 60 577.4 289 6482.1 811117 54 2333.3 49 22: 24.5 74 341 45.6, 3 64.6 80 276.1 7 301.7 46 575.8 249 6174.0

.811119 39 1510.2 16 740.6 72 810.4 263 6170.8 811123 -. 48 1945.8 59' 231 56.5 3 75.2 65 212.3 51 21c20.8 1 17.0 '88 246.5 23 1117.4 61 634.9 283 6564.4 811125 59 *, 2427.8 0 0.0 23 68.3 12 553.3 40 343.7 158 4333.1 811201 70 2701.4 13 6066.4 177 5936.4 13 5107.5 0 0.0 10 62.8 11 541.4 30 321.0 811208 113 4463.7 20 984.4 37 397.7 232 6295.0 95 ; 3309.1 30 13c!2.5 0 0.0 50 281.3 811210 67.7 29 164.7 28 1466.1 45 425.8 241 7956.3 811216 103 ' 4398.9 32 14:13.1 4 9169.0 19i 57.8 1 14.8 13 99.1 18 900.5 38 419.4 271 811218 158 5767.4 43 13 115.5 .131 4797.1 2963.2 22 101 14.0 0 0.0 6 50.5 12 653.9 811221 78 28 1385.9 19 222.3 225 - 9630.6

-811223 146 6661.7 28 13( )3.9 1 16.5 3 40.3 1 94.4 11 211.2 19 925.3 21 309.2 213 8849.6 811229 115 5094.8 46 221 14.7 205 7829.3 0 0.0 11 194.3 6 285.4 21 205.7

'820105-- 136 - 5797.7 31 134 i6.2 6 70.3 159 6439.0 103 4253.7 33 13E 13.4 0 0.0 7 .182.6 10 549.0 820107 2 78.0 11 701.7 7 95.8 118 5477.7 820112. .75 3605.3 23 9906.9 0 0.0 14392.5 14f16.9 "2 59.7 5 225.1 20 1152.1 10 534.9 301 820114 230 10933.8 34 4 54.4 209 10915.0 69 -30e 16.2 - 0 -' 0.0 5 168.4 18 989.5 820119 113 ' 6616.5 a8 236.5 19 1045.7 .9 177.9 459 22305.5 820121 '261 -13748.7 160 706500' 2 36.7

-J 0

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED ARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

PNT PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE OCT DCW 5047.5 3 86.4 14 181.6 12 466.6 2 26.4 276 16927.8 820126 151 11119.3 94 72.1 0 0.0 32 1938.2 820127 19 1386.4 11 476.2 0 0.0 1 3.5 1 210 8489.0 0 0.0 12 290.3 20 988.6 13 362.3 497 214468.9 820202 242 14338.7 13 244.2 1195 52092.1 820204 261 14599.3 883 35694.7 0 0.0 15 442.9 23 1111.0 3597.8 11 310.9 13 236.9 12 652.4 5 197.1 347 16049.1 820209 196 11054.0 110 427 26335.8 158 6918.1 10 294.5 14 303.4 20 1104.1 10 124.5 820211 215 17591.2 3 52.4 272 11548.6 820217 76 3923.8 147 6321.1 32 803.0 5 80.1 9 368.2 11137.1 63 1549.2 22 571.7 25 1254.2 6 124.5 589 31)009.6 820219 251 15372.9 222 245.6 828 31827.7 200 9056.5 351 15427.3 186 4551.9 26 708.6 49 1837.8 16 820223 62 3073.9 16 324.5 1187 36578.9 820302 330 11001.5 237 10784.5 527 11095.2 15 299.3 16944.6 294 5912.5 12 196.2 38 1818.1 9 208.8 1072 44154.0 820304 333 19073.8 386 1035 34680.3 15884.1 213 9507.8 360 6607.0 14 281.9 42 2107.8 7 291.7 820309 399 880.9 9 171.2 678 2')816.0 820311 86 3560.5 169 7744.4 375 8281.3 12 177.7 27 9296.5 374 7102.0 12 193.6 34 1686.9 13 262.3 753 24043.2 820316 131 5501.9 189 667 21192.4 5265.6 183 8497.0 274 5223.7 12 196.0 35 1684.0 8 326.1 820318 155 18 1919.4 1054 33748.7 820323 348 9279.5 311 14435.7 243 3865.6 54 314.4 80 3934.1 287 12843.2 58 1171.5 17 151.5 76 3383.7 8 170.8 615 23767.7 820330 169 6047.0 2780.4 8 80.3 561 20184.3 820401 135 4090.3 301 12585.8 39 566.1 11 81.4 67 320 14561.8 26 458.2 26 72.9 74 3125.4 3 28.6 514 20152.6 820406 65 1905.7 3 133.7 425 15742.1 820408 89 3033.5 206 9031.3 23 480.1 45 122.4 59 2941.1 186 8198.7 22 333.6 32 196.2 23 1079.0 5 253.3 339 12087.8 820414 71 2027.0 2 6.9 292 9020.6 820416 57 1389.0 134 5794.9 48 757.2 27 127.3 24 945.3 668.5 67 2689.5 5 102.2 17 70.9 22 785.7 17 647.4 156 4;964.2 820420 28 831.0 8 136.2 71 2172.3 820427 4 146.5 27 994.0 3 41.4 7 23.2 22 142.1 1890.4 11 145.7 23 74.9 16 877.6 5 139.8 106 1270.5 820429 4 47 0.0 91 1059.0 820504 0 0.0 41 1557.9 3 59.1 15 50.4 32 1391.6 0 28 1038.5 1 26.2 18 58.5 24 1193.9 2 81.7 73 2398.8 820506 0 0.0 69 2587.0 0 0.0 21 858.5 2 80.3 15 41.8 30 1504.7 1 101.7 820511 45 2349.8 1 7.6 68 3213.5 820513 0 0.0 17 816.4 1 25.0 4 14.7 2256.4 1 26.0 32 197.8 23 1224.7 2 235.7 100 3940.6 820518 0 0.0 42 192.0 76 :3430.7 2 111.8 12 734. 1 0 0.0 16 218.7 44 2174.1 2 820525 23 1117.2 0 0.0 38 1859.3 820527 2 56.7 10 652.9 0 0.0 3 32.5 772.7 0 0.0 46 369.6 19 819.1 2 97.8 84 ;'165.8 820602 2 106.6 15 4 429.0 70 -084.7 820604 1 26.1 6 485.0 0 0.0 43 316.8 16 827.8 853.4 0 0.0 55 343.3 12 509.9 4 274.8 84 '055.2 820608 1 73.8 12 21 631.2 0.0 4 236.9 0 0.0 11 54.1 4 182.6 2 157.6 820610 0 273.8 1 61.9 20 997.8 820615 0 0.0 9 639.6 0 0.0 5 22.5 5 10 623.4 0 0.0 3 92.6 1 10.1 2 8.9 16 735.0 820622 0 0.0 1 7.5 17 1009.9 820624 0 0.0 10 799.9 0 0.0 1 2.3 5 200.2 0 0.0 4 98.5 2 21.9 0 0.0 14 637.9 820629 0 0.0 8 517.5 34 1947.9 0.0 29 1654.9 0 0.0 2 30.6 1 97.0 2 165.4 820701 0 208.6 0 0.0 11 593.1 820707 0 0.0 4 351.7 1 19.2 2 13.6 4 1 3 13.5 1 13.4 0 0.0 7 288.5 820709 0 0.0 2 261.6 15 209.7 1 73.8 1 1.2 2 1.2 8 63.4 1 1.2 820713 2 68.9 0 0.0 24 702.5 820720 1 69.8 6 443.8 2 45.8 10 37.6 5 105.5 0 0.0 10 35.3 2 30.9 0 0.0 15 346.9 820722 0 0.0 3 280.7 15 1920.8 0 0.0 2 187.8 0 0.0 6 35.2 4 45.2 3 1652.6 820727 2 5.0 2 173.3 10 293.6 820729 0 0.0 1 94.3 0 0.0 5 21.0 0 0.0 1; 18.5 2 52.7 2 223.7 10 436.6 820803 0 0.0 2 141.7 8 177.3 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 4 4.9 2 5.4 2 167.0 820805 0 0 I-

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (CHS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES~AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE,. 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER,A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIAHUM, PH - POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMlA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE'T - NUMBER AND W -WEIGHT.

PFW IMAT LHIAW MAT MAW OTT OTW' TFISH TWT DATE OCT DCW PNT PNW PFT.

0 0.0 43 55.3 2 30.8 1 31.9 485 22'2.7.,

820812 0 d.'o 2 104-.7 11 245.3 1 95.4 0 0.0 8 '68.3 2 81.6 , 0 0.0 820817 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 124.2 0 0.0 2 97.3 0 0.0 9 26.9 0 0.0 820819 1 3.4 0 0.0 8 138.2 820824 0.0 1 129.9 0 0.0 6 4.9

-0 1 22.7 4 20.6 0 0.0- 1 163.8 6 207.1

,820826 0 0.0 0 0.0 7 55.6~

.0 0.0 0 0.0' 6 8.4 1' 47.2 0 0.0

'820831 0 0.0 0 0.0 6'- 215.7 0 0.0 2 178.9 0 0.0 3 12.2 1 24.6-

.820902 0 0.0 1- 88.8 6. 131.0 820909 0 0.0 2 40.8 0 0.0 3 1.4 0 0.0 8 214.7 0 0.0 O' 0.0 8 24.7' 820914 0 0.0 0 0.0 12 139.9 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 11 38.4 0 0.0 1 101.15 820916 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 951.2

?820921 0 0.0 0 00 0 0.0 9 51.2 0 0.0 20 36.2 3~ 50.5 0 0.0 23. 86.7 820923 0 0O.0 0 0.0 13. 426.4 7 350.9 0 0.0 6 755 0 0.0 0 0.0 820928 0 0.0 0 30 -.0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 *0:

820930 0.0 0 0.0' I 127.7 3 164.8' 821007 1 24.3 .1 .12.8 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0' 0.0 0 0.0- . 0 0.0 1- 49.3 821012 0 0.0 1 149.3 0.0 12.' 331.2 0.0 .6 277.3 0 0.0 6 ,53.9 0 0.0 0 8204 0 . 0 0.0 4 156.2' 821019 O'.00 ~4 .156.2 0 0.0 0 - 0.0a 0.

-0 0- 0.0 0 ).0.0 0O'0 0 -0.0 6' 294.1

~821021 0 'O.-O 6 -294.1 12 66.4 I' 75.1V. 0, .0.0 28: 743.5

~821026 1 I. 20.0 ~14 .582.0 0 0.0 l.- .3.7 22: 808.5:

0 10.0 16 696.3 0 0O' 5 108.5 0~ -0.0k

?821028 .53.4 1-4 31.3: 0 0.0 17' 550.6

~'82110l4 -3.2 :11 .1442.7 1 20.0. 3

.1 0 0.0 3 ;34;7 1-. 139.-8 1~ ,-'9.7 11'. 449.1-

"'-:821109 j 1 .30.7 .5234.2 3 ~ 25.

2 230 1 60 6 660 2i. 57.0, 3. 852.0 821113 - 00 7.' 56.4 207 4603~

1 45.5 .5 254.5 0 10.0 5 18.1 2 85.8.

821116 17.8 2 32.2" 12 252.5 25- 640.9'

'821118 '0. 0 -8 .316.8 1 21'.6 2

-0 0 0.0 3 50.2 0 -0.0, 2 16.6 19' 788.0' 821 122 0 0.0 14 721.2 19 580.8

.. 11 469.5 0 0.0 4 596 1, 31.5 2- 16.5 8124 1 .,3.7 2 94.2 1 3.3 17 702.8 821202 1 4.2 -6 '427.7 0 0.0 7 173.4 0 0.0 1 11.9 0 0.0 3 2810.2 16 3524.3'

'821207 6 -197.8 6 544 -~ 0.0 7 159.4'

-13.5 0 . 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 4 145.9' 0

.821209 3 ~ 3. 30.2 25 11 252.9 0 0.0 3 25.8 3 238.9 .633.1 821214 -85.3 -5 2.6 6 281.2 3' 24.1 20 484.4 821216 8 2 108.1 0 0.0 1

-68.4 0 '0.0 0 0.0 3 90.7 4 . 48.6 24 459.9~

821221 -14 .101.1 3 295 17.9 .6 172.5' 23.0 1 131.6 .0O 0.0 0 '0.0 0 '0.0 2~

821223 3 .

5 38.1 10 248.4, 1 ~-4.9 152.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 53.2.

821228 . ,2 37~.9 1 73.0 6 53.9 11' 235'.8, 830104 '0 1 .71.0 .0 0.0 3

-0.0 0 .0.0 0 .0.0 1 51.5 2' 14.1 .9, 235.4

.830106 3 24.9 3 144.9 4, '.66.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 45.3 1 13.1 830111 1 7.9 197.8. 0 .0.0 7 280.1 830113 0.0 2 82.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 5 -

-0 0 0.0 1 8.7 3 68.4. 6 85.5 21 424.6 830118 7 .77.9 4 184.1 6 57.1 0 -.0.0 0 '0.0 0 .0.0 1 .1.2 5 '55.9 830120 0 0.0 4. 41.7 10 215.1 3 i20.5 .0 -.0.0 0 0.1 112 2 141.7.

830125 0 0.0 2. 17.8 12. 338.8' 830201 0 0.0 4 160.1 0 0.0 6 160.9

.1 35.9 0 0.0 - 0 0.0 2 23.9 5' 142.Z,

'830203 0 0.0 2 82.4 830208 1 20.7 1 75.0 0 0.0 3 28.4 .0 0.0 ~ 3 58.9 8 183.0 0 0.0 1 69.4 1 39.9 2 31.8 29 1079.5 830210 -' 12 219.6 13 718.8 '

11 255.8

.108.3. 1 -18.7- 1 29.1 .0 0.0 6 95.4 830215 - 1 14.3 '.2 16.2. 228.0 21 807.7 830217 5 255.3 4 .. 198.9 . 3 109.3 0 0.0 2 - -7 434.5 23 1107.5 .2 307 2 1156 6 6. 5 . 25.

8302237 2' ..14.8 10 .-

-.1

TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (GMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

DCT DCW PNT PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE 2 71.0 14 573.8 31 832.0 3 120.3 7 378.6 6 53.8 63 2029.5 830301 10.3 401.3 7 60.4 105 3148.5 830303 6 263.4 12 519.9 70 1893.2 1 9 3 88.9 39 1863.2 76 1416.3 13 208.6 3 116.9 11 101.6 145 3795.5 830308 3 157.6 7 126.2 96 2939.7 830310 3 44.4 23 1272.9 58 1312.6 2 26.0 54 103.0 42 2112.2 40 797.0 4 53.4 7 256.5 14 357.7 111 3679.8 830315 .6 331.9 9 67.7 78 2694.2 830317 2 33.0 33 1667.6 26 575.3 2 18.7 18 403.8 69 3407.9 102 1373.6 8 212.8 13 437.5 16 362.3 226 6197.9 830321 17 673.2 7 53.8 249 7942.4 830329 103 1405.6 108 5500.5 10 202.4 4 106.9 82 1642.1 106 4756.5 15 254.1 0 0.0 16 666.6 8 294.0 227 7613.3 830331 171.7 11 198.0 103 2960.5 830405 35 539.1 42 1854.1 8 180.3 2 17.3 5 33 555.1 29 1335.6 7 116.2 6 85.5 9 273.5 4 228.1 88 2594.0 830407 11 504.9 2 20.2 108 3892.5 830412 146 1099.0 43 2083.3 4 128.9 2 56.2 31 709.5 46 1898.5 4 83.4 4 40.4 11 456.4 3 141.0 99 3329.2 830414 21 10 252.7 266 9857.7 830419 50 1044.2 143 6998.2 34 707.5 8 25.4 829.7 72 1399.5 556 26666.4 161 2265.1 7 27.0 55 2306.6 6 45.8 857 32710.4 830426 69 2315.4 14 120.4 881 28236.1 830428 125 2168.5 448 21079.6 215 2422.5 10 129.7 1 4.3 111 4056.0 5 82.1 13 142.6 64.- 1714.5 16 241.2 210 6240.7 830503 1326.9 5 71.8 165 5326.0 830505 10 299.5 89 3391.3 7 168.9 8 67.6 46 4 131.5 20 747.5 0 0.0 9 34.5 30 1226.1 0 0.0 63 2139.6 830510 7 374.6 3 161.2 23 1033.5 830512 1 81.7 9 397.9 1 14.1 2 4.0 1 18.9 28 1418.8 0 0.0 15 70.6 10 437.0 2 10.7 56 1956.0 830517 670.2 2 173.7 77 4359.7 830524 0 0.0 55 3364.1 0 0.0 7 151.7 13 0 0.0 38 2302.8 0 0.0 5 121.2 8 387.7 2 126.2 53 2937.9 830526 7 279.7 4 395.1 52 3458.6 830601 0 0.0 35 2379.8 0 0.0 6 404.0 1 144.0 17 1221.6 0 0.0 3 88.5 7 373.5 6 631.7 34 2459.3 830603 3 1 6.0 26 1585.9 830607 0 0.0 18 1308.0 0 0.0 4 177.4 94.5 1 75.2 12 814.9 0 0.0 5 316.8 7 327.7 3 377.2 28 1911.8 830609 6 230.6 5 736.8 26 1787.6 830614 0 0.0 10 695.0 0 0.0 5 125.2 0.0 2 194.8 0 *0.0 9 130.5 8 332.2 6 685.1 25 1342.6 830621 0 4 744.4 33 2020.4 830623 0 0.0 3 245.7 0 0.0 16 342.7 10 687.6 830628 1 115.9 1 64.3 0 0.0 12 172.2 3 262.0 0 0.0 17 614.4 54.9 1 77.0 0 0.0 7 174.4 6 293.1 0 0.0 15 599.4 830630 1 4.5 15 614.7 830706 1 2.0 2 178.6 0 0.0 4 28.5 5 401.1 3 3 4.1 3 175.3 0 0.0 11 180.7 9 553.5 5 9.1 31 922.7 830708 107.2 12 667.8 1 1.4 22 958.0 830712 0 0.0 2 181.6 0 0.0 7 0.0 1 39.9 0 0.0 6 252.7 5 226.0 3 78.7 15 597.3 830719 0 1 133.9 25 687.4 830721 1 52.6 1 86.5 1 1.3 15 68.1 6 345.0 1 86.8 3 192.7 0 0.0 32 227.7 11 620.0 1 1.6 48 1128.8 830726 12 641.1 1 7.3 44 1100.0 830728 3 5.6 5 409.5 3 4.1 20 32.4 1 16.0 3 327.8 0 0.0 5 8.4 *4 169.9 1 79.6 14 601.7 830802 18 797.0 0 0.0 51 1143.7 830804 2 25.0 2 63.3 1 1.3 28 257.1 124.1 13 848.7 0 0.0 99 235.0 17 746.7 1 6.7 135 1961.2 830811 5 0 0.0 76 1299.6 830816 14 101.4 9 606.5 0 0.0 50 117.1 13 474.6 10 872.7 0 0.0 21 140.5 12 543.6 0 0.0 43 1556.8 830818 0 0.0 37 1149.9 14 246.5 5 263.6 0 0.0 17 182.2 10 456.3 1 1.3 830823 3 96.7 0 0.0 49 730.0 830825 1 14.6 9 446.4 0 0.0 36 172.3 7 468.3 0 0.0 3 18.9 12 435.5 1 14.3 30 1049.8 830830 7 112.8 63 1357.2 1 1.5 7 605.3 0 0.0 29 79.2 9 488.1 17 183.1 830901 11 535.0 0 0.0 122 1943.2 830908 80 968.0 7 389.6 0 0.0 24 50.6 1 0.6 8 660.4 0. 0.0 45 195.1 11 402.1 52 788.9 117 2047.1 830913 -j

( ( I AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED TABLE 6.1.2. THE NUMBER AND WEIGHT (CMS.) OF INDIVIDUALS FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES OVER A 24-HOUR PERIOD. ABBREVIATIONS ARE:

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION BY SAMPLE DATE, 1978- 1983. VALUES REPRESENT TOTALS DC - DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM, PN - POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS, PF - PERCA FLAVESCNS, LMA -LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS, MA - MORONE AMERICANA, OT - OTHER. THE SUFFIXES ARE T - NUMBER AND W - WEIGHT.

PNW PFT PFW LMAT LMAW MAT MAW OTT OTW TFISH TWT DATE DOCT DCW PNT 1176.8 O 0.0 81 245.7 15 572. 537 5628.7 652 7624.8 830915 1 2.0 18 1 2.4 114 1426.3 1 9.6 19 932.0 0 0.0 82 124.8 11 357 830920 0.0 64 114.9 9 418 7 262.7 100 1518.9 830922 2 5.9 18 716.9 0 2182.8 25 1209.5 O 0.0 52 207.0 7 384 11 366.7 101 830927 6 15.5 48 109.1 12 419 7 83*9 109 2577.0 830929 8 14.8 34 1949.8 0 0.0 822.1 441.8 1 14.4 17 35.5 4 225 12 98.8 48 831006 6 6.2 8 0 0 2 1.6 10 228.8 831007 1 5.6 3 - 184.6 0 0.0 4 37.0 1 1.5 10 804.8 0 0.0 31 85.8 5 196 -7 126*2 54 -1214.7 831011 -23 48.6 8 518 1 1.4 63 2383.8 831013- 14 75.1 17 17110.4 0 0.0 1198.7 0 0.0 ' 17 -82.9 11 417 9 268.5 59 1971.0 831019 2 4.1 20 457 51 375.7 1 146 2884.4 2 ' 3.3 33 1943.2 0 0.0 46 105.5 14 831021 42 264.2 15 601 28' 550.6 114 .2952.2 831025 '642 4.7 27 1531.6 0.0 32 2367.4 0 0.0 15 110.8 3 - 102 55 752.4I ., 111 3344.8 831027 6 .12.5 11 391 69 1106*8 139 2899.2 831103 9 24.2 25 1297.2 0 0.0 25 79.6 0 0.0 34 58.9 9 334 130 1963.9 208 3681.2 831108 16 39.1 19 1285.1 2372.7 15 904.2' 0 0.0., 24 341.1. 8 337. 61 778.9 114 831110 6 11.4 10. 391 42.0-: 124 2058.6 831115 94 1044.9 11 563.1 0; 0.0 -6 ' 17.7 12 22.8 :16 787.2 0 0.0. 11 '31.0 15' '. 1434 41 . ._: 581.3 1 ;3 95 1856.1 831117 42 100.5 27 849 24 304 8S 123 1425.8 831121 27 46.9 3 124.9 0 0.0 4 161.2 0 0.0 17 31.7 19 658 33 420 :9 87 1291.2 831123 14 18.9 386 181 1460.5 282 2169.9 80 128.8 4 155.4 1 16.7 8 22.4 8 831201- 3 -8.6 27 _ ,J1038 I501 3727.4 644 5138.3 831206 108 191.6 5 '172.0 0; ' 0.0 -

161.4 9 429.0 0 0.0 8 14.7 13 - i570 :357-T! 3199.0 V 1'471 T!1,4374.6 831208 84 0.0-*'- 4 .8.2 17 _797 379 2896.7 534 4554.5 831213 ,119 229.1 15 623.6 O

17 755.1 1 - 20.5 9 30.2 18, !649 391' 3487. i r- 506 ," 5094.7 831215 152.1 2 62 57 969.6 99 1164.0 831220 .32 62.2 1 44.7 0- 0.0 7 25.7 111.2 0 0.0 2 '15.3 8 `344 172 2095. 3 205 2606.1 831222 20 40.2 3 25920373 242277 5700567.6 1640 1211.7 38054 1844657 38194 672065.7 :9504 108377.5 3421 153883 1524611 TOTAL

TABLE 6.1.3. ESTIMATED NUMBERS AND WEIGHTS, AVERAGE LENGTH AND AVERAGE WEIGHT FOR SELECTED FISH SPECIES AND TOTALS FOR OTHER SPECIES IMPINGED DURING 1978-1983 AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION.

SPECIES 1978 1979 ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE I ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE CATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH(MM) WEIGHT (G) ICATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH (MM) WEIGHT (G-)

DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 3.28 69.9 127 21 452.95 5257.7 124 12 LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS 0.71 32.7 127 46 2.46 90.5 114 37 MORONE AMERICANA 0.03 1.6 127 45 1.22 72.0 156

59 PERCA FLAVESCENS 7.89 54.1 97 7 86.39 1450.0 121 17 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 9.12 333.9 133 37 38.35 1806.8 151 47 OTHER 1.09 89.1 174 81 2.16 134.9 178 63 TOTAL 22.12 581.3 132 26 583.53 8811.9 136 15 SPEC IES 1980 1981 I ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE I ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE ICATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH (MM) WEIGHT ({) ICATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH (MM) WEIGHT (G)

DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 27.03 846.4 166 31 66.49 3771.2 203 57 LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS 9.64 132.3 81 14 15.32 102.0 70 7 MORONE AMERICANA 0.68 26.5 131 39 2.45 109.3 155 45 PERCA FLAVESCENS 33.67 668.7 123 20 7.39 172.6 131 23 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 36.77 1891.8 166 51 31.15 1634.5 176 52 OTHER 3.53 88.1 110 25 5.23 131.1 119 25 TOTAL 111.32 3653.8 140 33 128.03 5920.6 151 46 SPECIES 1982 1983 l ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE I ESTIMATED ESTIMATED AVERAGE AVERAGE ICATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH (MM) WEIGHT (G) ICATCH (X1000) WEIGHT (KG) LENGTH (MM) WEIGHT (G)

DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 19.59 914.6 172 47 17.16 200.7 119 12 LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS 4.01 38.6 75 10 5.75 36.5 62 7 MORONE AMERICANA 5.17 238.4 162 46 4.08 164.9 150 40 PERCA FLAVESCENS 11.78 235.7 128 20 3.58 63.5 124 18 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 24.59 1097.1 170 45 11.02 556.8 170 50 OTHER 1.40 65.5 142 46 3.99 39.5 87 10 TOTAL 66.55 2589.9 151 39 45.59 1061.9 121 24

I I I I I I I I I I I . I TABLE 6.1.4. MEAN SEASONAL IMPINGEMENT ESTIMATES BY SPECIES, 1978-1983.

WINTER SPRING SUMMER FALL TOTAL SPECIES ACANTHARCHUS POMOTIS 3.29 6.68 4.00

" 13.97 1.99 3.30 3.33 26.05 34.67 ALOSA AESTIVALIS 0.67 53.56 ANGUILLA ROSTRATA 52.23 0.66 0.66 0.66 APHREDODERUS SAYANUS 0.67 CATOSTOMUS COMMERSONI 0.67 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 83959.51 9582.85 684.58 3524.41 97751.34' 0.66 15.33 449.78 465.77 DOROSOMA PETENENSE 1.39 ERIMYZON OBLONGUS 0.72 0.67 ESOX NIGER 2.64 0.66 3.30 ETHEOSTOMA OLHSTEDI 0.65 0.66 1.31 0.66 0.66.

EXOGLOSSUM MAXILLINGUA 1.96 FUNDULUS HETEROCLITUS 1.30 0.66 0.67. 0.67 ICTALURUS CATUS 2.86 ICTALURUS NATALIS 2.86 37.83 217.00 81.83 11:'34 348.00 ICTALURUS NEBULOSUS 1.31 21.84' ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS, 5.90 7.35 7.29' 0.65 5.40 9.92 5.32 '21. 30 LEPOMIS AURITUS 22.67 47.97 LEPOMIS GIBBOSUS 3.97 14.00 7.32 4.57 20.78 5.86 4.13 35.34'.

LEPOMIS CULOSUS 2226.15 6315.56 LEPOMIS MACROCNIRUS 638.95 1850.60 1599.86.

1.96 2.64 0.64 0.67 5.90

';; , t' " _' LEPOMIS MICROLOPHUS 15.90 73.66 MICROPTERUS ISALMOIDES'-- ;!t3;32. ,. 22.63 31.81 I 11: i 7.': 1:' j , '..' 64I4,05- -+jrv766.79 - '370.80,, 490.05 2271.69 S-,- 1:

MORONE AMERICANA 'K /,

-7670.53Ail-:.

MORONE SAXATILIS 683.03 .80.71 -5.92 '-1'900.87 -

27.57 31.58 2.00 18.96 80.11 NOTEMIGONUS .CRYSOLEUCAS ..2.04 1.33 ,.~*3.37

,. NOTROPIS ANALOSTANUS 1.32 A1 1" NOTROPIS CORNUTUS 1.32 PERCA FLAVESCENS 22414.45 , 2658.30 21.75 22.i7 25116.674 PETROMYZON MARINUS 3.26' -1.98 PHOXINUS OREAS 0.65' 0.65:

1.36 1.36-PIMEPHALES NOTATUS 6576.84 25168.48' POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 11305.64 5854.07 1431.92 STIZOSTEDION VITREUM 0.65 0.66 1.31 0.65 0.65 UMBRA PYGMAEA

- 119800 21138.88 4283.50 14301.28 159524 TOTAL I

4 .

i 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.1.5. LENGTH-FREQUENCIES AND PERCENT OF DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, LENGTHS (T.L.) ARE IN MM. THIS TABLE REFLECTS ONLY THOSE FISH ACTUALLY MEASURED.

% 1979 % 1980 % 1981 % 1982 % 1983 % TOTAL LENGTH 1978 2.9 1 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1 22

-O 18 1255 50 93 15.1 93 2.7 230 9.2 57 1.7 84 4.2 698 41.0 333 514.1 3027 89.1 862 34.6 168 5.1 665 32.9 761 414.7 5816

_100 34.9 76 4.5 2118 150 122 19.8 95 2.8 350 14.1 771 23.4 704 171 5.0 1015 40.8 22111 67.2 461 22.8 153 9.0 4063

-. _200 149 8.0 244 GE250 0 0.0 11 0.3 32 1.3 82 2.5 105 5.2 114 0.8 3398 2489 3293 2019 1704 13518 TOTAL 615 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.1.6. LENGTH-FREQUENCIES AND PERCENT 01F PO01OXIS NIGROMACUATUS IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, LENGTHS (T.L, .)ARE IN MM. THIS TABLE REFLECTS ONLY THOSE FISH ACTUALLY MEASURED.

LENGTH 1978 % 1979 1980 % 1981 % 1982 1983 % TOTAL 20 1.1 0 0.0 3 0.1 1 0.0 1 0.0 1 0.1 26

_0 22 1.3 1956

_50 564 31.2 7143 20.0 381 9.5 213 5.7 33 1.4 31.4 952 25.6 744 18.5 140 3.8 144 5.9 129 7.9 2677 100 568 81.7 10289 150 1428 23.7 1432 38.5 2117 52.7 2865 76.9 2113 87.2 1334 226 12.5 591 15.9 771 19.2 508 13.6 131 5.4 144 8.8 2371 200 2. 0.1 10 GE250 3 0.2 2 0.1 2 0.0 1 0.0 0 0.0 3720 4018 3728 2422 1632 17329 TOTAL 1809 TABLE 6.1.7. LENGTH-FREQUENCIES AND IPERCENT Of PERCA FLAVESCENS I4PINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

LENGTHS (T.L. ARE IN MM. THIS TABLE REFLECTS ONLY THOSE FISH ACTUALLY MEASURED.

LENGTH 1978 % 1979 1980 % 1981 % 1982 1983 % TOTAL 2.5 1 0.1 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 O 0.0 10 0 7 1379 186 66.4 557 34.7 246 20.9 127 13.3 154 14.8 109 19.1 50 749 72.0 370 64.7 3398

_100 61 21.8 730 455 5 783 66.5 705 74.1 7.1 245 15.3 143 12.1 113 11.9 134 12.9 92 16.1 747 150 20 66 200 2 0.7 53 3.3 3 0.3 5 0.5 3 0.3 0 0.0 4 1.4 19 1.2 1 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 1 0.2 26 GE250 1040 572 5626 TOTAL 280 1605 1177 952

I I I I I I I .

I I (I (.

AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.1.8. LENGTH-FREQUENCIES AND PERCENT OF LEPOMIS MACROCHIRUS IMPINGED MEASURED.

LENGTHS (T.L.) ARE IN MM. THIS TABLE REFLECTS ONLY THOSE FISH ACTUALLY 1980 1981 1982 1983 X TOTAL LENGTH 1978 % 1979

'403 19.5 535 21.2 162' 16.1 ' 513 .38.6 1709 O 24 1il.7 72 11.5 51.6 4241 176 28.1 1094 53.0 1622 64.4 641 63.8 685

-50 23 14.1 17.1 92 6.9 1157 48 29.4 ' 180 28.8 380 18.4 285 -11.3 172

.100 73 2.9 29 2.9 38 2.9 588

-150 67 41.1 195 31.2 186- 9.0 3 0.1' 3 0.1 1 0.1 0 0.0 11

.200 1 0.6 3 0.5 0 0.0 1 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 '0.0 0 0.0 GE250 1005 1328 7707 TOTAL 163 626 2066 2519 IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

TABLIE 6.1.9. LENGTH-FREQUENCIES AND PERCENT OF MORONE AMERICANA' FISH'ACTUALLY MEASURED.

LENGCTHS (T.L.) ARE IN MM. THIS TABLE REFLECTS ONLY THOSE

% 1980 % 1981 % 1982 % 1983 % TOTAL LENGTH 1978 % 1979 2 1.1 0 .0.0 4 0.3 3 0.3 10 O 0 0.0 1- 0.3 67 6.9 312 37.5 37 11.9 68 39.1 88 14.4 49 4.0 50 3 22.2 361 37.4 865 2 25.0 85 -"27.3 27 15.5 ' 118 19.2 272

-100 826 67.5 499 51.7 1877 2 25.0 140 ':15.0 53, 30.5 357 58.2

-150 22 12.6 49 8.0 73 6.0 34 3.5 221

.200 1 12.5 422';---13.5 0 0.0 1 0.1 10 0 0.0 .. 1.9 . 2 , 1.1 *'* 1 0.2 GE250 1744 613 1224 965 3295

1 TOTAL 8 .311 I

,122'4. 74 -

1:, .

I

-.3

i l I I I I I I i I!

I . I II I FIGURE 6.1.1 LENCTI-I-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF POMOX NIGROIACULTUS BTINCED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

PERCENTAGE 35 30 25 i

-1 ~r 15 i of 20 -i I U I

iOH.

i5-4 b WN wAJ.,

>2*Ai>>

25 50 75 10o 125 175 200 225 2.50 *3 4,.'.

--)

TOTAL. 1. MT14 ( MM )

'0

,I I I!I .: I I C

FIGURE B61.2 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIU1ION OF DOROSOQA CEPEDINUM IMPINGED AT NORTH. ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

PERCENTAGE 30 25

1. '-..

20 . . .

. . ^ . .

. ,: Rhoda, I ANAL.. ... <

Ip F. ;.

> -. F. ...

I

-1

. I5

. i A. J

, I

. l 0 Il m.

.1 3-

~Mec

.I ?ORM qy~ nook)C= DC DO=

.= ... Wm.A... 0--Wvw -

0 50 , : 75 -

iv0- 125 150 175 200 225 ?50 275 300 325 35 - 2* S 25:

.- . ,-. . . TOTAL LEt4GTI- . .1,( MM ) :

02

I I I l , . I i i I I .vI I I

FIGURE 6.1.3 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF PERCA FLAVESCENS IMINGED AAT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

FPERCENTAGE 35-4

-I 51 5mw oA-I W9 bmv i ro~

Woo Woo i4 I

51 I r vv~

-I onswst I

0 ...L.

IQQW r..00

-- -- -- .. . . .... .. . A ^ z ' w.

2 ~~............ ,,

. ... ... . . ... .- - - - - - - - *. - - - I --------- x I. . I.

25 50 75 100 s25 150 175 200 225 25() 2.79 * (:y()

TOTAL LENGTH (MM)

! i I i I I I I (71 (. I (

FIGURE 6..4 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTRIBtTION OF LEPOTSMACROCHIRUS IMPINGED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

PERCENTAGE 60 -1 I

50 1 4O0 I

I a

-1 1.

1-i

.. I 10-

.4 I

25 .50. 75 10o 125 150 175 o

.- .TOTAL LENGTH (MM) o,

I I . I I I I I I I FIGURE 6.1.6 LENGTH-FREQUENCY DISTREBUTION OF OTHER FISH IMPINGED AAT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-i983.

PERCENTAGE 25_

204 i5 oD .DJ 0 M~E ID - Ace,,

i 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 3.3 S 5 7 o 5 5 75 0 2 7 0 2 9 57 0 5 0 50 2 5 50 5 7 5 (? 5 0 5 6 TOTA N(GTti (MM)

84 6.2 Entrainment -

A total of 7908 fish larvae were collected in entrainment samples at North Anna Power Station from 1978-1983 (Table 6.2.1). The most abundant

~~~~~* \ :

-r' I - ..-

entrained larvae over all years were gizzard shad (65.7%) followed by white perch (15.0%), sunfishes, Lepomis spp. (13.3%), yellow perch (4.9%) and black crappie (1.0%). The channel catfish, Ictalurus punctatus, and largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides, were each represented by only a singly collected individual. Sunfishes are considered In this report to represent several possible species., More sunfish and yellow perch larvae were collected in the first year (1978) than in subsequent years. Gizzard shad, however, were collected in relatively greater numbers in 1979 and 1981. White perch numbers have generally increased over the study period. Black crappie numbers are considered too low for any meaningful comparisons. With the exception of 1978, the changes in total numbers entrained from year to year are generally reflected in the number of gizzard shad, sunfishes and white perch collected..

The percentage of the total larvae collected represented by gizzard shad has remained high and stable for each year., whereas the percentage of white perch has increased each year. ;

During each entrainment survey, the number of circulating water pumps (CWP), the sample volume, the water temperature and oxygen content were recorded (Table 6.2.2). Yellow perch was first to appear in all collecting years, generally in early April,, when water temperatures approached 12'C.

White perch appeared in April when temperatures approached 140 C and peaked in numbers by mid-May. Gizzard shad generally were first collected in late April

. ', t -tE

al 85 to early May at water temperatures between 14WC and 18'C and peaked in numbers in mid-May to early June. Sunfishes were the last group to occur in samples (May-June) and were first collected when water temperatures rose to 190C. Both gizzard shad and sunfish were collected in relatively fewer numbers in July.

Samples collected during the 6-hour intervals within a day generally showed that total numbers and percent vary considerably from 0600 hours0.00694 days 0.167 hours 9.920635e-4 weeks 2.283e-4 months to 1800 hours0.0208 days 0.5 hours 0.00298 weeks 6.849e-4 months and were highest during the 2400-hour sample (Tables 6.2.3 and 6.2.4).

Over all years and samples the percentage of fish larvae collected during the midnight sample was 43%. Gizzard shad and white perch collections were responsible for the higher numbers during the 2400-hour sample. The large number of larvae collected at night is probably a function of diurnal migration patterns or in part by net avoidance (Gasser 1976; Ecological Analysts 1977).

Sunfishes were, on the contrary, generally collected more frequently during daylight hours and yellow perch numbers fluctuated during sample intervals.

Factors such as turbidity, temperature, larval size and gear type have been shown to influence distributional patterns (Edwards et al. 1977; Netch et al. 1971; Tuberville 1977; Leithiser et al. 1979; Cada and Loar 1982). Any combination of factors could cause a site specificity in larval distribution.

The percent of total larvae collected at each sample depth varied from year to year and for each species (Table 6.2.5). Sunfishes, yellow perch and black crappie were collected primarily from surface samples; gizzard shad were collected primarily from middle and bottom depths; and white perch numbers were similar at all depths (Table 6.2.6). Over all species and all collection years the percentage of larvae collected from the surface was 33%, from the mid-depth (4 m) was 35% and from the bottom (8 m) was 32%.

86 No fish eggs were collected during the sample years 1978-1983. Most species of reproducing fish in Lake Anna produce demersal, adhesive eggs which significantly reduces potential entrainnment (Lippson and Moran 1974).

The gizzard shad entrainment rate (numbers per CWP) has been declining since 1979 (Figure 6.2.1). There was a substantial increase in entrainment of this species from 1978 to .1979. The higher number of gizzard shad larvae collected in 1979 apparently resulted .from a successful spawn that year. This is supported by rotenone data with the increase in standing crop estimates for adults-and juveniles from 109.1 kg/ha in 1979 to 153.7 kg/ha., in 1980 (Vepco 1983). Meteorologically, 1979 was similar to.other sample years.

Entrainment rates for sunfishes have been constant since 1979 while white perch numbers have increased each year. The higher collection numbers of sunfishes in 1978 probably, was ,aresult of the initial withdrawal of the resident sunfish population within.theintake cove. Sunfish adults do. not migrate large distances overshort (time periods within a lake as gizzard shad or white perch may. The declining entrainment rate for sunfish may be a result of limited adult recruitment for spawning within the intake cove. The increase in white perch larvae collected from,1978-1983 is supported by increasing fish standing estimates based upon cove rotenone samples (Vepco 1983, 1984).

.I ." ., , . . ' . . . . .

To determine the .,total,t estimated larvae entrained over time, daily entrainment estimates were.prepared,,treating depths asstrata.- Stratum, weights

..were -equal and. the finite correction factor was ignored (Cochran,1963). Daily density-values (larvae/1OOOm3).were,multipl~ied by the average.volume of intake

.1 87 water pumped that sample day. Period estimates were computed using daily estimates and the number of days in each period. Variances for period estimates were taken as a weighted average of daily variances. Totaling period estimates by species result in estimates of total larvae entrained by sample year (Table 6.2.7). Total estimated fish larvae entrained ranged from 8.4 x 10 in 1982 to 2.5 x 108 in 1981 (Figure 6.2.2). Also during entrainment sampling periods in 1982 only an average of 3.2 circulating water pumps were operating, whereas an average of 6.4 pumps were operating in 1981.

Out of an estimated total of 8.9 x 108 larvae entrained from 1978-1983, gizzard shad represented 65% (5.8 x 108) of the total. By comparison, in Lake Sangchris, Illinois, 85% of the total fish entrained at the Kincaid Generating Station were gizzard shad (Porak and Tranquilli 1981). An estimated total of 2.1 x 108 shad and 1.7 x 106 sunfishes were entrained there in 1976. The average estimated number entrained at North Anna per year for gizzard shad was 9.6 x 107, for white perch was 2.3 x 106, for sunfishes was 2.1 x 106, for yellow perch was 6.8 x 105 and for black crappie was 1.7 x 105 (Table 6.2.7).

While the total estimated larvae entrained per year has varied from 1978-1983 (Figure 6.2.2), primarily as a result of fluctuations in adult fish standing crops and circulating water pump operation, the total number entrained per pump, or entrainment rate, generally has been declining since 1979 (Figure 6.2.1). Standing crop estimates (kg/ha) in Lake Anna for gizzard shad have been declining from 1980-1982, with an increase in 1983, while white perch estimates have steadily increased from year to year (Vepco 1983, 1984).

88 Standing crop estimates for yellow perch and crappie have been declining for the past several years, but standing crop estimates for bluegill, the most

.abundant sunfish inLake Anna, have been constant over the sample years.

U, :.

4--. ., .

t., .

~ .. '

_ I 4- .-

TABLE 6.2.1. THE TOTAL CATCH AND PERCENT OF FISH LARVAE ENTRAINED AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATIOU DURING 1978-1983.

CATCH (Z).

1978 1979 1980 1981 .1982 1983 TOTAL OSTEICHTHYES CLUPEIDAE - HERRINGS DOROSOIA CEPEDIANUM - GIZZARD SHAD 514(43.2) 1397(87.9) 941(73.6) 1126t64.2) 471151.1) 733(62.3) 5182165.5)

ICTALURIDAE - BULLHEAD CATFISHES ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS - CHANNEL CATFISH .( . ) .1 . ) .1 . ) .1 . ) .1 . ) 11 0.1) 11 0.0)

PERCICHTHYIDAE - TEMPERATE BASSES MORONE AMERICANA - WHITE PERCH 31 0.3) 561 3.5) 911 7.1) 391(22.3) 293t31.8) 361130.7) 1195(15.1)

CENTRARCHIDAE - SUNFISHES LEPOMIS SPP. - SUNFISH 531(44.6) 1121 7.0) 161(12.6) 1171 6.7) 114112.4) 281 2.4) 1063(13.4)

MICROPTERUS SALMOIDES - LARGEMOUTH BASS 1( 0.1) .1 . I .1 . ) .1 . ) .1 . ) 11 0.0)

POMOXIS HIGROMACULATUS - BLACK CRAPPIE 121 1.0) 61 Q.4) 13( 1.0) 16( 0.9) 61 0.7) 291 2.5) 821 1.0)

PERCIDAE - PERCHES PERCA FLAVESCENS - YELLOW PERCH 130(10.9) 181 1.1) 721 5.6) 1031 5.9) 371 4.0) 241 2.0) 3841 4.9)

TOTAL 1191 1589 1278 1753 921 1176 7908 co

%D

(7., ( OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA P>OWER STATION DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

SPECIES CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE OXYGEN (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER PERCA FLAVESCENS 7 5193 4.0 20.2 12.4 10.4 780411 PERCA FLAVESCENS 99 5193 4.0 251.9 13.1 10.4 780418 780425 PERCA FLAVESCENS 4 9088 7.0 8.4 13.5 9.9 780502 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1 5193 4.0 2.6 13.7 10.2 PERCA FLAVESCENS 8 5193 4.0 22.2 15.7 10.2 780509 2.8 15.7 10.2

.MORONE AMERICANA 5139 4.0 1

POMOXIS NIROMACULATUS 7790 6.0 8.5 17.4 9.9 780516 3.0 17.4 9.9 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1 7844 6.0 780520 NO,LARVAE.

' 54 5193 4.0 189.7 22.2 10.0 780523 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 22 2 10.0 PERCA FLAVESCENS 10 5193 4.0 35.8.

POM-POMOXIS -NICROMACULATUS 5 5193 4.0 .19.6 .22.2 10.0

.169 .7790 6.0 379.5 25.4 S 1.9 780601 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 25.4 8.9

$-,* ,POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS 4 -.7790 6.0 -,8.457 MORONE AMERICANA 7790 6.0 : 25.4 8.9

.-LEPOMIS,,SP;r~ . 1 :.7790 6.0 .2.0 -25.4 _8.9 PERCA FLAVESCENS,-' -' 1 '; 7790 6.0 .2.0 ; 25.4 .8.9

'.,8.0 6.0 433.5 24.8 780606 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM *208 7790 6.0 LEPOMIS SP. 33 7790 73.3

24.8 8.0

'MICROPTERUS;SALMOIDES -7790 .6.0 2.5 24.8 .8.0 POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS 1 -7790 6.0 1.9 24.8 8.0 LEPOMIS SP. 70 7790 6.0 149.9 24.9 7.5 780613 6.0 119.9 24.9 7.5 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 57 *7790 780620 LEPOMIS SP.--. 105 5193 4.0 268.2 26.2 8.3

- DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM I9 5193 4.0 .19.3 26.2 8.3 6.0 LEPOMISSP.- 91 7790 6.0 200.3 27.3 7.9 780627 27.3 7.9 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 10 7790 19.4 6.0 LEPOMIS SP. 63 7790 156.9 26.0 7.1 780706 8.2 .26.0 7.1 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM .4 7790 6.0 LEPOMIS SP. 108 7790 6.0 256.7 26.7 7.7 780711 21 7790 6.0 60.1 .27.1 8.0 780718 LEPOMIS SP. 27.1 8.0 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 2 7790 6.0 5.0 o

OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

SPECIES CATCH VOLUME AVERACE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE OXYGEN (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER 39 8763 6.8 88.0 29.3 7.8 780725 LEPOMIS SP.

NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 3.3 11.7 790301 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 4.9 11.5 790308 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 6.0 11.9 790315 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 9.7 12.7 790322 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 10.1 11.6 790329 PERCA fLAVESCENS 16 5193 4.0 48.5 12.6 11.0 790411 MORONE AMERICANA 1 2597 2.0 3.5 14.0 10.1 790419 14.0 10.1 PERCA FLAVESCENS 2597 2.0 3.5 1

MORONE AMERICANA 5193 4.0 2.9 16.8 10.2 790426 3 4674 3.6 8.5 17.4 10.2 790503 MORONE AMERICANA 10.2 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1 4652 3.6 2.4 17.4 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 1 4674 3.6 3.2 17.4 10.2 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 38 7790 6.0 97.6 21.6 9.6 790510 21.6 9.6 MORONE AMERICANA 19 7790 6.0 47.1 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 2 7790 6.0 5.9 21.6 9.6 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1 7790 6.0 3.3 21.6 9.6 790517 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 330 5193 4.0 870.7 21.4 8.8 MORONE AMERICANA 10 5193 4.0 25.8 21.4 8.8 790524 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 167 5193 4.0 407.2 21.4 8.5 MORONE AMERICANA 5 5193 4.0 12.2 21.4 8.5 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 265 6491 5.0 622.2 22.5 8.8 790531

42.9 22.5 8.8 MORONE AMERICANA 17 6491 5.0 LEPOMIS SP. 2 6491 5.0 5.0 22.5 8.8 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 2 6491 5.0 4.6 22.5 8.8 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 223 3895 3.0 573.3 24.4 8.8 790607 24.4 8.8 LEPOMIS SP. 6 3895 3.0 17.1 199 5193 4.0 460.1 *24.3 8.5 790614 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 24.3 8.5 LEPOMIS SP. 57 5193 4.0 157.1 1 5193 4.0 2.9 24.3 8.5 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 81 5193 4.0 204.0 23.3 8.3 790621 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 23.3 8.3 LEPOMIS SP. 2 5193 4.0 4.9 ko

C ~i (

AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURINC 1 978- 1983. DISSOLVED OXYGEN VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

DATE SPECIES CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER OXYGEN DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 53 5193 4.0 121.2 23.9 8.2 790628 18.8 23.9 8.2 LEPOMIS SP. 7 5193 4.0 790705 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 10 5193 4.0 24.6 23.9 7.7

- -LEPOMIS SP. -10 5193 4.0 25.8 23.9 7.7 11 6491 5.0 25.3 27 0. 8.2 790712 -WDOROSOHA CEPEDIANUM 27.0 8.2 LEPOMIS SP. 8 6491 5.0 -19.8 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 18 5i93 4.0 45.6 2870 8.0 790719 28.0 8.0

(; -';LEPOMIS SP. .13 5193

4.0 32.6

^LEPOMIS SP. .7 5193 4.0 17.9 27.6 7.9

-790727 27.6 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1 5193 4.0 2.4 7.9 NO LARVAE '6491 5.0 4.1 12.8 800306 800313 NO LARVAE 6491

5.0 5.5 -12.4 800320 NO LARVAE - 6491 5.0 - 7.7 '12.4

'. 3895 :,9.4 .11.5

=..3.0

_8003020 NOLARVAE'-!'- 3895 - 3.0 11.4

.; I) 800410 PERCA FLAVESCENS 47 .,i 395 13.5 210.7

3895 800417 PERCA FLAVESCENS 22 3.0 8.7 13.2 '10.0 MORONE AMERICANA. 1 . 3895 3.0 .2.3 13.2 800424 MORONE AMERICANK 5 3895 3.0 17.0 17.0 10.0 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3 3895 3.0 8.0 17.0 10.0 800501 AMERICANA 16 6491 5.0 15.9 9.8 40.2 15.9 9.8

DOROSOMACEPEDIANUM

-- 14 6491 5.0 800508

., DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM DOROXSOACEPEDIANULAM 20 7790 6.0 143.6 i19.0 9.3 8MORONE AMERICANA '19 7790 6.0 140.7 19.0 9.3 2 7790 6.0 14.3 19.0 9.3 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 79 7790 6.0 169.7 20.2 9.3 800515 31.3 20.2 9.3 MORONE AMERICANA 14 7790 6.0

.-POMOXIS:NIGROMACULATUS 4 7790 6.0 9.0 202.2 9.3 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 132 7790 6.0 288.8 22.2 9.0 800522 6.0 41.8 22.*2 9.0 MORONE AMERICANA, 19 7790

... I . . I

I ; I ii iS i I i I I I I DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE SPECIES PER CUBIC METER OXYGtN (X1000) PUMPS 217 3895 3.0 580.6 23.9 9.1 800529 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 19.6 23.9 9.1 LEPOMIS SP. 7 3895 3.0 7 3895 3.0 18.6 23.9 9.1 MORONE AMERICANA 11.6 23.9 9.1 POMOXIS NIGROHACULATUS 4 3895 3.0 207 7790 6.0 409.3 24.4 8.9 800605 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 6.0 85.1 24.4 8.9 LEPOMIS SP. 41 7790 7 7790 6.0 13.5 24.4 8.9 MORONE AMERICANA 6.0 4.7 24.4 8.9 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 2 7790 162 9088 7.0 320.4 23.5 8.5 800612 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 7.0 67 7 23.5 8.5 LEPOMIS SP. 34 9088 2 9088 7.0 3.7 23.5 8.5 MORONE AMERICANA 65 9088 7.0 138.1 24.1 7.8 800619 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 16.5 24.1 7.8 LEPOMIS SP. 7 9088 7.0 1 9088 7.0 1.8 24.1 7.8 MORONE AMERICANA 21 9088 7.0 43.1 25.0 7.8 800626 LEPOHIS SP. 33.3 25.0 7.8 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 18 9088 7.0 30 9737 7.5 61.7 26.4 7.3 800702 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 42.7 26.4 7.3 LEPOMIS SP. 19 9737 7.5 1 9737 7.5 2.6 26.4 7.3 POHOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 17 10386 8.0 39.3 26.9 7.0 800710 LEPOMIS SP. 9.3 26.9 7.0 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 5 10386 8.0 2 9088 7.0 4.5 28.9 7.4 800717 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 5.4 28.9 7.4 LEPOMIS SP. 2 9088 7.0 8 9088 7.0 17.5 28.9 7.5 800724 LEPOMIS SP.

5 9088 7.0 11.9 29.5 7.6 800731 LEPOMIS SP.

3895 3.0 6.7 11.9 810305 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 7.2 11.6 810312 NO LARVAE 3895 3.0 7.0 11.3 810319 NO LARVAE 6816 5.3 7.5 11.4 810326 NO LARVAE 19 9088 7.0 43.4 12.1 10.9 810402 PERCA FLAVESCENS 33 10386 8.0 69.5 13.0 10.3 810409 PERCA FLAVESCENS

DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURING 1978-1983.

VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE SPECIES OXYGEN (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER 50 9088 7.0 101.3 13.9 10.1 810415 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1.9 13.9 10.1 MORONE AMERICANA 1 9088 7.0 31 9088 7.0 68.4 16.0 9.7 810423 MORONE AMERICANA 16.0 9.7 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1 9088 7.0 2.3

'63 9088 7.0 141.1 18.0 9.4 810430 MORONE AMERICANA 24.3 18.0 9.4 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 11 9088 7.0 118 10386 8.0 262.3 18.4 818...

810507 MORONE AMERICANA 161.0 18.4 8.8 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 72 10386 8.0 1 10386 8.0 2.1 18.4 8.8 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 165 5193 4.0 419.3 19.7 8.9 810514 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 169.1 19.7 8.9 MORONE AMERICANA 65 5193 4.0 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 1 5193 4.0 .2.8 19.7 8;9 331 9088 7.0 714.0 18.9 8.8 810521 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 164.1 18.9 8.8 MORONE.AMERICANA 77 9088. 7.0

.3 9088 7.0 7.1 18.9 '8.8 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 288 10386 -8.0 588.3 22.7 18.4 810528 DOROSOMA;CEPEDIANUM t51.9 i22'7 p8.4

-' .MORONE.AMERICANA .25 10386 8.0 10386 8a0. 2.;3 42217 8.4 POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS

_I- *'If-,* ,. ,-I , ~ .088 218ll3 '23'.6 810604 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 7.0 9088 7.0 16.3 - 23.6 8.4

.MORONE AMERICANA 9088 23;*6 LEPOMIS SP. 1 7.0 2.7 119 8763 6.8 296.7 26.2 7.9 810611 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 15.8 26 2 7.9 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 6 8828 6.8 5 8828 6.8 14.2 26 2 7.9 MORONE AMERICANA 26.2 7.9 LEPOMIS SP. 3 8828 6.8 7.8 55 10386 8.0 148.3 28.7 7.5 810618 LEPOMIS SP. 28.7 i^7.5 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 41 10386 8.0 89.0 4 10386 8.0 10.4 28.7 7.5 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS

.5 9088 7.0 28.0 28.6 7.7 810625 LEPOMIS SP. 9.2 28.6 7.7 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 3 9088 7.0 11 9088 7.0 20.4 26.8 7.1 810702 LEPOMIS SP. 6.7 26.8 7.1

- .DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 4 9088 7.0 8 9088 7.0 17.9 28.3 7.6 810709 LEPOMIS SP. 6.0 28.3 7.6 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 3 9088 7.0

I i It l I i I I I I I I I I AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED OXYGEN VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

DATE SPECIES CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED (Xl 000 PUMPS PER CUBIC METER OXYGEN LEPOMIS SP. 24 9088 7.0 50.7 28.1 7.4 810716 7.6 28.1 7.4 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 4 9088 7.0 810723 LEPOHIS SP. 8 9088 7.0 21.2 28.8 .7.9 LEPOMIS SP. 2 9088 7.0 4.6 28.4 7.3 810730 7790 6.0 8.0 11.3 820304 820310 3895 3.0 8.0 11.7 3895 3.0 8.0 11.7 820311 5193 4.0 10.5 10.4 820317 5193 4.0 10.9 11.7 820318 5193 4.0 11.0 11.0 820324 820325 PERCA FLAVESCENS S 5193 4.0 14.8 12.0 11.1 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1 5193 4.0 2.8 10.3 10.5 820401 PERCA FLAVESCENS 21 5193 4.0 60.6 10.1 10.6 820407 820415 PERCA FLAVESCENS 5 3895 3.0 15.9 12.8 10.4 MORONE AMERICANA 22 3895 3.0 72.8 14.0 10.3 820422 14.0 10.3 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3 3895 3.0 10.-0 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1 3895 3.0 3.3 14.0 10.3 22 3895 3.0 75.4 16.2 9.4 820429 MORONE AMERICANA 16.2 9.4 PERCA FLAVESCENS 2 3895 3.0 6.2 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1 3895 3.0 3.2 16.2 9.4 77 3895 3.0 302.3 19.3 9.6 820506 MORONE AMERICANA 19.3 9.6 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 12 3895 3.0 47.9 4 3895 3.0 15.1 19.3 9.6 LEPOHIS SP.

126 3895 3.0 398.5 22 0 9.3 820513 MORONE AMERICANA 97.4 22 0 9.3 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 31 3895 3.0 8 3895 3.0 26.3 22.0 9.3 LEPOMIS SP. 3.4 22.0 9.3 POHOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 1 3895 3.0 46 7790 6.0 120.6 22.9 8.6 820520 DOROSOHA CEPEDIANUM 93.*1 22.9 8.6 MORONE AMERICANA 34 7790 6.0 3 7790 6.0 7.7 22.9 8.6 LEPOMIS SP. 1 3.7 22.9 8.6 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 7790 6.0

'.0 to

(,

(. .

STATION DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE SPECIES PER CUBIC METER OXYGEN (X1000) PUMPS 47 3895 3.0 147.2 22.0 8.7 820527 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 75.4 22,0 8.7 LEPOMIS SP. 23 3895 3.0 4 3895 3.0 13.4 22.0 8.7 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 3.0 4.7 22.0 8.7 MORONE'AMERICANA 1 3895 128 3895 3.0 280.9 25.2 8.3 820603 'DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 17.9 25.2 8.3 MORONE AMERICANA 9 3895 3.0 7 3895 3.0 24.3 25.2 8.3

-LEPOMIS SP.

146 3895 3.0 416.5 23.4 8.5 820610 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 13.1 23.4 8.5 LEPOMIS SP. 4 3895 3.0 1 3895 3.0 2.6 23.4 8.5 MORONE AMERICANA 19 3895 3.0 51.1 23.8 8.6 820617 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM

2. 7 22 5193 4.0 60.0 25.7 8.7 820624 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 76,2 8.7 LEPOMIS'SP. 22 5193 4.0 25.7 14 5193 4.0 45.5 27.0 8.4

-820701 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 11.1 27.00 8-4 LEPOMIS SP. 3 5193 4.0 1 5193 4.0 2.6 8.4 MORONE AMERICANA 7 5193' ; 4.0 ; 30.2 274 ,.7.9

820708 ' LEPO0ISSSP ;' 27.4 7.9

.DOROSOMACEPEDIANUM 1 5193 4.0 -2.8

3895 'l. 3.0 -119 6 '27 -8.1 820715 i',LEPOMIS Si.' ' '29

28.7 8.1 2 -3895 ,.3.0 6.2 DOROSOMA'CEPEDIANUM 820722 DOROSOMACEPEDIANUM *1 13895 3.0 -4.5 29.0 8.3 2 3895 3.0 6.8 29.3 8.0 820729 LEPOMIS SP.;

7790 6.0 7.8 11.8 830303 NO LARVAE, 7790 6.0 9.8 11.7 830310 NO LARVAE.

7790 6.0 10.3 11.0 830317 NO LARVAE 7790 6.0 10.2 10.8 830323 NO LARVAE 4 7790 6.0 9.3 10.8 10.8 830330 PERCA FLAVESCENS 8 3895 3.0 21.4 12.7 10.6 830407 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3895 -3.0 26.6 12.4 10.4 830414 PERCA FLAVESCENS '10 10.4 9 3895 3.0 22.8 12.4 MORONE AMERICANA a%

DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURING 1978-1983.

VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED DATE SPECIES OXYGEN (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER 16 3895 3.0 40.4 12.0 10.2 830421 MORONE AMERICANA 5.3 12.0 10.2 PERCA FLAVESCENS 2 3895 3.0 39 3895 3.0 105.1 14.3 10.8 830428 MORONE AMERICANA 20 3895 3.0 53.0 18.0 9.9 830505 MORONE AMERICANA 15.5 18.0 9.9 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 6 3895 3.0 146 5193 4.0 423.8 19.8 9.7 830512 MORONE AMERICANA 397.5 19.8 9..7...

DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 131 5193 4.0 28 5193 4.0 81.4 19.8 9.7 '

POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 9.2 19.8 9.7 LEPOMIS SP. 3 5193 4.0 55 3895 3.0 144.4 18.7 9.1 830519 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 18.7 9.1 MORONE ;.AMERICANA 39 3895 3.0 102.5 201 9088 7.0 428.1 21.7 8.9 830526. DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 21.7 8.9 MORONE AMERICANA 37 9088 7.0 70.8 89 9088 7.0 181.3 21.9 8.9 830602 DOROSOMA CEPEOIANUM 15.3 21.9 8.9 MORONE AMERICANA 8 9088 7.0 1 9088 7.0 2.2 21.9 8.9 LEPOHIS SP.

94 9088 7.0 180.9 24.0 8.4 830609 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 30.8 24.0 8.4 MORONE AMERICANA 16 9088 7.0-1 9088 7.0 2.2 24.0 8.4 LEPOMIS SP.

87 9088 7.0 169.5 27.7 7.7 830616 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 7.7 MORONE AMERICANA 11 9088 7.0 25.4 27.7

- 1 9088 7.0 1.4 27.7 7.7 LEPOMIS SP.

42 10386 8.0 78.1 27.3 6.9 830623 DOROSOMA.CEPEDIANUM 27.3 6.9 MORONE AMERICANA 11 10386 8.0 29.4 3 10386 8.0 7.5 27.3 6.9 LEPOMIS SP. 1.8 27.3. 6.9 ICTALURUS-PUNCTATUS 1 10386 8.0 1 10386 8.0 3.0 27.3 6.9 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 20 10386 8.0 39.1 26.8 7.2 830630 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 10.5 26.8 7.2 MORONE AMERICANA 5 10386 8.0 10 10386 8.0 21.5 27.4 7.6 830707 LEPOMIS SP. 6.8 27.4 7.6 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 4 10386 8.0 1 10386 8.0 2.0 27.4 7.6 MORONE AMERICANA 8 10386 8.0 . 14.9 29.4 7.9 830714 LEPOMIS, SP. 5.2 29.4 7.9 DOROSOMA CEPEDIAHUM 4 10386 8.0 2 10386 8.0 3.8 29.4 7.9 MORONE AMERICANA Io

(. (, (.

!lI I I I *

I TABLE 6.2.2 LARVAE ENTRAINED DURING SAMPLE DATES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION DURING 1978-1983. DISSOLVED OXYGEN AND TEMPERATURE VALUES ARE AVERAGES OF SURFACE SAMPLES.

DATE SPECIES CATCH VOLUME AVERAGE AVERAGE FISH TEMPERATURE DISSOLVED (X1000) PUMPS PER CUBIC METER OXYGEN 830721 LEPOMIS SP. 9088 7.0 2.1 31.0 7.5 MORONE AMERICANA 1 9088 7.0 3.7 31.0 7.5 830728 NO LARVAE 10062 7.8 . 28.7 6.6

.. . I.

!" I.'

- o ' I

)]l 1

t0

STATION , 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.2.3. TOTAL LARVAE COLLECTED BY YEAR AND SAMPLE TIME AT NORTH ANNA POWER HOURS: 0600 1200 1800 % 2400 TOTAL YEAR SPECIES 90 17.5 63 12.3 95 18.5 266 51.8 514 78 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 27.1 10l 20.3 531 LEPOHIS SPP. 80 15.1 199 37.5 144 1 100.0 1 HICROPTERUS SALMOIDES 3 100 0 3 MORONE AMERICANA 26.9 130 PERCA FLAVESCENS 14 10.8 I35 26.9 46 35.4 35 4 33.3 6 50.0 1 8.3 1 8.3 12 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 413 34.7 1191 TOTAL 188 15.8 304 25.5 286 24,0 153 11.0 167 12.0 337 24,1 740 53.0 1397

79 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 33.0 33 29.5 112 LEPOMIS SPP. 16 14.3 26 23.2 37 3 5.4 13 23.2 11 19.6 29 51.8 56 MORONE AMERICANA 2 11.1 18 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3 16.7 13 72.2 1 16.7 3 50.0 2 33.3 6 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 24,4 806 50.7 1589 TOTAL 176 11.1 219 13.8 388 215 22.8 106 11.3 158 16.8 462 49.1 941 80 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 14.9 161 LEPOMIS SPP. 18 11.2 55 34.2 64 39.8 24 13 14.3 8 8.8 16 17.6 54 59.3 91 MORONE AMERICANA 33 45.8 72 PERCA FLAVESCENS 17 23.6 19 26.4 3 4.2 4 30.8 2 15.4 .6 46.2 1 7.7 13 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 574 44.9 1278 TOTAL 267 20.9 190 14.9 247 19.3 173 15.4 143 12.7 277 24.6 533 47.3 1126 81 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 10 8.5 117 LEPOMIS SPP. 43 36.8 38 32.5 26 22.2 53 13.6 57 14.6 114 29.2 167 42.7 391 MORONE AMERICANA 35 34.0 103 PERCA FLAVESCENS 15 14.6 12 11.7 41 39.8 2 12.5 5 31.3 5 31.3 4 25.0 16 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 749 42.7 1753 TOTAL 286 16.3 255 14.5 463 26.4 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 88 18.7 66 14.0 28 5.9 289 61.4 471 82 10 8.8 21 18.4 114.

LEPOMIS SPP. 31 27.2 52 45.6 29 9.9 58 19.8 43 14.7 163 55.6 293 MORONE AMERICANA 17 45.9 37 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3 8.1 10 27.0 7 18.9 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 53.3 921 TOTAL 153 16.6 188 20.4 89 9.7 491 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 140 19.1 215 29.3 137 18.7 241 32.9 733 83 1 100.0 1 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 28.6 4 14.3 28 LEPOMIS SPP. 3 10.7 13 46.4 8 62 17.2 133 36.8 57 15.8 109 30.2 361 MORONE AMERICANA 6 25.0 24 PERCA FLAVESCENS 10 41.7 3 12.5 5 20.8 3.4 18 62.1 3 10.3 7 24.1 29 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 368 31.3 1176 TOTAL 216 18.4 382 32.5 210 17.9 1286 16.3 1538 19.4 1683 21.3 3401 43.0 7908 GRAND TOTAL

(.. (,

I7 I i I i.

1

( C

, 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.2.4. TOTAL LARVAE COLLECTED BY SPECIES AND SAMPLE TIME AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION YEAR 0600 1200 1800 % 2400 TOTAL SPECIES DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 78 90 17.5 63 12.3 95 18.5 266 51.8 514 79 153 11.0 167 12.0 337 24.1 740 53.0 1397 80 215 22.8 106 11.3 158 16.8 462 49.1 941 81 173 15.4 143 12.7 277 24.6 533 47.3 1126 82 88 18.7 66 14.0 28 5.9 289 61.4 471 83 140 19.1 215 29.3 137 18.7 241 32.9 733 TOTAL 859 16.6 760 14.7 1032 19.9 2531 48.8 5182 83 1 100.0 1 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 1 100.0 1 TOTAL LEPOMIS SPP. 78 80 15.1 199 37.5 144 27.1 108 20.3 531 79 16 14.3 26 23.2 37. 33.0. 33 29.5 112 80 18 11.2 55 34.2 64 39.8 24 14.9 161 81 43 36.8 38 32.5 26 22.2 10 8.5 117.

82 31 27.2 52 45.6 10 8.8 21 18.4 114 83 3 10.7 -13 46.4 8. 28.6 4 14.3 28 7, - TOTAL 191 18.0 383 36.0 289 27.2 200 18.8 1063

,, I 78 - 1 100.0 1

,MICROPTERUS SALM4OIDES 1 TOTAL - ', ,.1 100.0 4MORONE AMERICANA I'-t 78 -,. 3 100.0 3 79 3 5.4 13 23.2 11it 19.6. 29 51.8 56

. ,. I 80 13 14.3 ,8 8.8- 16, 17.6;:; 54 59.3 91 81 53 13.6 57 14.6 114 29.2 167 42.*7 391 82 29 : 9.9 .58 19.8 43- 14.7 -; 163 55.6 293 83 : 62 17.2 133 36.8 57 15.8 , 109 30.2 361 TOTAL 160 13.4 269 22.5 241 20.2 ; 525 43.9 1195 PERCA FLAVESCENS 78 14 10.8 35 26.9 46 35.4 35 26.9 130 79 3 16.7 13 72.2 2 11.1 18 80 17 23.6 19 26.4 3 4.2 33 45.8 72 81 15 .14.6 12 11.7 41 39.8 35 34.0 103 82 3 8.1 -10 27.0 7 18.9 17 45.9 37 83 10 41.7 3 12.5 5 20.8 6 25.0 24 TOTAL 62 16.1 92 24.0 102 26.6 128 33.3 384 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS ' 78 4 33.3 6 50.0 1 8.3 1 8.3 12 79 1 16.7 3 50.0 2 33.3 6 80 4 30.8 2 15.4 6 46.2 1 7.7 13 81 2 12.5 5 31.3 5 31.3 4 25.0 16 82 2 33.3 2 33.3 1 16.7 1 16.7 6 83 1 3.4 18 62.1 3 10.3 7 24.1 29 TOTAL 14 17.1 33 40.2 19 23.2 16 19.5 82 R.A TOTA GRAND TOTAL 1286 16.3 1538 19.4 1683 21.3 3401 43.0 7908 0a

I I I I I I I I I It3 I I TABLE 6.2.5. TOTAL LARVAE COLLECTED BY SPECIES AND SAMPLE DEPTH AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

YEAR SPECIES SURFACE PERCENT MIDDLE PERCENT BOTTOM PERCENT TOTAL 78 DOROSOMACEPEDIAMUM. 100 19 296 58 118 23 514 LEPOM4IS SPP. 403 76 72 14 56 11 531 MICROPTERUS SALHOIDES 1 100 0 0 0 0 1 MORONE AMERICANA 0 0 3 100 0 0 3 PERCA FLAVESCENS 86 66 20 15 24 18 130

\POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 7 58 1 8 4 33 12 TOTAL 597 50 392 33 202 17 1191 79 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 408 29 478 34 511 37 1397 LEPOMIS SPP. 84 75 18 16 -10 9 112 MORONE AMERICANA 16 29 26 46 114 25 56 PERCA FLAVESCENS 15 83 2 11 1 6 18 POMOX IS,NIGROMACULATUS 5 83 1 17 0 0 6 TOTAL 528 33 525 33 536 34 1589 80 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 1l1 12 1463 49 367 39 941 LEPOMIS SPP. 133 83 13 8 15 9 161 MORONE AMERICANA 17 19 33 36 41 45 91 PERCA FLAVESCENS 40 56 9 13 23 32 72 POMOXIS NIGROM4ACULATUS 10 77 2 15 1 8 13 TOTAL 311 24 520 . 41 447 35 1278 81 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 219 19 473 42 434 39' 1126 LEPOMIS, SPP. 102 87 6 5 9 8 117 MORONE AMERICANA 125 32 129 33 137 35 391 PERCA FLAVESCENS 74 72 18 17 11 11 103 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 14 88 1 6 .1 6 16 TOTAL ,.534 . 30 627 36 592 34 1753 82 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 63 13 186 39 222 47 471 LEPOMIS SPP. 92 81 12 11 10 9 114 MORONE AMERICANA 123 42 87 30 83 28 293 PERCA FLAVESCENS 17 46 8 22 12 32 37 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 5 83 1 17 0 0 6 TOTAL 300 33 294 32 327 36 921 83 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 146 20 276 38 311 42 733 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 LEPOMIS SPP. 16 57 8 29 4 14 28 MORONE AMERICANA 154 43 105 29 102 28 361 PERCA FLAVESCENS 14 58 3 13 7 29 24

-POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 19 66 10 34 0 0 29 TOTAL 349 30 402 34 425 36 1176 GRAND TOTAL 2619 33 2760 35 2529 32 7908

II iI I I I I I I I i I

I* * (** ')

STATION, 1978-1983.

TABLE 6.2.6. TOTAL LARVAE COLLECTED BY YEAR AND SAMPLE DEPTH AT NORTH ANNA POWER SPECIES YEAR SURFACE PERCENT MIDDLE PERCENT BOTTOM PERCENT TOTAL 100 19 296 58 118 23 514 DOROSOMA CEPEDIA ANUM 78 79 405 29 478 34 511 37 1397 80 111 12 463 . 49 367 39 941 81 219 19 473 42 434 39 1126 82 63 13 186 39 222 47 471 83 146 20 276 38 311 42 733 TOTAL TOTAL 1047 20 2172 42 1963 38 5182 83 0 0 0 0 1 100 1 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 0 0 .1, 100 1 TOTAL TOTAL 0 0 56 78 403 76 72 14 11 531 LEPOMIS SPP. '10' 9 112 79 84 75 18 16 83 13 a 15 9 161 80 133 5 81 102 87 6 9 8 117 92 81 12 11 10 9 114 82 83 16 57 8 29 4 14 28 TOTAL TOTAL 830 70 129 12 104 10 1063 1 0 0 0 1 HICROPTERUS SALHioIDuS 78 100 0 0 0 0 TOTAL TOTAL 1 100 O'1 0 3 100 0 0 3 HORONE AMERICANA 78 0 79 16 29 26 46 14 25 56

.180 17 19 33 36 41 45 91

-'!s81-t '.,;125 32 129 33 137, 35 ,.391 293 82 !!.-L123 42 87 30 . 28 ' .

;- ; 83 .t 154 43 105 29 102' 28 -. 361 TOTAL ;TOTAL '?435" 36 383 32 .377. 32 1 C1195 66 20 15 24 18 130 PERCA FLAVESCENS 78 86 1.-- 6 18 79 15 - 83 2 11

80'! 40' - 56 9 13 23 11 32 72 81 74 72 18 17 11 103 82 17 46 8 22 12 32 37 83 14 58 3 13 7 29 .24 TOTAL TOTAL 246 64 60 16 78 20 384 POMOXIS NIGROMAC ULATUS 78 7 58 1 8 4 33 12

- 79 5 83 1 17 0 O 6

'80 10 77 2 15 1 8 13 88 1 6 *1 6 -16 81 14 0.

82 5 83 1 17 0 6 10 0 0 29 83 19 66 34 TOTAL 60 73 16 20 6 7 82 TOTAL 2760 GRAND TOTAL 2619 33 35 2529 32 7908 0.

I0.

I i I i i I I ! i I I I I I I 1 TABLE 6.2.7. ESTIMATES AND ASSOCIATED 95Z CONFIDENCE LIMITS FOR LARVAE ENTRAINED 1978-1983 AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION.

YEAR SPECIES LOWER CONFIDENCE LIMIT ESTIMATE UPPER CONFIDENCE LIMIT (X1,000.000) (X1,000,OOO) (X1,000,000) 78 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 53.6 60.4 67.2 LEPOHIS SPP. 56.9 64.2 71.5 MICROPTERUS SALHOIDES 0. 1 0. 1 0.2 MORONE AMERICANA 0.2 0.3 0.5 PERCA FLAVESCENS 11.5 12.7 14.0 POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS 1.4 1.8 2.1 TOTAL 129.3 139.6 149.8 79 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 117.2 128.1 138.9 LEPOMIS SPP. 9.7 10.9 12.1 M4ORONE AMERICANA 5.5 6.3 7.2 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1.4 2.0 2.6 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 0.6 0.7 0.9 TOTAL 137.0 148.1 159.3 80 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 94.6 103.3 112.1 LEPOMIS SPP. 20.2 22.3 24.3 MORONE AMERICANA 10.7 11.5 12.4 PERCA FLAVESCENS 5.3 6.0 6.6 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 1.2 1.5 1.7 TOTAL 135.2 144.6 153.9 81 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 143.3 157.1 170.9 LEPOMIS SPP. 18.4 20.5 22.6 MORONE AMERICANA 50.8 54.8 58.8 PERCA FLAVESCENS 13.0 14.4 15.8 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 2.2 2.6 2.9 TOTAL 233.1 249.4 265.8 82 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 35.4 39.4 43.3 LEPOMIS SPP. 10.5 12.4 14.2 MORONE AMERICANA 26.1 29.0 31.9 PERCA FLAVESCENS 3.4 3.7 4.1 POMOXIS NICROMACULATUS 0.5 0.7 0.8 TOTAL 79.4 85.1 90.7 83 DOROSOMA CEPEDIANUM 82.9 89.3 95.6 ICTALURUS PUNCTATUS 0.1 0.1 0.2 LEPOMIS SPP. 3.3 4.0 4.7 MORONE AMERICANA 33.1 36.8 40.6 PERCA FLAVESCENS 1.6 2.0 2.3 POMOXIS NIGROMACULATUS 2.6 3.2 3.8 TOTAL . 127.1 135.4 143.7 0

'(. (.

IiI IIIII

(- wi

(

FIGURE 6.2.1. TOTAL ENTRAINMENT CATCH PER PUMP OF SELECTED ABUNDANT SPECIES AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

CATCH SUM 400 - 5 c

78 79 so 81 83

. YEAR

- LEGEND:, SPECIES D. CEPEDIANUM I LEPUMIS SPP. a E'.l MORONE AMFPTCANA

.. ,.- I.

5-

I I I . I I I I I I I I I I' I I I Il FIGURE 6.2.2. ESTIMATED TOTAL. NUMBER OF FISH LARVAE ENTRAINED PER YEAR AT NORTH ANNA POWER STATION, 1978-1983.

2401 220 A

-1 200-F T Is80- /

M 4

T A{ . /I E

II x

i i40-

0 0

0 I 0

0

. i 10oo0 601

-a-- . . . . .. I

. .o. .c. . . I- .I . . I . . . . . . . I . . . . I .S

.78t -

79 80 YEAR 81 an CC 83 I.-

(. (, Co

106 7.0 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 7.1 Impingement The -impact of impingement ddiing this 5-year 9-month study period on the Lake Anna fishery will be' discussed from' three perspectives: (1) comparison of impingement losses' b&y major species'with total lake standing crop derived from rotenone estimates; (2) comparison 6f losses due to impingement by major species with the average fecundity of these species and; (3)comparison of impingement losses with creel'lossese, when available.

... .. .r s :. .

Impingement rates are' related to fecundity, the-'general term used to describe the number of-eggs produced by'fish (Lagler,:et al. 1962). The number of eggs produced by an individual 'female varies according to a great many factors including'- age, size,"env1ronmental condition, and species. Some'eggs are buoyant (pelagic)'and'have specific gravity about the same as fresh water; however, most' lake fish produce eggs'that'are heavier than fresh water, which causes them to sink (demersal) and have an adhesive coating that holds them to a substrate and prevents them from being'swept away by current (Reutter and Herdendorf 1979)'. '

The percentage of eggs produced by a single female fish that actually grow to adult size is very small, especially for broadcast spawners. This percent survival is affected by 'man'y3"fact6rs including 'physical parameters, predation and- the'-principle 'ofcompensation. The fecundity of selected species, as'discussed'below, is described 'interms of potential replacement and is presented only to'show the disparity of the number of fishes impinged versus the fecundity of each species. '

I e

107 Gizzard Shad The average annual standing crop of gizzard shad (1979-1983). was 121 kg/ha (Vepco 1983 and 1984). This value may well be an underestimate as gizzard shad is a schooling species and the probability of capturing a school in a given cove is low. Porak and Tranquilli (1981) found the average standing crop of gizzard shad in Lake Sangchris, Illinois to be 275.3 kg/ha, but that is a much smaller lake than Lake Anna (less than 1/4 of the surface area). The average annual weight of gizzard shad impinged in Lake Anna during the 5-plus-year study period was 2,200 kg (Table 6.1.3). Thus 0.32% of the Lake area (18 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the weight of impinged gizzard shad. Stated another way, an average 0.32% of the total gizzard shad standing crop (by weight) was impinged annually. The number of gizzard shad per hectare, from rotenone data, is only readily available for the years 1981-1983. Using these 3 years.of data, averaged, the. annual standing crop number was 1.7 x 103/ha and the average annual number impinged during this 3-year period was 3.4 x 104 (Table 6.1.3). Thus 0.38% of the Lake area (21 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the number of impinged gizzard shad. This value is much smaller than found in the Lake Sangchris study, 1.82%

(Porak and Tranquilli 1981).

Gizzard shad have a high reproductive potential and a rapid growth rate. They can reproduce at 2 years of age and the number of eggs contained in a female can range from 2.2 x 104 to 5.4 x 105 (Carlander 1969) dependent on their age and size with an average of 3.8 x 105 for age class II (Jones 1978).

The average yearly estimate of impinged gizzard shad at the North Anna Power Station was 1.2 x 105 for the 5-plus-year study (Table 6.1.3), considerably less than the maximum fecundity potential of one average size 2-year-old female gizzard shad. '

108 Black Crappie Preoperational cove rotenone studies show a 52% drop in black crappie standing, crop between 1976 and 1977, at three coves sampled on Lake Anna (Vepco 1984). The Pamunkey Arm cove was not sampled during 1976. After impingement startup in April 1978, August cove rotenone studies showed an additional 86% (1977 versus 1978) drop in black crappie standing crop at the three coves sampled during 1976. The Pamunkey Creek cove in the upper lake, approximately seven miles above the intake area, showed a 70% drop in black crappie standing crop between 1977 and 1978 (Vepco.1978). It is unlikely this station could have been affected by only four months of station operation. It would appear, therefore, that the decline of the black crappie standing crop is unrelated to station operation.

Results of cove rotenone studies at Lake Anna have indicated a steady decline of black crappie since 1978 (Vepco 1983 and 1984). The average annual.

standing crop of black crappie for the five years is 6.64 kg/ha (Vepco 1983 and 1984)., The average annual weight of black crappie impinged during the 5-plus-year study was 1,397.3 kg. Thus 3.8% of the lake area (210 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the weight of impinged black crappie, or an average 3.8% of the total black. crappie standing crop (by weight) was impinged annually. The number of black crappie per hectare, from rotenone data, is readily available only for the years 1981-1983. The 3-year average annual standing crop (number) was-130/ha (Vepco 1983 and 1984) and the average annual number impinged was 2.2 x 10 . Thus 3.1% of the lake area (171 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the number of black crappie impinged in the lake.,

I 109 The average fecundity of black crappie has been estimated at 3.8 x 10 with a maximum of 1.6 x 105 eggs (Hardy, 1978). Since the estimated average annual number of black crappie impinged was 2.8 x 104 for the five-year study period, one average size adult female could theoretically produce more progeny in one year than were impinged in a year. Black crappie fecundity was not affected by temperature increases caused by heated discharge from a nuclear power station in Keowee Reservoir in South Carolina (Barwick 1981).

The Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries conducted a creel survey on Lake Anna from 1976 through 1979 (Sledd and Shuber 1981). The number of black crappie estimated creeled in 1979 was considerably less than each of the preceeding 3 years (5.7 x 10 4 vs. an avg. of 1.0 x 105). During 1979 an estimated 3.9 x 104 black crappie were impinged (Table 6.1.3); this value is 32% (56,634) less than were estimated to have been creeled that year. The combined creel and impingement estimate for 1979 (9.5 x 104) was only 87%

(1.1 x 105) of the total creeled in 1978. Since such a small number of black crappie were impinged in 1979, the start-up of impingement could not have been responsible for the abrupt decline of black crappie which began that year.

Rather, the cause is probably due to natural fluctuations in numbers which according to Swingle and Swingle (1968) occur frequently in black crappie populations.

The next time a creel survey was conducted at Lake Anna was in 1984.

As there *is no impingement data available for that year, the 1984 creel data were compared to 1983 impingement data. During 9 months of creel surveys at Lake Anna in 1984 (March through November) an estimated 1.6 x 104 black crappie weighing 1,225.5 kg were creeled (Vepco unpublished data). During 1983 (January through December) an estimated 1.1 x 104 black crappie weighing 556.8 'U1

110 kg were impinged (Table 6.1.3). Forty-five percent more fish were creeled than impinged if 1983 is considered to 'be,- a comparable year to 1984 for black crappie. The weight difference between the creeled fish (average 75.3g) and impinged fish (average 50.5g) would tend to indicate that anglers were keeping only the larger, more mature fish whereas the traveling screens collect a more indescriminate sample with many more smaller fish. However, impingement data

'indicate that the majority of the black crappie impinged were larger than 150 mmT.L. (Figure 6.1.1). Therefore, this weight difference may indicate that the impinged black crappie were, in many cases, .weak and emaciated and probably would have been susceptible to predation in the lake under normal conditions.

As the creel survey did not include lengths, this hypothesis cannot be confirmed.

Yellow Perch - .

As discussed earlier in,the "Results" section, cove rotenone data probably underestimate the yellow perch standing crop in Lake Anna. They are, however, the best-indicators available for the standing crop of that species.

The ,average annual yellow perch standing crop for the 5-plus-year study period was 6.5 kg/ha (Vepco 1983 and 1984) and the estimated average annual impingement weight was 518.1 kg (Table 6.1.3). Since 1.4% of the lake area (80 of 5,600 ha) would be required ?annually to produce the weight of impinged yellow perch, then an average 1.4% of the total yellow perch standing crop was impinged annually. The number.of yellow perch per hectare, from rotenone data, is readily available only forthe years,1981-1983. The 3-year average annual standing crop (numerical) was 230/ha and the average annual number impinged was 7.6 x 103 over this 3-year period. Only 0.6% of the lake area (33 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the number of impinged yellow perch.

ill The average fecundity of yellow perch has been estimated at 2.3 x 104 ranging up to 1.4 x 105 (Hardy 1978). Since the estimated annual average number of yellow perch impinged was 2.9 x 10 over the 5-plus-year period, 2 average size or one large adult female could theoretically produce more progeny in one year than were impinged annually.

Bluegill Cove rotenone studies indicate a fairly steady standing crop of bluegill in Lake Anna during the 5-plus-year impingement study period that ranges from 58.8 kg/ha to 74.2 kg/ha with an annual average of 65.3 kg/ha (Vepco 1973 and 1974). The estimated average annual impingement weight for bluegill during the 5-plus-year study period was 80.0 kg (Table 6.1.3). This means 0.02% of the lake area (1.2 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the weight of impinged bluegill or an average 0.02% of the total bluegill standing crop was impinged annually. The 3-year (1981-1983) average annual standing crop (numerical) was 7.8 x 103/ha and the average annual number impinged during that same period was 8.4 10 (Table 6.1.3). Thus 0.02% of the lake area (1.1 of 5,600 ha) would be required annually to produce the number of bluegill impinged annually.

The average fecundity of bluegill has been estimated at 1.8 x 104 (Hardy 1978) but can be as high as 6.4 x 104. As the estimated average annual number of bluegill impinged was 7.4 x 10 during the 5-plus-year study (Table 6.1.3), 1 average size adult female theoretically could produce more progeny In 1-year than were impinged in a year.

During the creelV survey yer (1976-1979)Y the-estimat&dd average- annual bluegill harvest was 1.5 x 104 fish (Sledd and Shuber 1981). This average is

112 almost twice as high as the average annual impingement rate (7.5 x 103 fish) from 1979-1983. The estimated total nrumber of bluegill creeled during 1984 was 9.0 x 10 (Vepco unpublished data). This value is almost twice as high as the estimated total number of bluegill impinged during 1983 (5.8 x 103) (Table 6.1.3). The comparison of data from these 2 years probably is valid as the standing crop of bluegill in Lake Anna remained relatively stable during that period (Vepco unpublished data).

White Perch Cove rotenone data indicate an increasing population of white perch in Lake Anna ranging from 2.73 kg/ha in 1979 to 24.2 kg/ha in 1982 and 21.0 kg/ha in 1983 with an annual average during"the 5-plus-year study period of 12.7 kg/ha (Vepco 1983 and 1984). The estimated average annual impingement rate for white perch during that period was 122.2 kg. At this rate, 0.1% of the lake area (5.8 of 5,600 ha) would be' required annually to produce the weight of impinged white perch, or an average of 0.1% of the total white perch standing crop was impinged annually. The number of white perch per hectare, readily available only for the years 1981-1983 averaged 520/ha from rotenone data (Vepco 1983 and 1984). The estimated average annual impingement number for these 3 years was 3.9 x 103 (Table 6.1.3). Thus 0.13% of the lakelarea (7.5 of 5,600 ha) would be required to' produce the number of white perch impinged annually.

The average fecundity of white perch has been estimated at 4.0 x 104 with a maximum reported at 3.2 x 105 (Hardy 1978).; As' the estimated average annual number of white perch impinged was 2.7 x 103 during the 5-plus-year study (max. 5,168) (Table 6.1.3),jone average size adult female .theoretically could produce more progeny in"1-year than were impinged in a year.

L .

F42U37 See 11: 4 li42712J7 7 E IOLOG *'J: ji 113 The striped bass was the only other species of any significance impinged during this study. Almost exclusively the impinged striped bass were young-of-the-year with yearly impingement estimates ranging from 151 (1978) to 5.2 x 103 (1982) with a total of 1.0 x 104 (Table 6.1.1). During the duration of this study (1978-1983) the Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries stocked 1.5 x 106 striped bass fry in Lake Anna (personal communication C.

Sledd) of which an estimated 0.7% were impinged.

Relative fish species composition in a lake can be greatly affected by introductions of new fish species. Since 1972 Lake Anna has been subject to numerous stockings of nine different species of fish (Table 7.1.2). All of these species, except Florida largemouth bass, are now found in the lake, although blueback herring is rare. Neither striped bass nor walleye have established breeding populations, hence the yearly stockings.

As these stockings were comprized of both predator and prey species, in large numbers, it is not surprising that fluctuations in species composition have occurred and are still continuing as these- fishes compete for space in their respective niches.

Whether one compares impingement during the 5-plus-year study period with estimated standin~g crop, average fecundity or creel harvest, there apparently has been no noticeable adverse impact on the fish stocks of Lake Anna.

-'}

I II _ i i I I i k I .

I I I I I average annual impingement Table 7.1.1 - Impact assessment summary for selected species, comparing and creel estimates when rates with average annual standing crop, average fecundity available, at North Anna Power Station 1978-1983.

Fecundity Estimated Estimated AverAverage AveravAverage of Number Creel Annual Annua Annual Annual Annual Standing Impingement one Impinged Harvest Impingement Standing Impingement 1984 Number Crop (Number) Number Average Size 1983 Weight (kg) Crop (Weight-kg) 1979-1983 1981-1983 1981-1983 1979-1983 Female Fish Species 1978-1983 f

0.3 0.4X 677,600 34,417 9,408,000 116,769 378,990 Gizzard Shad 2,200 3.8. 3.1 728,000 28,437 37,796 11,018 15,992 Black Crapple 1,397 37,184 22,256 1.4:4 0.6:

28,634 23,000 5,7_4 Yellow Perch 518 36,400 7,582 1,288,000 0.02S 0.02S 7,438 18,300 5,754 9,056 Bluegill 80 365,680 8,362 43,456,000 5.8S 0.13S 3,898 2,912,000 2,719 40,000 White perch 122 71,120 Striped bass Total number impinged - 10,024 total number stocked - 1,508,098. 0.7S

(. (. C.

(.

Table 7.1.2 Lake Anna Fingerling Stocking History 1972-1983 Largemouth Channel Striped Florida Blueback Threadfi n Bass Cat Bluegill Redear Bass Walleye Largemouth Herring Shad 2 3 1972 357,820 '. 394,458 3,493,477 1795,401 1973 95,000 1974 201,136 1975 96,997 58,220 1976 .1 194,550 293,620 18,.650 I

2164,395 . .

,6 _

1977 ..- 1.

. -. , -1 I,

-; 43,639' el;- ,-. , I ., _

n.I - -1

+,.

..... .;~ I,.:_ C-. - -

I 1978 :' : I .I C,

.,i

., . . .. .; 208,568 . , .

i.,

? ,. 1; I fZ . -.

I .w

. I_ , _

36,2 .. ^

,1, 1979 367,828 . . .

1980 104,826 213,131 9,000

/

1981 238,171 3183,663 2,600 1982 224,787 59,667 1983 255,613 197,250 5,000

1. Redear.shipments contained unestimated percentage of Bluegill-

2. Excludes an estimated 9,556 lost on June 29, 1977 shipment

3. 10,000 fry in poor shape also stocked in 1981 P--

VI-

IL-116 7.2 Entrainment Regardless of the source of a disturbance on fish populations, there exists some natural compensatory capacity within that population. Compensation is the capacity of a population to offset, to some extent, reductions in numbers caused by some disturbance, e.g. commercial fishes and sport fisheries.

Compensation has been demonstrated in many fish populations and is the primary basis for sustained commercial fishery operations (McFadden 1977). Ricker (1954) stated that the removal of young fish (eggs, larvae and juveniles) is at least partly balanced by the increased survival of the remaining fish. It is possible that fish populations could withstand exploitation by power plants at levels described in commercial and sport fisheries. The natural compensation capacity of fish populations In Lake Anna should reduce the impact of entrainment by North Anna Power Station.

It has been shown that the mortality rate of larval populations is a major factor in determining fisheries stock stability (Polgar 1977). The effects of entrainment on stock stability can be assessed by determining the number of adults represented by the entrained larvae (Long Island Lighting Co.

1977). Several models were considered for the Lake Anna entrainment program (Horst 1975; Hackney and Webb 1977; and Goodyear 1978). Goodyear's (1978)'

equivalent adult model was chosen because it eliminates sources of error found in the others that could underestimate impact. The model is based on work that shows larval mortality as being a function of length class (Swedberg and Walburg 1970). Goodyear shows that data on abundance of larvae, grouped by body length can be used to estimate a probability of survival from one length' class to the next during the period that larvae are vulnerable to entrainment.

The number of adults that would have resulted from the entrained larvae can be estimated by the equation:

117 k

Na = E Ng SR I = 1 Where:

k = number of larval length classes that are subject to entrainment mortality N1 = number of length classQikilled by entrainment S= Survival probability from length class e to adulthood, which can be derived from the equation:

- , I' ;~; .

Se, t Fa Where:

Fa= Average lifetime fecundity-,

Gizzard shad - 59,480 White perch - 40,000 Sunfishes -. 10,751g' Black crappie - 37,796 Yellow perch - 23,000 Se,, = survival probability "-from egg to leiigth class e , which can be derived from the equation:

-d(L2 - h)

Sef = He Where:.

H = fraction of eggs that hatch, L 1= Length of length classc h - Length at hatching', as wh c

.der i d =.instantaneous mortality .rate of length c' :lasst , which Is derived I '..

from the equation':'1-';1'1-' r' '

V 4 ,* '-'1 r

L

118 k

M Ne d = -LN t = 2 k

z Ng g =1 The equivalent adult analysis is based on the following assumptions:

1) There is 100% mortality of entrained larvae

2) The stock populations are at equilibrium and the total lifetime fecundity produces two adults

3) No compensatory mechanisms are operating

4) 75% of the eggs produced by the entrained species survive to the larval stage Lifetime fecundity values and hatching success rates were averaged from the literature (Schubel 1974; Edsall 1977; New York State Gas and Electric Co.

1977; Hardy 1978; Jones 1978; and Heberling et al. 1981). The hatching success values appear to be high for at least some species. Values for survival of eggs to the larval stage, survival of larvae reaching adult stage and instantaneous rates of mortality were calculated using the above equations.

The results of the analysis (Table 7.2.1) indicate percent cropping, or reduction in adult recruitment caused by entrainment, of each species varied between years and ranged from 0.01% (black crappie in 1978 and 1979; sunfishes in 1982) to 4.13% (gizzard shad in 1980). These percentages reflect differences among years in total estimated standing crop in Lake Anna and the

119 length frequency distribution and total larvae entrained. Generally, yellow perch was relatively most effected byfthe station's intake during the first 2 years, while during '1981 and 1982 white perch percent cropping was highest.

Gizzard shad had -the highest percent cropping (4.13%) in 1980. The instantaneous rate of mortalitypyrobably was heavily affected in 1980 by the collection of large numbers of length-Class 1 larvae, possibly due to a late spawn or a large secondary spawn.

The equivalent adult analysis provided a conservative estimate of entrainment impact because of the assmptions' used in the analysis. Larval mortality experienced in entrainment at North Anna is in reality probably less than 100%. The reduction in adult recruitment reported are below values that are thought to cause significant impact on the fishery or the individual populations (Long Island Lighting Co. 1977; New York State and Gas Co. 1977; Heberling et al. -1981; Porak'and Tranquilli 1981). No adverse effect due to entrainment on' the sport fishery of Lake Sa'ngchris, Illinois was reported by Porak and Tranquilli (1981). '"Numerical'loss of the standing crop at Lake Sangchris was 5.48% for gizzard shad, 15.3% for Morone spp. (White bass and yellow bass) and 0.59% for Lepomis spp. (sunfishes). Regardless of the source of disturbance on fish populations, there is a capacity within populations to offset a reduction in numbers-(McFadden 1977); The impact of entrainment at Lake Anna is minimal when values~of'percent cropping are considered with other population mechanisms, e.g. compensation.

120 Table 7.2.1 - Results of the Equivalent Adult Analysis of Entrainment Data at North Anna Power Station, 1978-1983.

Total Number Number of Standing Percent Species Year Entrained Adults (Na) Crop Cropping White perch 1978 3.5 x 105 163 7.1 x 105 0.02 Gizzard shad 1978 6.0 x 107 7,797 1.4 x 10 0.06 Black crappie 1978 1.8 x 106 150 1.2 x 106 0.01 Yellow perch 1978 1.3 x 107 24,600 4.4 x 106 0.55 Sunfishes 1978 5.6 x 107 17,677 2.7 x 107 0.07 White perch 1979 6.3 x 106 1,361 8.7 x 10 0.16 Gizzard shad 1979 1.3 x 108 44,336 6.4 x 106 0.69 Black crappie 1979 7.4 x 105 25 2.4 x 106 0.01 Yellow perch 1979 2.0 x 106 8,598 4.7 x 105 1.81 Sunfishes 1979 1.1 x 107 5,061 2.4 x 107 0.02 White perch 1980 1.2 x 107 2,505 1.0 x 106 0.25 Gizzard shad 1980 1.0 x 108 367,787 8.9 x 106 4.13 Black crappie 1980 1.5 x 106 227 2.7 x 105 0.08 Yellow perch 1980 6.0 x 106 741 2.0 x 106 0.04 Sunfishes 1980 2.2 x 107 9,193 4.1 x 107 0.02

121 Table 7.2.1 (cont'd)

White perch 1981 5.4 x 107 20,736 1.3 x 106 1.70

-7 Gizzard shad 1981 1.6 x 10 17,557 1.2 x 10 0.15 Black crappie 1981 2.6 x 10o 323 1.0 x 105 0.31

~. v. Io Yellow perch 1981 1.4 x 1 1,818 1.2 x 1,06 0.15 Sunfishes 1981 2.1 x 10 14,555 4.2x 107 0.05 White perch 1982 2.8 x 107 41,380 3.1 x 106 1.3 Gizzard shad 1982 4.0 x 10 3,207 5.3 x 106 0.06

, - i*-

,zi 'i Black crappie 1982 6.6 x 105 329 2.4 x 105 0.14

. -. ! I Yellow perch 1982 3.7 x 10 1,004 1.6 x 106 0.06 Sunfishes 1982 1.2 x,107 3,276 2.7 x 107 0.01

-.. ~,--*I: - I .1 White perch

1983 3.7 x 107 11,636 2.3 x 106 0.52 Gizzard shad 1983 8.9 x 107 56,362 7.8 x 10 0.72 Black crappie 1983 3.2 x 106 3,616 3.1 x 10: 1.16 Yellow perch 1983 2.0 x 106 732 6.2 x 105 0.12 Sunfishes 1983 4.0 x 106 17,969 3.5 x 10 0.05 I -:. 5 , ! !I '. I . .

122 8.0

SUMMARY

Impingement (1) Impingement studies were conducted at North Anna Power Station from April 1978 through December 1983. A total of 2.4 x 105 fishes weighing 5.7 x *103 kg were collected from the intake screens representing 34 species and 13 families.

(2) The estimated total number of fishes impinged during the over 5-plus-year study period was 9.6 x 105 weighing 2.3 x 104 kg.

(3) Most fish were entrained in 1979 (61%) followed by 1981 (13%), 1980 (12%), 1982 (7%), and 1983 (5%).

(4) Seasonally, the most fish were entrained during the winter (75%)

followed by spring (13%), fall (9%), and summer (3%).

(5) A comparison of intake water velocities and fish swimming speeds indicate that a healthy fish larger than 24 mm in total length should be able to avoid the intake current in front of the traveling screens.

(6) The most commonly impinged fish was gizzard shad (65%), followed by black crappie (16%), yellow perch (16%), bluegill (4%) and white perch (1%).

(7) The similarity of impingement length-frequency data and rotenone length frequency data indicate that impingement is a good sampling

123 device, comparable to rotenone, in determining changes in the population of certain species.

(8) During the 5-plus-year study period, an average 0.32% of the total gizzard shad standing crop (from rotenone data) by weight, or 0.38%

by number, was impinged annually.

(9) One average size 2-year-old female gizzard shad has a fecundity potential greater than the estimated average number of gizzard shad impinged annually. .

(10) An average 3.8% of the total.black crappie standing crop by weight, or 3.1% by number, was impinged annually.

(11) One average size adult female black crappie theoretically could produce more progeny in 1 year than were impinged.

(12) Forty-five percent more black crappie were estimated to have been creeled in 1984 than were Impinged in 1983.

(13) The decline in.the. black crappie.population in Lake Anna does not appear to have been caused by.,the start-up of the North Anna Power Station.

(14) An average.1.4% of the total yellow perchstanding crop by weight, or

.-O.6% by number, was impinged annually. .

JAK-124 (15) Two average size or one large adult female yellow perch could theoretically produce more progeny in 1 year than were impinged.

(16) An average 0.02% of the total bluegill standing crop by weight, or 0.02% by number, was impinged annually.

(17) One average size adult female bluegill theoretically could produce more progeny in 1 year than were impinged.

(18) Almost twice as many bluegill were estimated to have been creeled during 1984 than were estimated to have been impinged during 1983.

(19) An average 0.1% of the total white perch population by weight, or 0.13% by number, were impinged annually.

1.I (20) One average size adult female white perch theoretically could produce more progeny in 1 year than were impinged.

(21) During the 5-plus-year study, an estimated 0.7% of the stocked striped bass were impinged by the power station.

(22) There has been no noticeable adverse impact on the fish stocks of Lake Anna by impingement by the North Anna Nuclear Power Station.

Entrainment (1) A total of 7,908 fish larvae within five dominant species (gizzard shad, white perch, sunfishes, yellow perch and black crappie) were collected in entrainment samples using stationary conical nets at

125 North Anna Power-Stationfrom 1978-1983. The most abundant entrained

-larvaeover all years were gizzard shad, representing 65.7% of the total.. No fish eggs wereicollected during the sample years.

(2) Over all years and samples the percentage of all fish larvae collected during the midnight sample was 43% of the total caught throughout the day. This was probably due to either the existence of diurnal migration patterns or in part due to net avoidance. Sunfish, on the contrary, were collected more frequently during daylight hours.

(3) The percent of total larvae collected at each sample depth varied from year to year and for each species. Sunfishes, yellow perch and black crappie were collected primarily from surface samples; gizzard shad were collected primarily from middle (4m) and bottom (8m) depths; and white perch numbers were similar at all depths.

(4) The gizzard shad entrainment rate (number per intake pump) declined during the study period while white perch numbers increased.

(5) Total estimated fish larvae entrained ranged from 8.4 x 107 in 1982 to 2.5 x 108 in 1981, represented primarily by gizzard shad.

(6) The results of an equivalent adult model indicated that percent cropping of the Lake Anna fish populations varied between years and each species ranged from 0.01% (black crappie and sunfishes) to 4.13%

(gizzard shad). These values are considered below any that may cause significant impact on the Lake Anna fishery.

126 (7) The impact of entrainment at Lake Anna by the North Anna Power Station on the fish populations is minimal when the reported values of percent cropping are considered with other populations mechanisms such as compensation.

127 LITERATURE CITED

' 4' - r AggsL.Re e'C. Cave, . ..'0Ae j.. L L Ri&adGL'um. .179 Creek.Bay, Bake ~ ~ Lake ~ ~ a ._eLtucky..Po.

_ A.n. Cn. Aso. Fs n Aggus, L. R., D. C. Carver, 1. L> Olms'ted, L. L. Rider and G.L. Summners. .1979.

Barkley Lake Symposium: Evaluation of standing crops of fishes in Crooked Bainbridge, R. 1958. The speedNof simming fish as related to size and to the frequency of the tail beat. J. Exp..Biol., 35(1):109-33.

Barwick,'O. M. 1981. Fecunditytofthe' bla'ck' crappie in a reservoir'receiving heated effluent. Prog. Fish. Cult.'43(3):153-154.'-

Blaxter, J. H.'S. 1969. 'Sw'imming'speeds of fishes. F.A.D. Fish Rep.

62(2):69-100. ' . -

Cada, G..F. and J._M. Loar. 1982. -Relative effectiveness of two ichthyoplankton'sampling 'techniques. Canada J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.

.39:811-814.' id'.'

Carlander, K. D. 1969. Handbook of freshwater fishery biology, Vol.'I. Iowa State University Press. Amer. _`rI Carter,' B. T. 1958.- What'sign'ific'nt.informnation can'be gained from rotenone population studies in impoundments. pp. 82-84, in: Proc. 11th'Ann.

Conf. S. E.;Assoc. Game and-1Fish-Conm'mi (1957).- -

Clugston, J. P., J.L. Oliver andR. Ruelle. 1978. Reproduction, growth, and standing' crops of yellow pei hjni.Southern Reservoirs. pp. 89-99. in:

R. L. Kendall, editor.' Selected'Coolwater Fishes of'North'America. 7pec.

Pub. #11, Amer. Fish. Soc., Washington, D. C.

Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling techniq.es. Wiley-and Sons, Inc., New York,

New.York Cooke,, A. C. 1984. The expansion of Athe' white perch', Morone americana, population in Lake Anna-Reservoir, Virginia. pp. 314-320, in: Lake and Reservoir'Management.' Proc. of 3rd"Annual Confere'nce,'-Nortlinhmerican Lake'Management Society. 'U. S.'EnVironmental 'Protection Agency, Washington, D. C. -

Ecological Analysts, Inc.' 1977."'--A review of entrainment study.

methodologies: abundance' and survival.' '-Prepared for'Empire 'State Electrical Energy Research Corporation, New York, New York.'

Eddy, S. and J. C. Underhill.! 1943. Northern fishes; University of.

Minnesota' Press., Minneapolis,"Minnesota. ' '

Edsall, A. E. 1977. The effect of temperature on the rate of development and survival of alewife eggs and larvae. U. S. Bureau of Commercial Fisheries. Contribution No. 409. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

128 Edwards, T. J., W. H. Hunt and L. L. Olmsted. 1977. Density and distribution of larval shad (Dorosoma spp.) in Lake Norman, North Carolina - Entrainment at McGuire Nuclear Station. pp. 144-148, in:

Proceedings of the first symposium on freshwater larval fish. Edited by L. L. Olmsted, Duke Power Company. Huntersville, North Carolina, USA.

Electric Power Research Institute. 1981. Impingement and entrainment: An updated annotated bibliography. EA-1855. Research Project 877.

Ecological Sciences Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Electric Power Research Insitute. 1979. Entrainment: An annotated bibliography. EA-1049. Research Project 877. Ecological Sciences Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

Electric Power Research Institute. 1979. Impingement: An annotated bibliography. EA-1050. Research Project 877. Ecological Sciences Information Center, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.

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

Section 316(b) P.L.92-500. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D. C.

Environmental Protection Agency 1976. Development document for best technology available for the location, design, construction and capacity of cooling water intake structures for minimizing adverse environmental impact. EPA 440/1-76/015-a. United States Environmental Protection Agency.

Washington, D. C.

Ferguson, R. G. 1958. The preferred temperature of fish and their midsummer distribution in temperate lakes and streams. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 15(4):607-624.

Gasser, L. F. 1976. Spatio-temporal distributions of clupeid larvae in Barkley Reservoir. pp. 120-138, in: Proceedings of the Third Symposium on Larval Fish. Edited by R. D. Hoyt. Division of Water Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority. Norris, Tennessee.

Goodyear, P. L. 1978. Entrainment impact estimates using the equivalent adult approach. U. S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.

Publication FWS/OBS-78/65. Washington, D. C.

Griffith, J. S. 1978. Effects of low temperature on the survival and behavior of threadfin shad, Dorosoma petenense. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc.

107(1):63-70.

Hackney, P. A. and J. C. Webb. 1977. A method for determining growth and mortality rates of ichthyoplankton. Division of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife Development, Tennessee Valley Authority. Norris, Tennessee.

129 Hadderingh, R. H. 1982. Experimental reduction of fish impingement by artificial illumination at'BergumtPower-Station. Int. Rev. Gesamten Hydrobiol. 67(6)i869-886. '-z ' '

Hardy, J. D. 1978. Development of fishes of the mid-Atlantic Bight, Volume III. U. S.-Department'of<Interior, ;Fish and Wildlife Service.

Publication FWS/OBS-78/12.' WashingtonVD.'C.

Hildebrand, S. F. and W. C. Schroeder. 1928. Fishes of Chesapeake Bay.

T.F.H. Publications. Neptune', New-Jersey.

Hergenrader, G. L. and Q. P. Bliss. 1971.; The'white perch in Nebraska.

Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 100:734-738. -

Heberling,' G. D.,K. N.Mller'andiJ. W.' Weinbold. 1981. Section 316(b)

Demonstration'for the'Riverside iGene'rating Plant.' Northern States' Power Company. Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Horst, T. J.- 1975. -The assessment of impact due 'to entrainment of ichthyoplankton. pp. 107-118, 'in?:Sympo'sium'on Fisheries and Energy Production.-by Produtio, S. B. Sa'la.

Sal . D'T."Heath.'

D',.T_, egt. Lexington,'Massachusetts.-

~

Jenkins, R. M. 1977. Prediction of fish biomass, harvest and prey-predator relations in reservoirs pp..282-293, in: W. Van Winkle editor.

Proceedings of the conference on'assessing the effects of power'-plant induced mortality on fish p6pulatii6s.,- Pergamon Press". New York.

Jester, D. B. iand B. L. Jeinsen. i972Y' Life history and ecology of gizzard shad, Dorosoma'cepediandm (LeSueur)' with reference to'Elephant Butte Lake, New Mexico State University Agricultural Experiment Station Research Report 218, 56 pp. -' '

Jon'es,P.' W.'1978. 'De'velopment ofi'lshes of the mid-Atlantic Bight, ;

Volume I. U. S. Department of-Interior, Fish'and Wildlife Service.'

Publication FWS/OBS-78/12. Washington,"'D'. C.

Lagler, K.F.:, J. E. Bardach'and'8.B'B.' Miller. 1962. Ichthyology". Wiley and Sons. New york,'N. Y. pp.-;545z'"' '

Latvaitus, B. P. 1976. Impingement investigation. pp. 125-168, in:

Operation'environmental monit'riing in'the Mississippi River near Quad-Cities Station, February 1975 through January 1976. Nalco

.Environmental Science,,Northbrook, Illinois.

Leithiser, R. M., K. F. EhrIich, and A. B"Thum. 1979. Comparison of a high volume pump and convent'ional'plankto'n nets for collecting fish larvae entrained in power pla'nt')c'ooling systems. J.'Fish.'-Res. Board Canada. 36:81-84. -

Lippson, A. J. and'R.L; Moran;.-1974. Manual for identification of early developmental' stages: of fishes of' the'Potomac Rive'r estduary. -"Martin Marietta Corporation. Baltimore, Maryland. PPSP-MP-13. 282 pp.

Lagler, K. F., J. E. Bardack and R.'R.'Miller. 1962. Ichthyology. Wiley &

Sons. New York, New York.' 545'pp.

Vs 130 Long Island Lighting Company. 1977. Environmental statement related to operation of Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Washington, D. C.

Mansueti, R. J. 1964. Eggs, larvae, and young-of-the-year white perch, Reccus americanus, with comments on its ecology in the estuary.

Ches. Oc. 5:3-45.

McCauley, R. W. and L. A. A. Read. 1973. Temperature selections by juvenile and adult yellow perch (Perca flavescens) acclimated to 240 C.

J. Fish. Res. Bd. Can. 30:1253-1255.

McConnell, G. B. 1975. Fishes section. pp.80-102, in: Studies on the effects of the Havana Power Station on the ecologl al balance of the Illinois River 1974 to 1975. Wapora, Inc., Charleston, Ill.

McFadden, J. T. 1977. An argument supporting the reality of compensation in fish populations and a plea to let them exercise it.pp. 153-178, in:

Proceedings of the conference on assessing the effects of power-plant-induced mortality on fish populations. Edited by Webster Van Winkle. Pergamon Press. New York.

McLean, R. B., J. J. Beauchamp, V. E. Kane and P. T. Singley. 1982.

Impingement of threadfin shad: effects of temperature and hydrography. Environ. Manag. 6(5):431-439.

Netch, N. F., G. M. Kensh, Jr., A. Houser and R. V. Kilambi. 1971.

Distribution of young gizzard and threadfin shad in Beaver Reservoir.

Reservoir Fisheries and Limnology. Amer. Fish. Soc. Special Publication No. 8, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. 1977. Report on entrainment at New Haven Nuclear Power Plant. New York State Electric and Gas Corporation. Binghamton, New York.

Ney, J. J. 1978. A synoptic review of yellow perch and walleye biology.

pp 1-13. in: R. L. Kendall, editor. Selected Coolwater Fishes of North America. Spec. Pub. #11, Amer. Fish Soc., Washington, D. C.

Pflieger, W. L. 1975. The fishes of Missouri. Missouri Dept. of Conservation. 343 pp.

Polgar, T. T. 1977. Striped bass ichthyoplankton abundance, mortality and production estimation for the Potomac River population. pp. 110-126, in:

Proceedings of the conference on assessing the effects of power-plant-induced mortality on fish-populations held in Gatlinburg, Tennessee. Pergammon Press, New York, New York.

Porak, W. and J. A. Tranquilli. 1981. Impingement and entrainment of fishes at Kincaid Generating Station. Illinois Nat. Hist. Survey Bull. 32(4):631-655.

Reid, G. K. and R. D. Wood. 1976. Ecology of inland waters and estuaries. D. Van Nostrand Co. New York, New York.

131 Reutter, J. M. and C. E. Herdendorf. 1979. Impingement and entrainment at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power 'Station Unit I 316(b) demonstration.

Ohio State University.' Center :fcr Lake' Erie area research. Columbus, Ohio.' i ',

Ricker, W. E. 1954. Stock and recruitment. Journal Fish. Res. Board Can. 11:'559-623. ; ,,

Schneeberger, P. J.' and D. J. Jude..r1981. Use of fish larva morphometry to predict exclusion capabilities of small-mesh screens at cooling-water intakes.Trans. Ame'r. 'Fish. Society. 110:246-252.

Schubel, J. R. 1974. Effects of exposure to time - excess.temperature histories typically experienced at power plants on the hatching success of fish eggs. Prepared for the Power Plant Siting Program. Maryland

-Department of Natural Resources. Baltimore, Maryland.

Scotton, L. N. and D. T. Anson, II. 1977. Protecting aquatic life at plant intakes. Power 121(1): 74-76.

Sledd, C. A. and D. J. Shuber. 1981. Project completion report for Virginia.

Dingell-Johnson project F-33-R. Virginia Commission of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, Virginia.

St. Pierre, R. A. and J. Davis. 1972. Age, growth, and mortality of the white perch Morone americana, in the James and York Rivers, Virginia. Ches. Sci.

13(4) :'27921.

Swedberg, D. V. and C. H. Wallburg. 1970. Spawning and early life history of the freshwater drum in Lewis and Clark Lake, Missouri River. in:

Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. Publication No. 90:560-570.

Bethesda, Maryland.

Swingle, H. S. and W. E. Swingle. 1968. Problems in dynamics of fish populations in reservoirs. pp. 229-243, in: Amer. Fish. Soc. Res.

Fish Resource Symp. Athens, Georgia.

Tuberville, J. D. 1977. Vertical distribution of ichthyoplankton in upper Nickajack Reservoir. Fisheries Resources Branch, Division of Water Resources, Tennessee Valley Authority. Norris, Tennessee, USA.

Virginia Department of Conservation and Economic Development/Division of Water Resources. 1970. York River Basin - Comprehensive Water Resources Plan.

Volume III. Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1984. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River: Summary report 1983. Richmond, Virginia.

Virginia Electric and Power Company. 1983. Environmental study of Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River: North Anna Power Station annual report, January 1-December 31, 1982. Richmond, Virginia.

Wallace, D. C. 1971. Age, growth, year-class strength, and survival rates of the white perch, Morone americana (Gmelin) in the Delaware River in the vicinity of Artificial Island. Ches. Sci. 12:205-218.

- - n-132 White, J. W. and M. L. Brehmer. 1976. Thirdnational workshop on entrainment and impingement, Section 316(b)-Research and compliance, held in New York, New York. Ecological Analysts, Inc., Melville, New York. pp. 367-380.

Zeitoun, I. H. and J. A. Gulvas. 1981. Effectiveness of fine mesh cylindrical wedge - wire screens in reducing entrainment of Lake Michigan ichthyoplankton Canada J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 38:120-125.

Zeitoun, I. H. and J. A. Gulvas. 1980. Power plant water intake assessment. Amer. Chem. Soc. 14(4):398-402.

133 APPENDIX A.

SUMMARY

OF NORTH ANNA ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS-LISTED BY:DATE SUBMITTED NORTH ANNA RIVER,-VIRGINIA. - - -

- 'BY ACADEMY OF NATURAL SCIENCES OF PHILADELPHIA

- 'FOR

- NEW JERSEY ZINC COMPANY

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED 1955*****

COMMUNITY STRUCTURE OF.THE MACROBENTHOS IN FOUR TRIBUTARIES IN THE

.PRE-IMPOUNDMENT BASIS OF THE NORTH ANNA RIVER, VIRGINIA.

BY N.H. THOMAS AND G.M. SIMMONS ASSOC.-SOUTHEAST BIOL., BULL., 17(2) (ABSTRACT)

,:. *c *****DATE SUBMITTED - 1967*****

. 2

'A PRE-IMPOUNDMENT ECOLOGICAL STODY OF THE BENTHIC FAUNA AND WATER QUALITY IN THE NORTH ANNA RIVER, 1969-1970.

BY G.M. SIMMONS, JR. PROJECT A-031-VA.(DEPT BIOLOGY, VCU)

,OFFICE OF WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH,-U.S.D.I.

-*****QTE SUBMITTED - 1970*****

YORK RIVER BASIN VOLUME II-HYDROLOGIC ANALYSIS.

BY VIRGINIA DEPT. CONSERVATION AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

. PLANNINGC8ULLETIN 227

- *****DATE SUBMITTED - 1970*****

AN ECOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION OF THE LOWER NORTH ANNA AND UPPER PAMUNKEY RIVER SYSTEM - 1971 BY JAMES R. REED, JR.,,PH.D. VCU DEPT. 610. AND

'GEORGE N. SINMONS,.JR.-,PH.D.- VPI.& SU DEPT. 810.

FOR MR. J.D. RISTROPH,'EXEC..DIR., VEPCO ONE VOLUME(hOP) - PHYSICAL/CHEMICAL (TEMPERATURETOTAL SOLIDS,

- . -TURBIDITY,OXYGEN,PHCONDUCTIVITY,SALINITY,NUTRIENTS -

- " '.PO4P,N03_N,SO4) BENTHICS, FISHES

-*****DATE SUBMITTED - JANUARY 18, 1972*****

FINAL ENVIRONME04TAL'.STATEMENT RELATED TO THE CONTINUATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE'OPERATION OF UNITS 1 & 2 AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF UNITS 3 & 4, NORTH ANNA POWER STATION.

BY VEPCO FOR THE US. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION ONE VOLUME- IMPACT. STUDY OF THE PROPOSED STATION ON THE

'ENVIRONS OF THE LAKE AND THE STATION.

-vt-'*****DATE

i . SUBMITTED - 1973*****

DISTRIBUTION OF HEAVYWMETALSAlN LAKE ANNA, A SYSTEM AFFECTED BY ACID M INE DRA INAGE.

BY ELIZABETH'4R.,BLOOD - 'M.S.'THESES FOR VCU

-- ' . > *****DATE SUBMITTED - 1975*****

, . .Olt.

WATER QUALITY INVENTORY (305(B) REPORT) VIRGINIA. REPORT TO EPA ADMINISTRATION AND CONGRESS.- -

BY VIRGINIA'STATE WATER CONTROL'BOARD ;. INFO. BULL. 526 E ,.*. **. ;*****DATE SUBMITTED - 1976*****

- i A-:

134 APPENDIX A.(cont'd)

PRE-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (FINAL REPORT) - MARCH 1972 - DECEMBER 1975 BY JAMES R. REED, JR., PH.D. VCU DEPT. 810. AND GEORGE H. SIMMONS, JR., PH.D. VPI & SU DEPT. BID.

FOR VEPCO VOLUME 1 - NARRATIVE - INTRODMETHODS.RESULTS (666P)

HEAVY METALS (WATERFISH,SEDIMENT,MACROPHYTES,BENTHICS, SESTONDRIVER), PHYTOPLANKTONCHLOROPHYLL,PRODUCTIVITY, ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHICS (LAKE & RIVER), ICHTHYOLOGY (WATER QUALITYFOOD HABITS,POPULATIONS,AGE- GROWTH-LMB FECUNDITY,GONAO CYCLES,OVUM MATURITY,RIVER),

STATISTICAL ANALYSES VOLUME 2 - DATA BASE - PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL,NUTRIENTS,METALS <456P)

VOLUME 3(1) - DATA BASE.- PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITY, VOLUME (517P)

VOLUME 3(2) - DATA BASE - PHYTOPLANKTON %COMPOSITIONCHLOROPHYLL, ORGANIC ASSIMILATION RATES (372P)

VOLUME 4 - DATA BASE - ZOOPLANKTON (317P)

VOLUME 5 & 6 - DATA BASE - MACROINVERTEBRATES (140P), FISHES (80P)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - SEPTEMBER 1976*****

PRE-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) - 1976 BY GEORGE H. SIMMONS, JR., PH.D. VPI & SU DEPT. 810.

FOR VEPCO ONE VOLUME (546P) - PHYSIOCHEMICAL (TEMPERATURE,SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,SECCHI,OXYGEN,ALKALINITY,PH,NUTRIENTS -

P04P,NH3 N,NO3 N,S04,SILICATES),RIVER STUDY, PHYTOPLANKTONPRODUCTIVITYCHLOROPHYLLMACROPHYTES, ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHICS (LAKE,RIVERSAMPLER COMPARISON)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 30. 1977*****

(PRE-OP) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1,1976 - DECEMBER 31,1976 BY JAMES R..REED AND ASSOC., NEWPORT NEWS,VA.

FOR VEPCO..

ONE VOLUME (109P).- FISH,WATER QUALITY,POPULATIONS,LMB AGE &

GROWTH,FECUNDITY,GONAD DEVELOPMENT,OVUM MATURITY,RIVER STUDIESSTATISTICAL ANAYLSES), HEAVY METALS (WATER, SEDIMENT,FISH TISSUE,RIVER STUDIES)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 1977*****

PRE-OPERATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) - 1977 BY GEORGE M. SIMMONS, JR., PH.D. VPI & SU DEPT. BID.

FOR VEPCO ONE VOLUME (588P) - PHYSIOCHEMICAL (TEMPERATURE,SPECIFIC CONDUCTANCE,SECCHI,OXYGEN,ALKALINITYPH,NUTRIENTS -

P04 PNH3HN,N03..,S04,SILICATES),RIVER STUDY, PHYTOPLANKTON,PRODUCTIVITY,CHLOROPHYLL,ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHICS (LAKE,RIVER)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 15, 1978*****

(PRE-OP) ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1,1977 - DECEMBER 31,1977 BY JAMES R. REED AND ASSOC., NEWPORT NEWS,VA.

FOR VEPCO VOLUME 1 - ICHTHYOLOGY, METALS - METHODS,MATERIALS,RESULTS (142P)

VOLUME 2 - DATA BASE (85P)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - FEBRUARY 28, 1978****

APPENDIX A. (cont'd) 135 ENVIRONMENTAL.STUDY OF LAKE.ANNA,.VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1,1978 - DECEMBER.31,1978. -

BY JAMES R. REED ANDWASSOC.,- NEWPORT- NfWS,VA.

FOR VEPCO ;-S- .

VOLUME 1 - DATA BASE -- METALS,NUTRIENTS,PRODUCTIVITY,CHLOROPHYLL,

.WATER QUALITYPHYTOPLANKTON (221P)

VOLUME:2 - DATA:BASE - -PHYTOPLANKTON, ZOOPLANKTON (219P)

VOLUME 3 -- DATA BASE,- ZOOPLANKTON,BENTHICS,FISH (220P)

VOLUME 4 - NARRATIVE

SUMMARY

,INTRO,METHODSRESULTS (186P)

HEAVY METALS,' NUTR IENTS NO3HN,NH3_N,P04_P,S04)

. PRODUCTIVITY,CHLOROPHYLL,PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL, PHYTOPLANKTON,ZOOpLA KTON,MACRO0ENTHOS,FISHERIES,

-. tWATER.QUALITYPOPULATONSAGE & GROWTH - LM8, FECUNDITYGONAD.DEVELOPMENT)

- VOLUME 5 - DOWNSTREAM -

SUMMARY

,METHOOS,HATERIALS,RESULTS (siP)

DATA^BASE, PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL,FISH,MACROBENTHOS

- *****DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 31, 1979*****

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION (NAPS) NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT - 1978 .

BY VEPCO ONE VOLUME - THERMAL MEASUREMENTS (SYNOPTICSURVEYS),IMPINGEMENT,

,ENTRAINMENT,WATER QUALITY.& ECOLOGICAL SURVEY (REED, 1978--NARRATIVE,186P),TRANSMISSION LINE ROWONSITE METEORLOGICAL MONITORING,CHEMICAL INVENTORY,NON-RAD LIMITING CONDITIONS,VEGETATION STUDIES

!*-. *****DATE SUBMITTED - APRIL. 1979*****

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1,1979 - DECEMBER 31,1979

BY JAMES R. REED AND.ASSOC.,.NEWPORT NEWS,VA.

FOR VEPCO VOLUME 1 - DATA BASE - NUTRIENTS,METALS,CHLOROPHYLL,PRODUCTIVITY, PHYTOPLANKTON,ZOOPLANKTON (174P)

- VOLUME 2 - DATA BASE - ZOOPLANKTON,MACROBENTHOS (270P)

VOLUME 3 - DATA BASE - FISH STUDIES (PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL,SPECIES LIST) (398P).

VOLUME 4- NARRATIVE - INTRO,

SUMMARY

,METHODS,RESULTS (175P)

HEAVY METALS,NUTRIENTS (N03_N,NH3_N, P04P,S04)

CHLOROPHYLL,PRODUCTIVITY,TEMPERATUREPHYTOPLANKTON, ZOOPLANKTONMACROBENTHOS,FISH (WATER QUALITY, POPULATIONS,AGE & GROWTH - LM8)

VOLUME 5 -. DOWNSTREAM - .INTROiMETHODS,RESULTS (69P)

DATA'BASE, PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL,FISH (ENDEMIC/ENDANCERED SPP,SMALLMOUTH BASS), MACROBENTHOS

.. j*****DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 31, 1980*****

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION (NAPS) NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT, UNITS 1 & 2 -,,1980 .

BY VEPCO VOLUME 1 - THERMALV IMPINGEMENT, ENTRAINMENT VOLUME 2 - WATER QUALITY & ECOLOGICAL.SURVEY (REED, 1981)

-. .. .f .. *****DATE SUBMITTED - APRIL 8, 1981****

h; .~, t- 3/4-*e

136 APPENDIX A. (cont'd)

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1,1980 - DECEMBER 31,1980 BY JAMES R. REED AND ASSOC., NEWPORT NEWS,VA.

FOR VEPCO VOLUME 1 - DATA BASE - NUTRIENTS,METALS,CHLOROPHYLL,PRODUCTIVITY, PHYSICAL,CHEMICAL,CLIMATE,PHYTOPLANKTON (235P)

VOLUME 2 - DATA BASE - PHYTOPLANKTON,ZOOPLANKTON(189P)

VOLUME 3 - DATA BASE - ZOOPLANKTONMACROBENTHOS,FISH(PHYSICAL &

CHEMICAL,SPECIES LIST,GILL NET,ROTENONE,AGE & GROWTH -

1148) (133P)

VOLUME 4 - NARRATIVE - INTRO,

SUMMARY

,METHOOSRESULTS (154P)

HEAVY METALS,NUTRIENTS(N03-N,NH3-N,P04-P,S04)

CHLOROPHYLLPRODUCTIVITYTEMPERATURE,PHYTOPLANKTON, ZOOPLANKTON,MACROBENTHOS, FISI( WATER QUALITY, POPULATIONS AGE & GROWTH - LMB)

VOLUME 5 - DOWNSTREAM -

SUMMARY

,INTRO,METHODS,RESULTS (83P)

DATA BASE - PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL,FISH,MACROBENTHOS

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - MAY 1, 1981**-*

LAKE ANNA RESEARCH STUDY (PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT) -

JANUARY 1, 1976 - DECEMBER 31,1980 BY CHARLES A. SLEDD AND DANIEL J. SHUBER, VIRGINIA COMMISSION OF GAME AND INLAND FISHERIES, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA ONE VOLUME (67P) - SPORT FISHERY CREEL SURVEY, LIMNOLOGICAL INVESTIGATION (WATER TEMPERATURE,DISSOLVED OXYGEN, HEAVY METALS,PLANKTON), FISH POPULATION STUDIES (STANDING CROP,GILL NETTING,AGE & GROWTH,LENGTH WEIGHT RELATIONSHIP & INDEX OF CONDITIONNORTH ANNA RIVER)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - OCTOBER, 1981*****

RECLAMATION OF TOXIC MINE WASTE UTILIZING SEWAGE SLUDGE -CONTRARY CREEK DEMONSTRATION, PROJECT

SUMMARY

BY KENNETH HINKLE EPA-600/52-82-061

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - 1982*****

UPDATED FINAL SAFETY ANALYSIS REPORT, NORTH ANNA NUCLEAR POWER STATION BY VEPCO, DIRECTOR OF SAFETY, EVALUATION AND CONTROL.

16 VOLUMES

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - 1982*****

NORTH ANNA POWER STATION (NAPS) NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT, UNITS 1 & 2 - 1981 BY VEPCO ONE VOLUME, INCLUDES VEGETATION STUDY (SCANLAN,1982)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - MARCH 30, 1982#****

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA (ANNUAL REPORT) -

JANUARY 1 - DECEMBER 31, 1981 BY VEPCO VOLUME 1 - STATION OPERATION, PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL, ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHICS,ENTRAINMENT (275P)

VOLUME 2 - ICHTHYOPLANKTONIMPINGEMENT,FISH,WATERFOWL (297P)

VOLUME 3 - DOWNSTREAM (113P)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - APRIL, 1982*****

137 APPENDIX A. (cont'd)

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF LAKE ANNA & THE LOWER NORTH ANNA RIVER (ANNUAL REPORT) - JANUARY 1,1982 - DECEMBER 31,1982 BY VEPCO VOLUME 1 - STATION OPERATION, PHYSICAL & CHEMICAL.ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHICS,ENTRAINMENT,ICHTHYOPLANKTON,IMPINGEMENT (331P)

VOLUME 2 - FISHES,MACROPHYTES,WATERFOWL,NORTH ANNA RIVER (349P)

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - AUGUST, 1983*****

EXPANSION OF THE WHITE PERCH (MORONE AMERICANA) IN LAKE ANNA VIRGINIA.

BY ARTHUR C. COOKE PRESENTED AT THE 1983 SYMPOSIUM OF:THE NORTH AMERICAN LAKE'MAXAGEMENT SOCIETY, PUBLISHED IN THE 1984 PROCEEDINGS.

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - AUGUST 1983*****

ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY OF'LAKE ANNA AND THE LOWER NORTH ANNA RIVER-

SUMMARY

REPORT - JANUARY 1, 1983 - DECEMBER 31, 1983; BY VEPCO

. ONE VOLUME -

SUMMARY

, STATION OPERATION, WATER QUALITY, ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHOS, ICHTHYOPLANKTON, FISHES

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - JULY 1984*****

3161A) DEMONSTRATION; PROGRESS REPORT, JANUARY - JUNE 1984, LAKE ANNA AND THE LOWER NORTH ANNA RIVER BY VEPCO

- ONE.VOLUME - STATION-OPERATION, THERMAL PLUME SURVEYS, FIXED TEMPERATURE RECORDERS, WATER QUALITY, PHYTOPLANKTON, PERIPHYTON, ZOOPLANKTON, BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATES, ICHTHYOPLANKTON, FISHES(STRIPED BASS SONIC TAGGING,

.SMALLHOUTH BASS SURVEYS) MACROPHYTES- WATERFOWL

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - AUGUST 19B4****

'WATER QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS OF A THERMALLY-INFLUENCED RESERVOIR, LAKE ANNA, VIRGINIA RELATED TO EURYTHERMIC AND MESOTHERMIC SPECIES PREFERENDA.

-BY JOYCE L. BARTON PRESENTED AT THE 1984 SYMPOSIUM OF THE NORTH AMERICAN LAKE MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, SUBMITTED FOR THE PROCEEDINGS TO BE PUBLISHED IN 1985

- - - - DATE SUBMITTED - AUGUST 198 4 *****

138 APPENDIX B. Technical Specifications for Station Components.

Main Condensers Mfr. Ingersoll-Rand Company Active tube surface, % 100 Circulating water, gpm 940,300 Steam condensed, Mlb/hr 7,096 Heat transfer steam condensed, Btu/lb 915.5 Tube water velocity,--ft/sec 8.0 Circulating water temperature (in), F 93 Circulating water temperature (out), F 107.1 Temperature condenser from hot well, F 119.5 Absolute pressure main steam inlet, in.Hg 3.41 Surface area, sq ft 618,000 No. of shells 2 Passes per shell 1 Total number of tubes 53,856 Tube outer diameter, in. 1.0 Tube length, ft-in. 44-0 Test pressure, psig 25 Material Shell A285, Gr. C Tubes 304 SS Tube sheets Solid 304 SS Hot well A285, Gr. C Baffles A285, Gr. C Reference drawing FM-17A, FC-4 Location Turbine bldg.

139 APPENDIX B. - (cont'd)

Circulating Water Traveling Screens Mfr. Rex Chainbelt, Inc.

With water surface at average level Elevation of surface, ft-In. 250 Screen capacity, gpm 230,000 Submergence, ft-in. 29-0 Well width, ft-in. 14-3 1/2;'

Depth below operating floor, ft-in. 44-0:

Overall screen height, ft-in. : 54-0 Centers, headshaft to foot shaft, ft-in. 45-0 Screen travel speed, fpm (high'speed) 10 Time for one complete revolution, min. 10.2 Flow of spray water per screen, 9pm 380 Pressure of spray water per screen, psig 80 Element Size Material Head shaft 5 15/16" diam. AISI C 1018 Foot shaft 2 7/16" diam. AISI C 1018 Screen guides 4/5 ft long ASTM A48-48C1-20 Spray nozzles.' Orifice size 22 Cast Alum., bronze' Spray headers 5" pipe size Steel Screen panels 24" x 14'-0" Carbon steel Splash plates 3/16" Molded fiberglass Drive Mechanism Housing., 1/4" plate Carbon steel Head sprocket 48" pitch diam. ASTM A 148-58-80-40 Foot wheel' 48" pitch diam. ASTM A 48-48 C1.30 Weight of heaviest section to lift during erection, lb 16,200 Reference drawing FM-21A Location Screenwell

140 APPENDIX B. - (cont'd)

Circulating Water Pump Mfr. Ingersoll-Rand Company Pump design Flow, gpm 238,200 Head, ft 25 Temperature, F 40-93 Efficiency, % 85 NPSH (available/required), ft 50.5/37 Bhp (normal/maximum) 1,769/2,650 Speed, rpm 250 Type Vertical centrifugal Casing design 45 Design pressure, psig Design temperature, F Material A48 cast iron Motor Horsepower 2,000 '-I Voltage 4,000 Speed, rpm 257 Insulation Class B Type Squirrel cage Weight (pump & base),.lb. 100,000 Reference drawing FM-34A, FM-21A Location Screenwell

141 APPENDIX B. - (cont'd)

Screenwash Pumps Mfr. Johnston Pump Company Pump design Flow, gpm 910 Heat, ft 225 Temperature, F 40-93 Efficiency, % 83 NPSH (available/required), ft /14 Bhp (normal/maximum) 61.7/64 Speed, rpm 1,760 Type Vertical turbine Casing design Design pressure, psig 175 Material Cast Iron Motor Horsepower 75 Voltage 460 Speed, rpm . 1,760 Insulation .

Class B Type Squirrel cage Weight (pump & base), lb 2,400 Reference drawing FM-34A, FM-21A Location Screenwell

Al b Dominion ATTACHMENT 6.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH FISH & WILDLIFE AGENCIES

- NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared by:

Dominion Environmental Services January 26, 2005

Correspondence with Fish & Wildlife Agencies - North Anna Correspondence with Fish & Wildlife Agencies - NORTH ANNA POWER STATION The attached recent correspondence was related to the license renewal at North Anna Power Station

North Anna Power Station, Units 1and 2 Application r Renewed Operating Licenss Appendbi C .. . ,;-. Appendix E - Environdental Report APPENDIXC -C-SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES-CORRESPONDENCE C-2 Letter, Faggert (VP) to Mayne (US Department of lnterior), April 12,2000 C-9 Letter, Mayne (US Department of Inte to Bariks (VP), April 27, 2000 C-1 B Letter, Banks (Dominion) to Davis (US Drtuent of Interior), January 25,2001 C-19 Letter, Faggert (Dominion) to Fulgham (Virginia Department of Agriculture & Consumer Affairs), November 13, 2000 C-22 Letter, Faggert (Dominion) to Davey (Virginia Department of Conservation & Recreation),

November 13,2000 . . -

C-25 Memorandum, Mayne (US Department of Interior) to Sutherland (US Deparbtment of Interior), March 13, 2001 C-32 Letter, Faggert (VP) to Woodlin (Virginia Department of Game & Iniand Fisheries), pril 12, 2000.

-. tPa ;-1

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed-Operating-UceL SQS-,r Appendix C Appendix E - Environmental Report

'United States Departnt of thfe Interior F.MH AMD WIIDl SERVICE

' 'Eecob* "aSbt Service 5Is Gimcesam VrGiak 23061 April 27,2000 Mr. Tony Banks

. Vgitnia Power hinsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen. Virgi' 23060 Greetings:

The U.S. Fish ad Wildlfe Service ha received your request to review the attabed project for potential impacts to federally listed or proposed erdangered mod threatened specs and designatod citical habitat InVir a pursuant to the Endangered Species Act (87 Stat 884, as amende; 16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Attached a lists of speces with federal satus and species of concern that have been documented or may occur in the county(s) where your project is locateL These lit&were prepared by this offic and ar based on information obtained fma previous surveys for rare and endangered specie Due to the limited staff in ibis office, we are unable to review projects in a timely manner.

Therefore, we request that you send the atched proect to dte Nlowing stae agencies for review:

Plaint Protection Virginia Department of Agicultureand Consumer Services P.O. Box 1163 Richmond, VA 23218 (804) 786-3515 Virginia Department of Game and i Fisheries Environmeoa Savices Section P.O.Box 11104 Richmond, VA 23230 (804) 367-1000 Viriia Department of Conservation and Recration Divisio of Natural Heritage 217 Goveo Street, 3rd Floor RicbmondVA 23219 (804)786-7951 Page C-9

Surry Power Station, Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed Operating Lcenses

-- I Appoemix C - . .. Appendx E - EnvAronmental Report I/ I1 Domlak. Geuu..- .A ., .,.. ,

500 qmn~~3a&~acI Gc Akn A 3O ' i-I : ~Dominion-

~. - -

January2,2001

'e- , ; ,

f, . - -! - .

Mr. Eric Davis ' i US Department of the Interior Fash & Wildlife Service

-i Services . - - 4'. -.

6669 Sho9 Sne Gloucester, VA 23061 . .. -:. . .

Re: Dominlon's Surry ad North Ana PoWer Stlotk Nockr Lcense Renewsl

Dear W. Davis:

This correspondence follows recent telephone owmvertions that you hive had with Dr. Jud White of Domimon's Enviorwnental Policy and Compliance Department, about nuclear license renewal for Sury and North Amu Power Statios. Please find enclosed for your review Draft Envinmental Reports for the lcense renewal application,one for each station, and a copy of previous Fish and Wildlife Service Following the correspondence from Ms. Mayne (April 27, 2000), Dominion has been working with the appropiate Chhon*es of Virginia agencies to discuss select Environental Report issues. There is a tmotg tenatiely cedled iDearly Ferur 2001 to reeve coa s frm thoxe pagecies reviews. You ae also invited to attend that meeting. We can corespond again to confirm your interest

'as that meeting date gets e.- lf you prefer to comment Without attending the meeting in Richmond, receiving those comments or questions ae welcome as well.

We regard our Cooperative rationsh with ageces su yoirs eing regulatory requgiemnts anrd sared objectives. Your interest and active participation Inour license renewal ffor and potentially with the U.S. NuIlear Regulatory Commission (NRC) lIter this year are appdiae.

Should you have questions regardg a of eenclosed Information. pkase contact me at 804273-2170. or Dr. Jud White at 804/273-2948.

Thank you for your attention to the naftern prese herein.

Sincerely, 76 Ce4y Tony Bns, MPIL CHMM Cc: J. W. White, EP&C LRfile Page C-1 8

U-Surry Power Stafion, Units 1 and 2 Application for Renewed *peratng Ucenses AppendixC Appendix E - Environmental Repmt

(,

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE E- q loucestr, VA 23061 March 13,2001 Meoanordwurp-n~~

To: Qvid Sutitland, Chesapeake Bay FIeld fice L-> qji- 5?23.-q3.

Through: Branch Cxie Endangered Species Division (Wary R&Wuawamy From: Superisor.Virgini Field OfMice Subjcct Coasultion with U.S. Nucler Regulaty MAg y The Virgini FHeld Offico (VAPO) received a lettt fiom Dominioa Generation dated January 25.

2001. Dominion Gcna , through the U.S. Nuclear Reguatory Coammssion, plans to apply to rnwthe licensat two nuclear pwr plants in Virnia: Sur and North AnaPower Stations. Dominion Powe's Environmental Reports ar enclosed.

VAFO reviewed both projects fr potential impa to feally listed secs. The North Amut Power Station lices rewal will not affect ferally lised species. The Sury Power Station licese renewa may affect the bald eagle HaliadusIucocephah. An eagle nest, VASU96-04, is approximately one mile horn the power station. Furthcrmo, the power station is loated wi !~sih Q!_eC area.

VAFO understands that he am Bay Field Office (CBFO) will now take th lead on fi .

projecL Enloetod is the West version of the os prepared by VAPO and the Virgnia Department of Game and nand Fisheries (VDGIP). VAPO and VDGIF will continue to provide support to CBFO.

If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Eric Davis at (804) 693-6694 cxt 104.

L Mayne Enclosures cc: VDGIP (on, Schwab)

Dominion Gencration (Tony Banks)

Page G-25

APR 22 '05 01:22PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 2/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL The Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (16 USC 1451 et seq.) imposes requirements on an applicant for a Federal license to conduct an activity that could affect a state's coastal zone. The Act requires the applicant to certify to the licensing agency that the proposed activity would be consistent with the state's federally approved coastal zone management program. The Act also requires the applicant to provide to the state a copy of the certification statement and requires the state, at the earliest practicable time, to notify the federal agency and the applicant whether the state concurs or objects to the consistency certification. See 16 USC 1456(c)(3)(A).

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has promulgated implementing regulations that indicate that the certification requirement is applicable to renewal of federal licenses for activities not previously reviewed by the state [15 CFR 930.51(b)(1)). The Corrmonwealth of Virginia has a federally approved coastal zone management program (Ref. 1, Attachment E), described below. Dominion Generation (Dominion), formerly Virginia Power, applying to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) for renewal of the operating licenses for North Anna Power Station (NAPS), located in Virginia.

CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION Dominion has determined that NRC renewal of the NAPS licenses to operate would comply with the federally approved Virginia Coastal Resources Management Program. Dominion expects NAPS operations during the license renewal term. to be a continuation of current operations as described below, with no changes that would affect Virginia's coastal zone.

NECESSARY DATA AND INFORMATION Proposed Action NAPS is located in Louisa County in northeastern Virginia on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna. NAPS, located in Louisa County, is not within the Virginia coastal zone, called Tidewater Virginia (Ref. 2). However, Spotsylvania County, located across Lake Anna from NAPS, is within Tidewater Virginia and NAPS transmission lines traverse several counties within Tidewater Virginia (Spotsylvania, Hanover, Henrico, and Chesterfield). Figures 1 and 2 show the NAPS 50-mile and 10-mile regions, respectively, and Figure 3 shows site features. Figure 4 shows area counties, cities, and towns.

NAPS uses slightly enriched uranium dioxide fuel in two nuclear reactors to produce steam in turbines that generate approximately 1,800 megawatts of electricity for offsite use. Dominion operates NAPS Units 1 and 2 in accordance with NRC operating licenses NPF-4 and NPF-7, respectively. The Unit 1 license will expire April 1, 2018 and the Unit 2 license on August 21, 2020. Dominion is applying to NRC for renewal of both licenses, which would enable 20 additional years of operation (i.e., until April 1, 2038, for Unit 1 and August 21, 2040, forUnit 2).

NAPS withdraws at maximum approximately 1.9 million gallons per minute of circulating water from Lake Anna through two screenwells (one per nuclear unit) located in a cove just north of the Station.

Debris and fish collected from the screens are washed into wire baskets for disposal as solid waste, as required by the NAPS Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) Permit. The circulating water is pumped from the intake through the steam condensers where the water temperature rises 14.51F to 18.31F depending on flow rates and heat rejection rates. The circulation water is then pumped to the head of the waste heat treatment facility (WHTF) via a discharge canal. The 3,400-acre WVITF, formed by diking off the three southern-most arms of Lake Anna, consists of three cooling lagoons interconnected by canals (Figure 3) and is a recognized treatment facility by the 1 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:23PM WATER OUALITY VA PWR P.3/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Commonwealth of Virginia. NAPS discharges the heated effluent through a six-bay skirxmer wall discharge structure built within Dike 3 from the WHTF into Lake Anna. The current VPDES permit limit is 1.354 x 10'0 British thermal units per hour (Btufhr).

NAPS has 10 ground water withdrawal wells that use approximately 41 gallons per minute (gpm) of groundwater for domestic use. Six are permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Department of Environmental Quality and are subject to withdrawal reporting requirements. The remaining four wells do not require permits or reporting, due to their small size. The site is not located within a Virginia Groundwater Management Area; areas that the Commonwealth established to better manage its groundwater resources.

Dominion holds a permit for, and annually re-registers, several air emission sources at NAPS. Most of these sources are emergency equipment (e.g., generators) for safe plant operation in case of loss of other power sources. As such, the sources generally operate for minimal periods of time for testing purposes.

Dominion employs approximately 851 workers at NAPS, with an additional 70-110 contract and matrixed employees. Approximately 73 percent of the employees live in Hennico, Louisa, Orange, and Spotsylvania Counties, with the balance of employees living in various other locations. Figure 4 shows the locations of these counties. Once or twice a year, as rany as 700 additional workers are onsite during refueling outages. In compliance with NRC regulations, Dominion has analyzed the effects of NAPS aging and identified activities needed to safely operate an additional 20 years. Although Dominion does not expect to have to add additional staff to perform these activities, Dominion has assumed for impact analysis purposes the addition of as many as 60 additional staff.

Table I lists licenses, permits, and other authorizations that Dominion has obtained for NAPS operation.

Environmental Inmpacts NRC has prepared a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) on impacts that nuclear power plant operations can have on the environment (Ref. 3) and has codified its findings (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-i). The codification identifies 92 potential environmental issues, 69 of which NRC identifies as having small impacts and calls "Category 1" issues. NRC defines "small" as follows:

Small - For the issue, environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purpose of assessing radiological impacts, the Commission has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the Commission's regulations are considered small as the term is used in this table. (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1).

The NRC codification and the GEIS discuss the following types of Category I environmental issues:

Surface water quality, hydrology, and use

Aquatic ecology

Groundwater use and quality

Terrestrial resources

Air quality

Land use

Human health

Postulated accidents 2 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:23PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 4X15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL

Socioeconomics

Uranium fuel cycle and waste management

Decommissioning In its decisionmaking for plant-specific license renewal applications, absent new and significant information to the contrary, NRC will rely on its codified findings, as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS, for assessment of environmental impact from Category 1 issues [10 CFR 51.95(c)(4)]. For plants such as NAPS that are located near the coastal zone, many of these issues involve impact to the coastal zone. Dominion has adopted by reference the NRC findings and GEIS analyses for all 50 applicable Category 1 issues.

The NRC regulation identifies 21 issues as "Category 2," for which license renewal applicants must submit additional, site-specific information. Of these, 12 apply to NAPS and, like the Category 1 issues, could involve impact to the coastal zone. The applicable issues and Dominion's impact conclusions are listed below:

Aquatic ecology

- Entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages - This issue addresses mortality of organisms small enough to pass through the plant's circulating cooling water system.

Dominion has conducted studies of this issue under direction of the Commonwealth and, in issuing the plant's discharge permit, the Commonwealth has approved the plant's intake structure as best available technology to minimize impact. Dominion concludes that these impacts are small during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.

- Impingement of fish and shellfish - This issue addresses mortality of organisms large enough to be caught by intake screens before passing through the plant's circulating cooling water system. The studies and permit discussed above also address impingement. Dominion concludes that these impacts are small during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.

- Heat shock- This issue addresses mortality of aquatic organisms caused by exposure to heated plant effluent. Dominion has conducted studies of this issue under direction of the Comrnmonwealth and, in issuing the plant's discharge permit, the Commonwealth has determined that more stringent limits on the heated effluent are not necessary to protect the aquatic environment. Dominion concludes that these impacts are small during current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal term.

Threatened or endangered species This issue addresses effects that NAPS operations could have on species that are listed under federal law as threatened or endangered. In analyzing this issue, Dominion has also considered species that are listed under Commonwealth of Virginia law. Several species could occur on the NAPS site, in the site vicinity of Lake Anna, North Anna River downstream of the North Anna Dam, or along associated transmission corridors. Dominion environmental studies and environmental protection programs have identified no adverse impacts to such species and Dominion consultation with cognizant Federal and Commonwealth agencies has identified no impacts of concern. Dominion concludes that NAPS impacts to these species are small during 3 October 26. 2001

APR 22 '05 01:24PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 5/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL current operations and has no plans that would change this conclusion for the license renewal terrn.

Human health

- Microbiological Organisms - This issue addresses the effects that NAPS operations could have on public health from the thermophilic organism Naegleriafowleri. Dominion does not expect this to be a public health problem at NAPS because discharge temperatures are below the optimum for growth of the organism, wastewater disinfection practices limit seed. source or innoculants, field sampling has confirmed that numbers of the naturally occurring organism are not a problem, and State Epidemiologist has conducted an independent investigation and has required no further action.

- Electromagnetic fields, acute effects (electric shock) - This issue addresses the potential for shock from induced currents, similar to static electricity effects, in the vicinity of transmission lines. Because this strictly human-health issue does not directly or indirectly affect natural resources of concern within the Coastal Zone Management Act definition of "coastal zone" [16 USC 1453(1)), Dominion concludes that the issue is not subject to the certification requirement.

Socioeconomics As a result of its studies on managing the effects of NAPS aging, Dominion expects to perform license renewal activities without adding staff. As a conservative measure, however, Dominion has assumed, for the purposes of socioeconomic impact analysis, adding as many as 60 additional employees. Dominion assumes that these employees would find housing in the same locales where current employees reside.

- Housine - This issue addresses impacts that Dominion adding license renewal term workers and the community gaining additional indirectjobs could have on local housing availability.

NRC concluded, and Dominion concurs, that impacts would be small for plants located in medium population areas having no growth control measures. Using the NRC definitions and categorization methodology, NAPS is located in a medium population area and locations where additional employees would probably live have no growth control measures.

Dominion concludes that impacts during the NAPS license renewal term would be small.

- Public services: public utilities -This issue address impacts that adding license renewal term workers could have on public water supply systems. Dominion has analyzed public water supply availability in candidate locales and has found no system limitations that would suggest that additional NAPS workers would cause significant impacts. Therefore, Dominion has concluded that impacts during the NAPS license renewal term would be small.

- Offsite land use - This issue addresses impacts that local government spending of plant property tax dollars can have on land use patterns. SPS property taxes comprise a large portion of the Louisa County revenue and Dominion expects this to remain generally unchanged during the license renewal term. Louisa County land-use changes have been consistent with changes in the region in general. The county's proximately to metropolitan areas, combined with a regional population growth trend away from metropolitan areas and toward less developed areas such as Louisa County, are the predominant forces resulting in 4 October 26. 2001

APR 22 '05 01:25PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 6/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL county land use changes. Land use impacts due to NAPS are considered small and not likely to change during license renewal.

- Public services: transportation - This issue addresses impacts that adding license renewal term workers could have on local traffic patterns. The primary access route to NAPS carries a Commonwealth categorization that indicates free-flow of the traffic stream and that users are unaffected by the presence of others (Level of Service = B). NRC concluded, and Dominion concurs, that license renewal impacts in such cases would be small.

- Historic and archaeological resources - This issue address impacts that license renewal activities could have on resources of historic or archaeological significance. Dominion has no plans for license renewal activities that would disturb unknown resources.

Postulated accidents

- Severe accidents -NRC determined that the license renewal impacts from severe accidents would be small but determined that applicants should perform site-specific analyses of ways to firther mitigate impacts. Dominion used NRC methodology to conduct a severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis but found no cost-effective mitigation measures.

STATE PROGRAM Like many states, the Virginia coastal zone management program is a "networked" program, which means that it is based on a variety of existing Commonwealth authorities rather than a single law and set of regulations. The U.S. Department of Commerce and the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality have published programmatic documentation of the Virginia program (Ref 4), called Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality administers the program and has identified enforceable regulatory authorities that comprise the program (Ref. 5).

Table 2 lists the enforceable regulatory authorities and discusses for each the applicability to NAPS and, where applicable, how NAPS in is compliance. The table documents which program elements are not applicable to NAPS and, for those that are applicable, the NAPS activities that represent program compliance.

FINDINGS

1. NRC has found that the environmental impact of Category I issues is small. Dominion has adopted by reference NRC findings for Category 1 issues applicable to NAPS.

2. For Category 2 issues applicable to NAPS, Dominion has determined that the environmental impact is small.

3. To the best of Dominion's knowledge, NAPS is in compliance with Virginia licensing and permitting requirements and is in compliance with its Commonwealth-issued Jicenses and permits.

4. Dominion's license renewal and continued operation of NAPS would be consistent with the enforceable provisions of the Virginia coastal zone management program.

5 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:25PM WATER QUALITY VR PWR P.7/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL STATE NOTIFICATION By this certification that NAPS license renewal is consistent with Virginia's coastal zone management program, the Commonwealth of Virginia is notified that it has 3 months from receipt of this letter and accompanying information in which to concur or object with Dominion's certification. However, pursuant to 15 CFR 930.63(b), if the Commonwealth of Virginia has not issued a decision within 3 months following the commencement of state agency review, it shall notify the contacts listed below of the status of the matter and the basis for further delay. The Commonwealth's concurrence, objection, or notification of review status shall be sent to; Andy Kugler, M.S.O-1 IFI TonyBanks U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Dominion Generation One White Flint North Innsbrook Technical Center 11555 Rockville Pike 5000 Dominion Blvd Rockville, MD 20852-2738 Glen Allen, VA 23060 REFERENCES

1. ProceduralGuidancefor PreparingEnvironmentalAssessments and ConsideringEnvironmental Issues." U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Office Instruction No. LIC-203. June 21, 2001.

2. Virginia CoastalProgram; Our CoastalZone; Virginia's CoastalEnvironment. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Available online at http //www.deg.state.va.uslcoastal/thezone.html.

Access October 17, 2001.

3. GenericEnvironmental Impact Statement for License Renewal ofNaclearPlants. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. May 1996.

4. Virginia CoastalResources Management ProgramFinalEnvironmental Impact Statement. U.S.

Department of Commerce and Council on the Environment and Commonwealth of Virginia. July 19S5, reprinted April 1999.

5. EnforceableRegulatory ProgramsComprising Virginia's CoastalResources ManagementProgram.

Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Environmental Quality. Undated. Transmitted as Attachment of Letter, E. L Irons, Virginia Department of Environmental Quality, to J. W. White, Dominion Virginia Power Co., October 11, 2001.

ATTACHMENTS Figure 1 50-Mile Vicinity Map Figure 2 6-Mlile Vicinity Map Figure 3 Waste Heat Transfer Facility Map Figure 4 Area Counties, Cities, and Towns Table I Environmental Authorizations for Current Operations Table 2 Compliance With Enforceable Regulatory Programs Comprising Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program 6 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:26PM WATER QUALITY VR PWR P. G/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Figure 1 50-Mile Vicinity Map 10 0 10 MMilRe vvJjvW P0.qr#G1 £ fv~w-~z PCAAA&SoM.A 7 October 26. 2001

APR 22 '05 01:26PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 9/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Figure 2 .1 10-Mile Vicinity Map I Ur* 0-04twa II an la Mal VOO of 8 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:26PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 10/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Figure 3, Waste Heat Treatment Facility Map uW pieAwNW S .. ; re.m Fe at 9 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:27PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR , P. 11/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Figure 4 !

Regional Counties, Cities, and Towns l a 1e 0 c Mo oa,20 lb 0 Ko40e UlltV , NAd COWL. GY..

I10 October 26, 2001-

Table 1 Environmental Authorizations far Current NAPS Oper3flons Issue Date or Agency Authority Requirement Number Expiration Date Activity Covered U.S. Nuclear Atomic Energy Act License to Operate NPF-4 (Unit Expireso4/01/18 (Unit Operation of Units I and Regulatory [42 USC 2011, etseq.] 1) 1); 2 Commission NPF-7 (Unit 08/21/20 (Unit 2) Z

2) 0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Migratory Bird Trcaty Permit MB705136-0 Issued 01/01/01 Removal of up to 15 X4 ma Expires 12131/01 osprey nests causing m Service Act [16 USC 703-712] > X safety hazards rZ-

>0 U.S. Department of 49 CFR 107, Subpart G Registration 05300002 Issued 06/05/00 Hazardous materials az Transportation 0241 Expires 06130101 shipments VDEQ Federal Clean WatcrAct, Permit VA0052451 Issued 01/11/01 Plant and stormwater Section 402 (33 USC Expires 01/11/06 discharges 1342); 9 VAC 25-31 -50 o>

VDEQ 9 VAC 5-80-10 Pennit None Issued 10/20193 Authorizes installation No expiration and operation of station rn blackout generator rnZ 0 o VDEQ Federal Clean Air Act, Permit None Issued 01/06199 Air emission source zo rnM Title V (42 USC 7661 et No expiration operation seq.): 9 VAC 5-80-10 Zn VDEQ 9 VAC 5-20-160 Registration 40726 Annual re-certification Air emissions sources O VDII 12 VAC 5-590-190 Permit 2109610 Issued 06117/91; Authorizes operation of Revised 05/04/98 potable water supply system 0

NRC - U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Cr VAC - Virginia Administrative Code VDEQ- Virginia Department of Environmental Quality N) VDH - Virginia Department of Health N) 0 0

APR 22 '05 01:28PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 13/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Table 2 /

Compliance With Enforceable Regulatory Programs Comprising Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program Item Topic and Virginia Code Citation Compliance Status Fisheries Management a.l. §28.2-200 to §28.2-713 This applies to activities that Virginia Power has not

§29.1-100 to §29.1-570 undertaken at SPS and for which Virginia Power has no plans to undertake during the license renewal term:

recreational and commercial fishing, oystering, carning, and crabbing, scientific collecting, hunting, fishing, trapping, dealing in furs, and falconry.

a.2. §3.1-249.59 to §3.1-249.62 This applies to activity that Dominion has not undertaken at NAPS and for which Dominion has no plans to undertake during the license renewal term:

use of marine antifouling paint containing tributylin.

Subaqueous Lands Management

b. §28.2-1 200 to §28.2-1 213 This requires a pennit for use of state-owned bottornilands. NAPS construction of WHTF dikes pre-dated the permit requirement and it is Dominion's understanding that the permit requirement applies to original construction, not to continuing existence.

Dominion has no plans for license renewal activity that would require a construction permit.

Wetlands Management c.1 §28.2-1300 through §28.2-1320' This applies to activity that Dominion has not undertaken at NAPS and for which Dominion has no plans to undertake during the license renewal term:

wetlands development.

c.2 §62.1-44.15:5 This applies to activities that Dominion has no plans Water Quality Certification pursuant to undertake during the license renewal term:

to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act excavating in, filling, flooding, and significantly altering wetlands. .Commonwealth issuance of the Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number VA0004090 for SPS discharges constitutes Water Quality Certification.

Dunes Management

d. §28.2-1400 though §2 8 .2-142 0b This applies to activity that Dominion has not undertaken at NAPS and for which Dominion has no plans to undertake during the license renewal term development in coastal dunes.

12 October 26. 2001

APR 22 '05 01:28PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 14115 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Table 2 Compliance With Enforceable Regulatory Programs Comprising Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program. Continued Item Topic and Virginia Code Citation Compliance Status Non-Point Source Pollution Control e.1 §10.1-560 et seq. This applies to activity for which Dominion has no plans to undertake due to license renewal: soil-disturbing projects.

e.2 §10.1-2100 though §10.-2114 See Item i, below and 9 VAC10-20 et seq.

e.3 §10.1-2100 though §1O.-2114 See Item i, below and 9 VAC10-20 et seq.

f.1 §62.144.15 Dominion has Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit Number VA0052451 for NAPS discharges. Dominion has no plans for license renewal activity that would necessitate changing terms of the permit.

f.2 §62.1-44.15:5 See Item c.2, above.

Water Quality Certification pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act Shoreline Sanitation

g. §32.1-164 through §32.1-165 This applies to activities that Dominion does not undertake at NAPS and for which Dominion has no plans to undertake during the license renewal term:

operation of septic tanks and land disposal of sewerage.

Air Pollution Control

h. §10-1.1300 Dominion has obtained permits for NAPS air emission source construction and annually re-certifies air emission source registration (40726). The Commonwealth is reviewing a Dominion application for an air emission source operating permit.

Dominion has no plans for license renewal activity that would necessitate changing terms of the registration or permits.

13 October 26, 2001

APR 22 '05 01:28PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 15/15 FEDERAL CONSISTENCY CERTIFICATION FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION LICENSE RENEWAL Table 2 1 Compliance With Enforceable Regulatory Programs Comprising Virginia's Coastal Resources Management Program. Continued I Item Topic and Virginia Code Citation Compliance Status Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act

i. §10-1.2100 to §10-1.2114 The Commonwealth establishes criteria for 9 VAC10-20 et seq. delineating Chesapeake Bay Preservation Areas (CBPAs) in Tidewater Virginia and performance criteria for use of land within such areas. Local governments establish compliant programs, the focus being on controlling non-point-source pollution.

NAPS is located adjacent to a Tidewater Virginia county. However, it is Dominion's understanding, based on conversation with the Commonwealth Chesapeake Bay Local Assistance Department, that the land use restrictions apply only to new construction or re-development. The NAPS license renewal involves only continued operations, without construction or re-development activity. Therefore, Dominion concludes that NAPS license renewal is not subject to CBPA requirements. If, in the future, NAPS initiated activity that would be subject to CBPA requirements, Dominion would ensure compliance.

NAPS - North Anna Power Station VAC = Virginia Administrative Code

§ = Section 14 October 26, 2001

APR 21 '05 03:14PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 3/11 United States Department of the Interior

'FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ChesapeakeBayField Office

.1A ju j 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, MD 21401 I/Za Iuc^

November 7,2001 ER 01/869 Chief, Rules and Directives Branch Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration

¢;;...&Mailstop .T-6 D 59, UtS. Nuciear Regulatory Corns issicn Washington, DC 20555-0001 Attn: Andrew Kugler Re: VirginiaEleciric & Power Company, License Nos. NPF-4 and NPF-7,

. .North Anna Power Station, Lake Anna, SpbtsYlvwnia and Louisa Counties, Virginia.

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Department ofthedInterior, Fish and Wildlife Service (Ser6ice) has reviewed the Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCO), AppendixE Environmental Report -Operating License Renal2 .Stage, North Anna Power Station Q41APS) Units I and 2 for a new license at the above referenced project and offers the following comments. The Srvice is responding pursuant tothe CleanWater Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 etseq.) and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), andour authorities under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C.

661-667e) and the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 etseq.).

General Comments The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice of intent on September 4, 2001, to prepare an environmental impact statement for the North Anna Power Station license renewal.

The NRC would renew the license for twenty years after the expiration of the existing forty year license in 2018. The Service recognizes the NRC for reducing the term of the license. Natural resource protection and enhancement is a rapidly advancing field and recent findings in the science have explained the variability, complexity, and importance of naturally unctioning ecosystems.

APR 21 '05 03:14PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P..4/111 The Service is providing natural resources protection comments on the Applicant's Environnmental Report - Operating License Renewal Stage. The VEPCO developed a scoping document to assist NRC with, their preparation of a site-specific supplement to a Generic Environmental Impact Statement. The Service has concerns in three general areas: 1. water

'quality and habitats, 2. fisheries issues, and'3. cumulative adverse effects in Lake Anria and North Anna River. From the NRC list of 92 potential impacts, the Service agrees with the VEPCO determination that 21 (23%) Category 2 Licence Renewal Issues require.additional scientific analysis. These Category 2 impacts require analysis of alternatives to reduce adverse impacts. The Service requests an additional four issues be included in the Category 2 classification of potential impacts. These four issues (3, 5, 18, & 19) are included below.

The Service requests a copy of the VEPCO Virginia Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit for the NAPS, as well as the most recent fisheries study, Waste Heat Treatment Facility' study, North Anna River Ecosystem study, NAPS CWA 316 study, and the North Anna Hydroeledirid Studies, !986-1988. Tnhese studies will allow us to better understand the potential environmental impacts.

Specific Comments Fisheries Issues Page 2-2 The Service is concerned with the impacts to fish and aquatic vegetation (Issue #

3 & 19) associated with the strictures described as, "In addition to the two nuclear reactors, their turbine building, intake structure, discharge canal, and auxiliary buildings." Our concerns also include the impacts of dams on the passage and distribution of fish and mussel species.

P. 2-8 What'is your reference for a healthy fish population stated in, "Reservoirs like Lake Anna with healthy populations of "landlocked" small shad and herring (Lake Anna has both threadfin shad (Dorosomaperenense) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis),are often dominated by small-bodied zooplankters (rotifers and copepods), because larger-bodied fonns are selectively preyed upon by schooling clupeids (Ref. 2.2-11)."

Page 2-9 How do you account for the reduction in abundance of yellow perch, black crappie, pumpkinseed sunfish and an increase in other species of fish as stated in "The community structure remained relatively stable over the 1975-1985 period, with sormie year-to-year variation in species composition caused by: (1) normal population fluctuations; (2) reservoir aging; (3) the'introduction of forage species and competing predators; (4) the installation of fish attractors and artificial

APR 21 '05 03:15PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 5/11 habitat; and (5) the increase in Corbiculadensities. Post-1975 changes included:

(1) a decline in relative abundance of yellow perch (Percaflavescens)and black crappie (Promoxis nigromaculatus);(2) an increase in relative abundance of white perch (Morone americana) and thrdadfin shad; and (3) an increase in redear sunfish (Lepomis microlophus) abundance, with a corresponding decrease in pumpkinseed (Lepornis gibbosus). None of these changes appeared to be related to NAPS operation."

Page 2-10 There continmes to be disagreement between the scientific community as to the historical range of anadromous fish spawning habitat in the North Anna River.

American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, sea lamprey, and American eel are reported to migrate to the base of the Ashland Mill Dam on the South Anna River.. The VEPCO report states, "Four non-native fish species (striped bass, walleye, threadfin shad, and blueback herring) have been stocked in Lake Anna by the Virginia Department of Game & nmland Fisheries silnce 1972:* Stripediass were introduced in 1973, and have been stocked annually since 1975. They

provide a "put-grow-and-take" fishery; streams, including the North Anna River that flow into Lake Anna lack the flow, depth, and length to support striped bass spawning runs. Studies show that striped bass grow and provide a substantial recreational fishery in Lake Anna, but dults are subject to late-summer habitat restrictions (lirnited to cooler-water refuge areas) and growth limitations. Walleye are also stocked annually by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries and are highly sought-after. game fish. Threadfin shad were introduced in 1983 to provide additional forage for striped bass and other top-of-the-food-chain predators. This species is vulnerable to cold shock and winter kills, and would not be able to survive in Lake Anna if it were not. for NAPS operation. Threadfin shad appear to be thriving in Lake Anna and are an important source of food for game fish. Blueback herring, fish stocked by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries in 1980 as a forage species, have not been as successful. A fifth non-native species, the herbivorous grass carp, was stocked by Dominion (with the approval of the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries) in the WHTF in 1994 to control growth of the nuisance submersed aquatic plant hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)Y" Page 2-11. The water flow in the North Anna River System changed drastically after the impoundment was created. The reduction in river flow from Lake Anna during.

the Spring spawning migration may limit the range of anadromous and riverine species of fish in the river. The report describes the river as, "The North Anna River joins the South Anna River 23 miles downstream from the North Anna Dam, forming the Pamunk-ey River. Before 1972, when the river was impounded, flows varied considerably (1 to 24,000 cfs) from year to year and water quality was degraded by acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek. After 1972, fluctuations in flow were moderated (40 to 16,000 cfs from 1972 through 1985).

-and water quality was improved as a result of reclamation activities at the Contrary Creek mine site and the acid-neutralizing effect of Lake Anna's waters.

APR 21 '05 03:16PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 6/11 Water quality downstream from the North Anna Dam is strongly influenced by conditions in the reservoir and releases at the Dam. Water moving from Lake Anna to the North Anna River is less turbid and more chemically stable than the pre-impoundment flow. Dissolved oxygen levels are high (averaging 9.6 milligrams per liter over the 1981-1985 period) immediately downstream of the Dam and increase further downstream, presumably as a result of turbulent mixing (Ref. 2.2-3). Summer water temperatures from 1970-1985 were higher near the Dam than downstream, reflecting temperatures in the reservoir. The highest water temperature recorded in pre-operational years was 89.4AF in July 1977, at a station one kilbmeter below the North Anna Dam. The highest temperature recorded in operational years was slightly higher, 90.9'F, recorded in August 1983 at the siane station." Each of these flow related impacts warrant additional river flow study.

Page 3-15 The Service believes the NQrth Anna Hydroelectric project and the-dam may be causing significant impacts to the North Anna River and the results from earlier studies should be reevaluated. The report states, "An exemption from licensing (Ref. 3.5-1) was filed wvith the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) in March 1984; an order granting the exemption was issued in September 1984. As part of the exemption from licensing by FERC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service requested that Dominion perform pre-operational and operational fish passage studies to evaluate the need for intake screening. Studies were conducted in 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Ref. 3.5-3). Results of these studies indicated that the number of fish passing from Lake Anna to the North Aniia River was minimal (Ref. 3;5-4).

Page 4-6 The Service is concerned with impacts from entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages that occur at most power plants. In light of fish passage measures that may be prescribed to mitigate these impacts, this issue should be evaluated for the current and post restoration fish community. The report states, "Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that any standard established pursuant to Sections 301 or 306 of the CWA shall require that the location, desigrn construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). Entrainment through the condenser cooling system of fish and shellfish in the early life stages is one of the adverse environmental impacts that the best technology available minimizes.

Virginia State Water Control Board regulations provide that compliance with a Virginia Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (VPDES) permit constitutes compliance with Sections 301 and 306 ofthe CWA (Ref. 4.2-1). In response to Board requirements, Dominion submitted a CWA Section 316(b) demonstration forNAPS in May 1985 (Ref. 4.2-2). Based on this and other input, the Board issued the NAPS VPDES permit (Appendix B). Issuance of the NAPS VPDES permit indicates the Board's conclusion that NAPS, is operating in conformance

APR 21 '05 03:17PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 7/1 1 with the permit, would be in compliance with the CWA requirements. Dominion concludes that the Cornmonwealth regulation and the NAPS .VPDES permit constitute. the NAPS CWA 316(b) determination. Dominion also concludes that any environmental impact from entrainment of fish and shellfish in early life stages is small and does not require firther mitigation.;

Page 4-8 The Service agrees with the NRC that concludes that impingement of fish and shellfish is'a significant issue. '<NRC made impacts on.fish and shellfish resources resulting from impingement a Category 2 issue because it could not assign a single significance level to the issue." The Service believes the impacts

.will likely require mitigation. The report states, "Impingement impacts are small at many plants, but might be moderate or large at other plants (Ref 4.0-1, Section 4.2.2.1.3). Information to be ascertained includes: (1) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling pond), and (2) current CWA 316(b)

-determntioroequivalent state-documentation:-As-Stion3.12-des6ribes-NAPS has a once-through heat dissipation system. Section 4.2 discusses the CWA 316(b) demonstration for NAPS, indicating compliance with the use. of best available technology. Section 2.5 also states that no federally- or state listed fish species have been collected in any monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys conducted by Dominion biologists and affiliated researchers. Based on the results of the CWA 316(b) Demonstration, Dominion concludes that this environmental-impact is small and does not require further mitigation."

Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems Page 2-6.. The Service is concerned with water quality and aquatic habitat impacts from thermal discharges, the canal systems, and the Waste Heat Treatment Facilities (Issues # 5, 18, & 44). The report described thle conditions as, "Since its creation, Lake Anna has developed into a reservoir with three distinct ecological zones:

Upper Lake, Mid-Lake, and Lower Lake. The Upper Lake is essentially riverine, shallow (average depth of 13 feet), and shows some evidence of stratification in summer. The Mid-Lake is deeper and stratifies in summer. It receives waters from Contrary Creek that, because of years of mining in its floodplain, are sometimes low in pH and high in metals. As noted earlier in this section, creation of Lake Anna has reduced the impacts of acid mine drainage on the North Anna River. The Lower Lake is deeper (average depth of36 feet), clearer (with more light penetration), and shows pronounced annual patterns of winter mixing and summer stratification. The epilimnion (warm layer above the thermocline) was generally eight feet deep during pre-operational years, and 26 to 33 feet deep during operational years. The increase in depth of the epilinmion appears to be related to the heated discharge entering the reservoir from Dike 3 (see Figure 3-2).

and the withdrawal of cooler, deeper water at the NAPS intake (Ref. 2.2-3)."

APR 21 '05 03:19PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P.8/1 I Page 2-7 The VEPCO report continues to describe adverse thermal effect on aquatic organisms, "Results of Lake Anna tem~perature monitoring indicate that the shallower Upper Lake warms earlier in spring and reaches maximum temperature

'in summer sooner than the Lower Lake. The -Lower Lake; with its greater depth and volume, warms more slowly in spring andretairis its heat later in the year. It is estimated that the heat contributed by NAPS corresponds to about 10 percent of the solar heat that enters the reservoir on summer days (Ref. 2.2-3)".

Page 2-7 The Service would like to review the water temperature ranges from the report "Dominion's Environmental Policy & Compliance-Environmental Biology group submits annual reports to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality on water temperatures and fisheries monitoring in Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River." Specifically, the water temperature data from the month of August, 1983, when the mean water temperature was greater than 880 F (Table 4-3).

Page 4-9 As the NRC states, the Service believes heat shock impacts are important and need to be mitigated to the fulest extent possible. The report states, 'NRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resulting from heat shock a Category 2 issue, because of continuing concerns about thermal discharge effects and the possible need to modify thermal discharges in the future in response to changing environmental conditions (Ref. 4.0-1, Section 4.2.2.1.4). Information to be ascertained includes: (I) type of cooling system (whether once-through or cooling pond), and (2) evidence of a CWA Section 316(a) variance or equivalent state documentation. As Section 3.1.2 describes, NAPS has a once-through heat dissipation system. As discussed below, Dominion has a Section 316(a) variance for NAPS discharges. Section 316(a) of the CWA establishes a process whereby a thermal effluent discharger can demonstrate that thermal discharge limitations are

more stringent than necessary and, using a variance, obtain alternative falcility-specific thermal discharge limits (33 USC 1326). Dominion submitted a CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration for NAPS to the Virginia State Water Control Board on June 24,1986 (Ref. 4.4-1). The Fact Sheet (Itemr22) accompanying the current NAPS VPDES permit (Appendix B) refers to this submittal, indicating that effluent limitations more stringent than the thermal limitations included in the permit are not necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife in Lake Anna and in the North Anna River downstream of the Lake. Based on the results of the CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration and the NAPS VPDES permit, Dominion concludes that this environmental impact is small and does not warrant further mitigation."

Threatened or Endangered Species Page 2-16 The Service commends VEPCO for their description of Federal and Sate threatened and endangered species, and the company's efforts to initiate informal

APR 21 '05 03:20PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 9/11 consultation on these issues. The report describes the conditions as, "Animal and plant species that are federally- or state-listed as endangered or threatened and that

.occur or could occur (based 6n habitat and known geographic range) in the

.vicinity of NAPS or along associated transmission lines are listed in Table 2-1.

Bald eagles (Haliaeetusleucocephalus), state and federally classified as threatened, are occasionally observed along Lake Anna. The bald eagle forages along coasts, rivers, and large lakes. Dominion is not aware of any eagle nests at NAPS or along the transmission lines. Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus),

state-classified as threatened, have been observed in the vicinity of NAPS.

Loggerhead shrikes inhabit agricultural lands and other open areas. With the exception of the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus),

terrestrial species that are federally- and/orstate-listed as endangered or threatened are not known to exist at NAPS or along the transmission lines. As of

.February 2000, there were no candidate federally threatened or endangered species that Dominion believes might occur at NAPS or along the transmission iines (Ref.

2.5-1)."

Page 2-17 The report states errors and gaps in the data regarding some fish and mussel species that need clarification. The report states, "No federally-listed fish species' range includes the North Anna River and Lake Anna. One state-listed species, the emerald 'shiner (Norropis atherinoides),appears on a Final Environmental Statement list of fish collected in the North Anna River prior to its impoundment

. (Ref. 2.2-1, Appendix 2.14). However, according to several authoritative sources (Refs. 2.5-3, pp. 397-401, and 2.5-4, pp. 321-409), this species is known only from the Clinch and Powell Rivers in the extreme western part of the state. It appears that the fish was misidentified. The emerald shiner is often confused with the closely-related comely shiner (Notropis amoenus), which occurs throughout the York River drainage and has been documented from Lake Anna and the North Anna River (Ref. 2.5-3). The comely shiner was not listed in the Final Environmental Statement, but has been collected regularly by Dominion biologists in post-operational monitoring of the lower North Anna River (Ref. 2.2-8, Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.3). The emerald shiner has not been collected in any of the post-operational surveys or monitoring studies. Based on the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fisheries' Fish and Wildlife Information Service database, as many as two state- and federally-listed freshwater mussel species could occur in streams in the vicinity of NAPS, or in streams crossed by NAPS transmission corridors (Table 2-1). It should be emphasized that neither of these species has actually been observed as occurring in streams in the vicinity of NAPS or in streams crossed by its transmission lines. They have, however, been collected from counties occupied by NAPS or its transmission corridors.'

Page 2-18 "None of these mussel species wa's collected in pre-impoundment surveys of the North Anna River, and none has been collected in more recent years by Dominion biologists conducting routine monitoring surveys. Three bivalve species were collected in the North Anna basin prior to impoundment; Elliptio complanatus,

APR 21 '05 03:21PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 10/11 Elliptioproductes, and Sphaerium striatum (Ref. 2.2-1, Appendix 2.13). None of these is a special-status species. In more recent years, the introduced Asiatic clam (Corbiculafluminea)has dominated collections from both Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Small numbers of Unionid&(El1~pfio sp.) and fingernail clams (Sphaeriidae)have also been collected. Acid drainage and sediment from the Contrary Creek mine site (see Section 2.2 discussion) historically depressed mussel populations downstream from the Contrary Creek-North Anna River.

confluence but, in the 1980s, there were indications that mussel populations (E1liptio sp.) were recovering in the lower North Anna River (Ref. 2.2-3, Section 6.2)."

Cumulative Impact Assessment Page 2-12: The Service's main goal is the protection and restoration of ecosystems. for.

people. During a license review, the Service' mitigation goal is to work with the license applicant to avoid, minimize, and compensate (in that order) to the ffullest extent possible. The National Environmental Policy Act calls for past, present, and future environmental impacts be identified, as well as summarized to determine cumulative effects of the environmental impacts. The VEPCO report clearly identifies ecosystem impacts, but the Service disagrees with VEPCO's conclusion regarding fish and the ecosystem. The repor states, "In pre-impoundment surveys, the fish community of the North Anna River dovrstream from the Contrary Creek inflow was dominated-by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following impoundment (and reclamation of the Contrary Creek mine site), there was a steady increase in measures of abundance and diversity (species richness) of fish. In 1984-85, 38 species from 10 families were found in the North Anna River, compared to 25 species from eight families in the control stream, the South Anna River. When reservoir species from Lake Anna were subtracted from the North Anna River totals, the two fish communities showed striking similarities, indicating that operation of NAPS has had little or no effect on fish populations downstream from the North Anna Dam." "Based on the 1999 Annual Report for Lake Anna and the North Anna River, the North Anna River.

downstream of the North Anna Darn has no major changes in the ecosystem (Ref.

2.2-10). A review of the data from the 1999 monitoring studies indicate that Lake Anna and the North Anna River continue to contain healthy, well-balanced ecological communities."

Mitigation Page 6-2 The Service believes many of the impacts discussed above will fall under the this policy. We do not agreethat all impacts of license renewal are small and would not require mitigation. The current operations do include some mitigation activities that would continue during the term of the license renewal, but additional efforts in the areas of fisheries, water quality, and possibly endangered species will protect and enhance the natural resources in Lake Anna and North

APR 21 '05 03:23PM WATER QUALITY VA PWR P. 11/11 Anna River. As stated, Dominion performs routine mitigation and monitoring activities associated with environmental permits to ensure the safety of workers, thp public, and the environment. These activities include the radiological environmental monitoring program, continuous emission monitoring, monitoring of aquatic biota that could be affected by NAPS operation, effluent chemistry monitoring, and effluent toxicity testing." As the NRC's statutory requirements state, "The report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing adverse impacts...-for all Category 2 license renewal issues.... 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii).

The environmental report shall include an analysis that considers and balances ....alte-natives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects..:. 10 CFR 51.45(c) as incorporated by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)."

Conclusion The-S vice has provided comments.on various parts of the ecosystem, that may be adversely bAectied by NiAS'. Our goal is' to restore the North Anna River ecosystem is close to the pre-project condition as possible for the American people, while considering the utility the NAPS provides for the residents of Virginia and surrounding areas. The Service requests documents listed above and time for review. Some of our concerns may be obviated after the review of these documents, but it is unlikely that will be the case for the majority of our concerns. We welcome the opportunity to visit the NAPS in the near future, and look forward to working with the staff and representativesifrom VEPCO.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the preliminary environmental document and provide comment on natural resource protection. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact David W. Sutherland of the Service's Chesapeake Bay Field OflEce by phone at (410) 573-4535, or by e-mail at DavidSutherland~fwvs.gov.

Sincerely, John P. Wolflin Supervisor Chesapeake Bay Field Office Dominion Generation(T. Banks)'

5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 USFWS (A. Hoar)

USFWS (K.Mayne)

VDGIF (A. Weaver)

VDGIF (T. Wilcox)

Appendix E J&KAY 24,2002 Ms. Kwan Ma, Supervisor-VioiaFo Offmc UA. FI~h a-id WicJft Sovlce tloucesr,' 2 23rg3na

SUBJECT:

REQUEST FOR .M QFMPROTjF SPECIES WTMWN TH AREA UNDER EVWATIM FM THE SRRY AND N ANNA 1ORSTAoNS U;CENSEPR4EWAL '.ii;:-,

May MODW, Wa l The mlcewd P.g Dhi tayOomuoNO

' ' : * '!X -, . . . -n 0p040( b st*,mlied h i: pW tItIId 2. TH lt kps e e Its

'canIcn3rvno Imjac $ Sme*fr~i~c Rgriew rt~c~ d PtP URE-1 tr wor* ke we a q r ppw fdiWe m nu' and E~cicaw, Pc0wv Octkppi J rwren V deKr~ toe &re Cws Dd iliopw, Wghh, in XIJ,0i adud .~,iit M00 {ct170 uI hItg1).

TeNriAt* IPowStaX~on IsIac~ad onffeszU ieo( Ldc Am, toloa Cory, t eb~s*i t. 'nd fori:;scii ;,@n -g <';ircjf po;.i 5 Loe.

-* ad'FPl w nk lec~~V~r~ U10i.tondo$ oA2tO ~2X, 1hi hi). Inmdia, ii MMbigchis --tlbi the N*ThA brivd khbde NUREG 7 Supplement 7 . No r2 Pi*'h '_:iyFb~ih vd#e o. "b'.B Arso..

.. i ...ke.... ...............t~ a. e .u F.d Off. .1 .er.. .. eU.....

NURE-1 437, Supplement 7 E- November 2002

Appendix E K Maynd If you hav an..y cowmmnts or questlons.,Ptems otc AdrkwiJ. "Kulr S~*r Prict nagr, at (301) 415-2828.

-ILL Dod*t Nos. 60-2K. 60-2i. *d .8 ...

Ersdopam: As stated-,

P.Woullhi,.Jo.s'.enw, ChestOW~l ~Any FWeld0Mb 177-A4*Ti* Codvtii MOt Aruiqi MarIJ b1401 geeSeenw pogp SoPck:e MloL'P.o811Smo 1O OWML0226M

As*9drVpemftwW LhAs:--WILWPIOO3 GEd~sor Gown R Ennmn R/Pw AEKe(

EftkeNNL),

Saex u co DOCUMENT NAME G:IRG FWS-E&T spoc*pd I

November 2002 E-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7

Appendix E United States Departz4nt of the Interiori FISH AND W IDLX SERVICE Ecological Seces 6669 Sbort le Glocterl VA t301 May22,2002 Mr. Christopher Nuclear Rcgu ry Comrnission Division of egutatory Improvement Programs Office a ucler Reactor Regulation Wash gt D.C. 20SSS01 S Re: License Renewal for Surry

.T. - and North Ana Power Stations, Surry and Louisa Counties, Virginia Mr. Grimes:

bhc US. Fish and Wildlife Service (Scrvicc) has ur request for a list of federally ycvod listed or proposed endangered and threatened species nd designated critical habitat within the area under evaluation for the Surry and North Anna P wet Stations license renewal. This letter is submitted in accordance with provisions of thdie ngcred Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (87 Stat 884, as amended; 16 U.SC. 1531 ct seq.). At are lists of species with federal status and species of concern that have been documented or y occur in the counties where your project is located. These lists were prepared by this o and arm based on information obtained from previous surveys for rare and endangered speciae The Service would like to confirm that any further Se4ton 7 consultation necessary for this project, pursuant to the ESA, will be conducted by pesionnel of the Chesapeake Bay Field Office in Annapolis, Maryland.

Ityou have any questions or need further assistance, please contact Mr. Eric Davis of this office at (804) 693-6694, extension 104.

Sincerely.

-.t;aren L Mayno

~isnFold Office Enclosures November 2002 E-13 -- NUREG-1437, Supplement 7

Appendix E cc: USFWS. Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD (David Sutherland)

NUREG-1437. Supplement 7 E-14 November 2002

Appendix E SURRY COUNTY, VIRGINIA Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species

. L c A . . .

SC NTIFC - - --:; --COMMON.NAM STATU)S HLicDS -

Haliacctus leucocephalus' Bald eatle LT PLANTS Aeschynomene virginica - - Sensitive joint-vetch -.LT --- --

Species of Concern Speyeria diana ,. -. f, Diana fritillary G3 Stygobromus arseus : ;- Tidewater interstitial amphipod - G2 VAS RPLANTS Carex decomposita 'IEpiphyticsdege IG3-Chamaecrista fasciculaft var. macrosperma -M~ii senna: - 051'2 Desmodium ochrolcucurn Crainflower tick-trefoil G2G3 Rudbeckia beliopsidie Sun-facing coneflower 0,~ Trillium pusillum var. virginianum

vVirginia least trillium GuT2

'Nesting occurs in this county. concentrated shoreline use has been documented on the James River.

"Surveys needed within 5-miles of Prince George Cournty species location.

March 22. 1999 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office November 2002 E-1 5 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 i - .

Appendix E

. P ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY, VIRGINLIA Federaly LIted, Proposed, and Candidate Speces I COMMONNAMIR STATUS BIErPS Haliactus Icucocephalus Bald eagle LT Speceks of Concern INYERTEBRATES Cacdtes prata Phrafc ispd G1 Speyeria dian Diana fitillaiy G3 Stygobromus incus rTdwater nemtitial amphipod 02 Stygobrmus Wideau Tidewaternphipod - G2G3 NON-VA5CUIR pLT-k Sphagrnzn cyclophyllum Circular leaved peatmoss G3 Sphagmnun macrophytlhun var macrophylu Lago-leaf peanoss G3T3 VASCUL AR LTANTSr Came deconiposita, Epphytic sedge G3 ULises aestivalis' Poodspice G3 Trillitum pusillu va. virinanr Virginia least trillium 03T2

'Survey may be needed along the Blackwater River.

2 This species has been documented in an adjacent county ud may occur in this county.

May29, 2001 Prepared by US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1 437, Supplement i E-16 November 2002

Appendix E PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY, VIRGINIA Federaiy Listd, Proposed, ad Candidate Specks CQMN NAM~

BlRDS Hliseetus eucocepb au,; Bald eagle LT VASCULfAR PLAN Achyorme virgi *ac Sensitivejoint-vech ,.LT ;

. i- -, i 0, :;. :. - .-\ _

Spe of C, c,on.

': Spedli o( Conr Speyeia diana Diana fritillry G3 VA-SWILAR RW Chamaccista fascicuta var. mamosprma 'Mm 'h'enna GST2 Rudeckia beliopsidis Stm-facing conewer 2 Trillium pusilliim var. virginiamum t Viigjt least trillium ; `.G3T2 .:

r ^--.1... .

'Nesting occurs mn ts coity; conccrt~en d shoreline usc has been docmmented on the James River. ' :. - -

2 This species has been documented in an adjacent couy and nay occu in this county.

March22, 1999 Prepd byUS. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Field Office November 2002 E-17 NUREG1437, Supp!ement 7

I n -

Appendix E CHARLES CTY COUNTY, VIRGIIA Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species COMMOQtN STA3=

Haliaeetus leucocephalusk Bald eagle LT VASCLA PAT Aeschyomene virgWnica Sensitive joint-vctch LT Helonias bullaW Swap 'pink' -' LT bsotai medeololdes2 Small whoded pogonia LT Specks of Coe INVERTEBRATES Speyria tiana Diana fritillary G3 VAIRCTIA TI Chamabcrista fasciculata var. macrperma Mirwls-na GST2 Eriocaunon parked Parker's pipcwort G3 Jucus caesarensis New Jersey nsh 02 Nuphar sagittifolia Nalrow-leaved spatterdock G5TZ13 Trillium pusillum var. virginianun Virginia least trillium G3T2

'Nesting occurs in this county, concentrated xhoeLn use has been document on the James Rivcr.

2This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county.

May29, 2001 Prepaed by US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Officc NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-18 November 2002

Appendix E CMIY OF SUFFOLK4 VIRGINIA Federafly Listed, Proosd, ad Ca didate Spci SCMNTFICNAME COMMONN STATUS~

Haliaetu leucocephalus Bald eagic LT Specks orCor I :e 4 :

Disr.1 u=SwaiipV &fensink bug 02 Speyeria di"n IDira fritiltIay 03 Stygobroinus aractis Tideate inerditial anwphipod 02 Stygobroaius indceltatus t idewattrunmpipod I 0203 NQN-VASCUlLAR&AMh Sphagtnzn carolialnumn f.. o m pe.Is G3

! Eriocaulon parkeri Parker's pipewort G3 Gentlazna astumnalis Pine-bum genian G3 Litsea aestivalis' Pondspice 03 Rhynchosorapallida Pale beaknusb .G3 Trillium pusillum var. virginanum Wigiria Ind tim G3T2

'Swvey may be needed along the Blackwater River.

Febuary 28, 2000 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Srvcer , Virginia Field Office, . .;

- .4.. . .4.. . . .

November 2002 .E-19 NUREG-1437. Supplement 7 GIk-.

Appendix E CrrY OF CHESAPEAE, VIRGINq -

Federally Listed, Proposed, &adCandidate Species SCrENTPICNMM COMMONMA STATUS None listed Species of Concera

INMIREBRAM Euaphyes dukcesi Scarce swamp supper G3 Pseudopolydesmus paludicolous A millipede GI Stygobromnus araeus Tidewater interstitial amnphipod G2 NON-V~ LAR& P Sphagnum macrphylumn var. macrophyllwn Lrge-lkafpeatnoss G3T3 VASCULARPLA S Trillium pusillum var. virginianum V i i: last trilliuw 03T2 May 29,2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-20 November 2002

Appendix E CITY OF NEWPORTNEWS,VIGIA Federay Listed, Prposed, ad Candidate Species i- MM,,,

AME .TATUS Haliactus leucoceplalus Bald eagle LT Species orConcena None documented August26, 1999 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servici, yiroria Field Office Nomvember 2002 E-21 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7

Appendix E LOUISA COUNTY, VIRGINI .

Federlly Lsted, Proposed, and Candiate Speces SCITNMIC NAM COMMONNAME Q SiTAUS-R8ff=EDBRATIE Alasmidoota heterodon Dwarf wedganusa LM Speces of Concern Elliptio srcbolids Yellow Iac G3 Lasinigona subviridis Groe floater G3 Febnxary 8, 2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildilfe Service, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-22 November 2002

Appendix E tANOVER COUNTY, VIRGINIA Federaly Listed, }zposed, and Candidate Species SanRTMCNA ME NA STAfIIJ ams~

Haliacetus lcucocephalus Bald eagle LT Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel . LE - .-

VASCUTrAR PTA--'

Aschynoneney irgiical Sensitivejoint-vetch LT Isotria medeoloides' Small whortled pogonia LT I.,

Species 'o Cozieni DMRETEflRATES EHliptio lanceolata * -n i water b t G3 aI - gona subviridji Giiiflot~

GG3 Sigara depressa Virii Pmhnlont wter boamn VASCULRTA Ic a Chamaeccnsta fisckmkta ~~ var.

I .. ..

caos= Mars VA!W . GM,

'This species has been docuenwted in an adjacent county ad may occur in this county.

May 29, 2001 Prepared by US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office .,

November 2002 E-23 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7

r Appendix E POWATAN COUNTY, VIRGINI . :

Federally Lsted, Proposed, and Candidate Species COMMONNAME SIATUS Halisaetus lewcocephalus Bald eagle LT INFRTMERATPS Plrobaea coftina' James spinymussel LE Specis of Concern DWERTEBRATliS Lexingtonia subplana Viriia pigtoe GIQ VASCet LA PLANT Isot; p iomntn Piedont quillwort 03

'This species has boee do ted in an adacent cotmty and may occu ir this cotmty.

Fdeuary 8, 2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-24 November 2002

Appendix E HENRXCO COUNTY, VIRGINIA Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Speies STATUS I t.' I ", '"-

nBnRDS Haliseetus leucocephalus' - Bald eagle LT VASCUAR~L~I Aeschynomee virginicat Scusitive joint-vetch LT Helonias bullata Swamp pi8 Pink' LT Isotria medeoloides3 Small whorled pogotia. LT SI e . ;e C ; c.. er .,: .

-"Spece ofCoocesro Fusconala masoni Atlantic pigtoc 02 VASCULRPAI Cbamaccrista fasciculati va. s MA seana' GST2 - -

Juncus caesariensis NiWJersey nish G2 Trillium pusillum var. virginianum Virgnia least trillium G3T2

'Nesting occurs in this county concentrated shoreline use has been documented on the James River.

qThis species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county.

I-Ts species has been documented In a adjcent county and may occur in this county east of May 29,2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Service-,Yiginia Ficld Office . .. , - . . -.

November 2002 E-25 NUREG-1437, Supplement 7

if Appendix E CHESTERFIELD COUNTY, VIRGINIA Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species SCLENCHAME COMMONNAME STATUS Haliaeetus leucocephalus' Bald eagle LT INVRTEBRATS Alasrnidonta heterodon2 Dwarf wedgemussel LE VASCULAR PLANTS Aeschynomene virginica Sensitivejoint-vetch LT Rhus michauxiii Michaux's sumac LE Species of Concern INVERTEBRTES Elliptio lanceolsta Yellow lance G3.

Speyeria diana Diani fiitillazy G3 VASCULARPLAlTS Chanaccrista fasciculata var. macrosperma Marsh senna Desmodium ochroleucuun Creamflower tick-trefoil G2G3 Trillium pusillum var virginianum Virginia least trillium G3T2

'Nesting occurs in this county, concentrated shoreline use has been documented on the lames River.

2 lhis species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county.

May 29 2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Virginia Field Office NUREG-1 437, Supplement 7 E-26 November 2002

Appendix E SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY, VIRGINIA FederaUy Lited, Proposed, and Candidate Speces SCEENI CNAMI CMMON HAM STATUS~

INVlERTERRAThS Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel ILE Isotria medooloides Small whorled pogonia LT

- . r "Species ofc Cocr MINERTEBRE Elliptio lancoolata Yellow lance G3 Lasmuigona vubviridis Green floater G3 Sigara depressa Virginia Piedmont water boatmen GIG3 Speycria idalia ' 'Regal fifr G3 Sphagnum carolinianum -' olina. pel, e.; mo- s G3 J-_- _' - - ! -

" :. I . '

, I I .

,:;I I

. -.-. ; I .

. . . .t

-, " ...1 ~ ..

I.

April 5, 2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlire Service, Virginia Field Office November 2002 E-27 NUREGA 437, Supplement 7 t7 _.-

Appendix E CAROLINE COUNTY, VIRGINLk Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Speces SCNTIPICNAM COMMONNAME SIAMl1S BIletDS -

Haliace leucooephahus' Bald eagle LT VASC PLANTI Aeschynomcne virginica2 Sensitivejoint-vetch LT Helonias bullata Swamp pink LT Isotria medeoloides Small whorled pogonia LT Specles of Concern Aimophila acstivalis Bachman's sparrow G3 Sigara depressa Viria'ptediont water boatman GIG3 Stygobromus indentatus Tidewater amphipod G2G3 Chamaecrista fascicu6Ita var. marsai!Mrhs2 Mrsh senn

.macrosperma Gom Desmodium ochrolucuim Cretanflower tick-tfrbil G2G3 Eriocaulan paskezi Pakers pipwot 03 Jumcus caceariesis New Jerseynrsh 02 Sabatia keamedyana Plymouth gentian G3

'Nesting occurs in this county; concentrated shorcline use has been documented on the Rappahannock River.

2 Th"s species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county.

May29.2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1 437. Supplement 7 E-28 November 2002

Appendix E ORANGE COUNTY, VIRGIUA Federally Lusted, Pimo And Candidate Speces SACC N STATUS None documented Specks of Comee ,

lNPVATP

E4tipo anceotwa Yellow ltece G3 L;smigona mubviridis Gree FIater G3 Speycia idWUi Regal firitillary G3 March22. 1999 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlie Scevic, Virinl Field Office November 2002 E-29 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 7

Appendix E CULPEPER COUNTY, VIRGINA . .

Federaly Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Species SCNECFr NAME CObSMQNAM stAnTs Haliacetus leucocephalus Bald eagle LT aMidRTEBRAT o Alasidonta hetcrodon' Dwarf'wedgetnussel LE Species of Concern Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance G3 LAsmigona subviridis Green floater 03 YASCLAR PcLAt Aglnis euiculatiz Earleaf foxglove G3

'This species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in Whis coumty.

May 29,2001 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Sevice, Virginia Field Office NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-30 November 2002

Appendix E FAUQUIER COUNT, VIRGINIA Federaly Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Speces I "" ' ' + .^. ' !;. :

SCCNC hl . I O : INE: -

SCMNErICNAMF .",". AE STATUS I . . - .......

Hal isectus leucocepbalus Bald eagle LT warf w -ms*

Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarfwedgernsel LE Species of Concern 114VERTEBRA Eliptio lancolat Yellow lance G3 Lmasiigona subviridis Grewn floater G3 Speyeria idalia Regal fiitillary G3 Stygobromus spinosus Blue Ridge Mountain anphipod 02G3 Agalinis auriculata' BEarleaf foglove G3 Carez pobunoipha Variable sedge G2G3 Care= schwveiniftI' Schweinitz's sedge 03 Poapaludigena Bog bluegrass G3 Pycuanthemum torret Torrey's mountain-mint 02 lThis species has been documented in an adjacent county and may occur in this county.

May 29,2001 Prepared by US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virginia Field Officc November 2002 E-31 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 7 iv . . ., ..I . I -

of Appendix E CiTY OF HOPEWILL, VIRGINIA

.Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Speces SCHaIa CNeAM COMMONBleg SITAUS M~iaeeU laucoccphalus Bald eage LT May2l,2002 Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Virgnia Field Office NUREG-1437, Supplement 7 E-32 November 2002

Z,1111Tl A - . I 11 I I . :,

. . . - . I I : I - I . II, . . . .

" I March 14,2002 Mr. John P. Woiin, Supervisor Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401 .. ' .- -

Dear Mr. WoMin:

In letters dated October 26 and November 15, 2001, you provided comments to the'Nuclear Regulatory Comnnission (NRC) regarding the North Anna and Surry Power Stations, respectively. .The letters were In response to our request for comments on the scope of our':'-

environmental review of the application by Virginia Electric and Power Comparn (VEPCo, the licensee) for renewal of the operating licenses for the nuclear plants at these two'stations. You also requested copies of 'some documents to assist you In your review of VEPCo's application.

These documents are listed In: Enclosure 1. Ail of the requested documents are provided as enclosures to this letter.'.

The NRC staff appreciates the efforts of iIFWS In providing comments on the soope'of these' reviews. Our responses to the comments are: provided in Enckosure'2.' We discussed the -

responses in general terms with David Sutherland of.your staff in a telephone call on' December-20, 2001. We look forward to worldng with you'as these reviews progress and are adding you to the service lists for documents associated with the North Anna and Surry Power Stations environmental reviews. Through these lists you will receive copies of pertinent'NRC'-

documents, including the draft supplemental environmental Impact statements (SEISs)'when they are issued. The current schedule calls for the draft SEISs for Surry and North Anna Power' Stations to be published In April and May 2002, 'respectively. We are also discussing the

possibility of David Sutherland meeting with us at the sites during our review. If you'Have any questions, please contact Andy Kugler of my staff at (301) 415-2828.. -

Sincerely, ' -

Original Signed By: CiGrimes Christopher I. Grimes, Program Director License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

. - Z, : : "' , : t- I- I .. I Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281, S0-338, and 50'339 - 7 . - -

I F

Enclosure:

As stated . , , , 1 1 :.4 %) '. ". . , . - , I I . I co w/encl: see next page ., I-- I.. - , . - i. I -

. I.' - : 1 i I

I. ..

. .1 k . . I 3

It March 14,2002 Mr. John P.Wolflin, Supervisor Chesapeake Bay Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 177 Admiral Cochrane Drive Annapolis, Maryland 21401

Dear Mr. Wofflin:

In letters dated October 26 and November 15, 2001, you provided comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regarding the North Anna and Sury Power Stations,-

respectively. The letters were In response to our request for comments on the scope of our'.

environmental review of the application by Virginia Electric and Power Company (VEPCo, the -

licensee) for renewal of the operating licenses for the nuclear plants at these two stations. You also requested copies of some documents to assist you In your review of VEPCo's application.

These documents are listed in Enclosure 1. All of the requested documents are provided as enclosures to this letter.

The NRC staff appreciates the efforts of FWS In providing comments on the scope of these reviews. Our responses to the comments are provided in Enclosure 2. We discussed the responses in general terms with David Sutherland of your staff in a telephone'call on December 20, 2001. We look forward to working with you as these reviews progress and are adding you to the service lists for documents, associated with the North Anna and Surry Power Stations environmental reviews. Through these lists you will receive copies of pertinent NRC documents, including the draft supplemental environmental impact statements (SEISs) when they are Issued. The current schedule calls for the draft SEISs for Surry and North Anna Power Stations to be published in Apriland'May 2002, respectively. We are also discussing the possibility of David Sutherland meeting with us at the sites during our review. If you have any questions, please contact Andy Kugler of my staff at (301) 415-2828.'

Sincerely, OdgInal Signed By: CIGrimes Christopher I. Grimes, Program Director Ucense Renewal and Environmental Impacts Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-280, 50-281, 50-338, and 50-339

Enclosure:

As stated cc w/encl: see next page DISTRIBUTION: See next page for Accession numbers Environmental r/f DMatthews/FGillesple JTappert CGrimes AKugler l RPrato OGC EHickey (PNNL) RIDSRGN2MAILCENTER

See previous concurrence Document Name:G-:\Rgeb\North Anna-Surry\North Ana\Aquatid\NAPS&SPS FWS Resp.wpd OFFICE PM:RLEP SC:RLEP OGC CCRLEP NAME AKugler JTappert SBrock* CGrimes DATE 03/14/02 03/14/02 03/14/02 03114/02 OFFICIAL FILE COPY

- Accession nos.:

1. Ltr. toJ. Wolfin, w/eficl(s) 1, 2. ML0207404981'

a. Encs 1: Documents Reqested bytheVUSFisii' & Wildlife Services for the Review of the Surry & No. Anna Ucense Renewal Applications'" - '

b. End 2: NRC Responses to US Fish & Wildlife Service Scoping Comments on the No.

Anna License Renewal Applications

2. Pkg. : Comments to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Re: No. Anna and Surry Power Stations: ML020230063!

a. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and th6 Lower No. Anna:River,rAnnual :Report for 1988 (Prepared by: Environmental Biology, Environmental Policy & Compliance:

ML020230033

b. Surry Power Station, Units I and 2 Cooling Water Intake Studies- Environmental Services Dept. VA Electric & Power C6.'POB 2666,' Richrmond, VA.; November, 1980:

ML020230042

c. Appendices and Tables: ML020230056

d. File: VP0430 Fish Passage Study;No. t Anna Hydroelectric Project- Ltr. to: Robert D.

Kelsey, US Fish & Wildlife Svc.: ML020230069

e. Ltr. to Richard N. Burton, Exec. Dir. State Water Control Board- w/encl. Final Report on, the No. Anna Section (316(a) Demonstration...: ML020230087

f. Ltr. to Richard N. Burton, Exec. Dir. State Water Control Board- w/encl. Final Report on the No. Anna Section (316(a) Demonstration... (pages 167-342): ML020230092 ;

g. Ltr. to Richard N. Burton, Exec. Dir. State Water Control Board- w/encl. Final Report on the No. Anna Section (316(a) Demonstration... (pages. 343-App. Page x):

ML020230105 .. . -

h. Environmental Study of Lake Anna and the Lower No. Anna river - Annual Report for K> 1999- Prepared by Environmental Biology, Envir Policy and..;: ML020230115

VI DOCUMENTS REQUESTED BY THE U.S. FISH'AND WILDLIFE SERVICE FOR THE REVIEW OF THE SURRY AND NORTH ANNA POWER STATIONS LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS NOTE The parenthetical statements in this list represent clarifications based on a telephone conversation with David Sutherland of FWS on December 6, 2001.

Surry Power Station

3. Most recent fish entrainment and impingement studies (the 316(b) study)

4. Design information on the Ristroph traveling screens (this information exists in the 316(b) study)

5. Reference 3.1-9, a 2001 email from J.E. Olney to J. White 1 North Anna Power Station

j. VPDES permit

2. Most recent fisheries study2 (annual report to Virginia Department of Environmental Quality orVDEQ)

3. Waste Heat Treatment Facility study (included In the 316(a) study)

4. North Anna River Ecosystem study (included in the annual report to VDEQ)

5. 316(a) study

6. North Anna dam fish passage studies, 1986-1988

7. Annual reports to VDEQ on water temperatures and fisheries monitoring in Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River (two most recent reports), with particular interest in August 1983 (recent data Is In the annual report to VDEQ, the 1983 data is in the 316(a) study; see Table 3.5-3, Monitoring Station NALST1 0)

ENCLOSURE 1

NRC RESPONSES TO U.S. FISH AND WILDUFE SERVICE SCOPING COMMENTS ON THE SURRY AND NORTH ANNA UCENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS General Response The NRC staff is in the'process of developing environmental impact statements (EISs) for the renewal of the North Anna and Surry Power Stations licenses. Your comments will be considered in our evaluation of the environmental issues. The ElSs will be plant-specific I1Psupplements to the staff's Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of, Nuclear PowerPlants (GEIS), NUREG-1437. The findings in the GEIS are also codified in 10 CFR Part 51. We have provided a copy of the GEIS to Mr. David Sutherland of the U.S; Fish"'

and Wildlife (FWS) staff. -

The GEIS (and its Addendum 1), which'went through a public comment process, identifies 92 ':

environmental Issues related to license renewal for nuclear plants. It reaches generic - -

conclusions related to environmental impacts for 69 of these issues that apply to all plants or to plants with specific design"or site characteristics. The "hard look' at these 69 Issues occurred at the time the'GEIS was prepared. The NRC staff does not perform detailed plant-specific reviews for these 69 issues (referred to as Category 1) when it develops a 'subplement to the t -

GEIS. Rather, the staff determines for each of theseissues whether there is any new and -

significant information related to that plant that'would affect the finding Inthe GElS. If the staff does not find any new and significant information; then it relies on the finding Inthe GEIS. -The staff also determines whether there are any issues not evaluated in'the GEIS that must be, addressed for the plant. In addition, plant-specific reviews are performed for any of the K.> remaining 23 issues (referred to as Category 2, or in two'cases, Uncategorized) that are -'

applicable to a given plant. License renewal applicants are required to address these Issues In' an environmental report that must be included in their application. The results of the staff review of these issues are included in supplements to the GEIS (SEISs) for each plant reviewed.

Thus, any specific new and significant information provided to the NRC concemring any potential' environmental impacts as a consequence of continued operation of North Anna and Surry

Power Stations would be considered in the preparation of the associated SEIS.

The Commission has adopted the following statement of purpose and need for license renewal from the GEIS:

The purpose and need forthe proposed action;(renewal of an operating license)is to provide an option that allows for power generation capability beyorid the term of a current nuclear power plant operating licerise to meet future system'generating needs,-

as such needs may be determined by State, utility,`and,'Where authorized, Federal (other than NRC) decisionmakers.

The goal of the staffs environmental review, as defined in 10 CFR 51 .95(c)(4) and the GEIS, is to-.determine --X -- lEth . -- a- ,-,

"... whether or not the adverse-environmnental Impacts of license renewal are so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. ' - -

, ENCLOSURE 2..,.:.

I M_

North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

Fisheries Issues FWS Comment: Page 2-2 The Service is concerned with the impacts to fish and aquatic vegetation (Issue # 3 &19) associated with the structures described as, "Inaddition to the two nuclear reactors, their turbine building, intake structure, discharge canal, and auxiliary buildings." Our concerns also include the impacts of dams on the passage and distribution of

:fish and mussel species.

. NRC staff response: The impacts to fish and aquatic vegetation as a consequence of the construction of the dam and plant facilities occurred at the times of those actions, were addressed at that time in accordance with then-applicable law, and are not within the scope of the SEIS for license renewal. Licensing for the dam and the hydroelectric unit is not within the regulatory authority of the NRC.

Issue #3 (altered current patterns at intake and discharge structures) and # 19 (distribution of aquatic organisms) were evaluated in the GEIS as Category 1 issues (see sections 4.2.1.2.1

E~and 4.2.2;1.6 of the GEIS). As part of the environmental scoping process, the staff is reviewing

.-available environmental documentation from Dominion and other sources, to determine ifnew and significant information may impact the conclusions made in the GEIS. IfFWS provides any specific new and significant information concerning these two issues, such information will be considered during the preparation of the SEIS.

With respect to the North Anna Dam, the staff has concluded that the environmental impacts of the continued operation of the dam and its hydroelectric units are outside the scope of the current proposed action (renewal of the operating licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2). The staff's conclusion is based on the following:

1. Whether the NRC renews the operating licenses for North Anna Units 1 and 2 or not will have no effect on the dam (i.e., the NRC licensing action does not include the dam)

2. The dam serves purposes in addition to supplying cooling water for North Anna Power Station

(e.g., downstream flow control, maintaining lake level for homeowners and recreational users).

Therefore, the staff does not intend to evaluate any impacts associated with the continued operation of the dam Inthe SEIS. However, in the interest of furthering the NEPA objective of informing, the staff will include information about the environmental impacts of dam operation In the SEIS. In addition, the staff will contact Dominion, as the owner of the dam, and ensure that they are aware of your concerns.

FWS Comment: P. 2-8 What is your reference for a healthy fish population stated in, "Reservoirs like Lake Anna with healthy populations of 'landlocked" small shad and herring (Lake Anna has both threadfin shad (Dorosomapetenense) and blueback herring (Alosa aestivalis)), are often dominated by small-bodied zooplankters (rotifers and copepods), because larger-bodied forms are selectively preyed upon by schooling clupeids (Ref. 2.2-1 1)."

NRC staff response: This comment is not entirely clear to us. Ifthe question is 'what is the

reference that Lake Anna has a healthy population of landlocked small shad and herring," 'then the various annual enviionmental reports froM' Dbrnini6on,'as well as the 316(a) determination, provide the basis for a conclusion. Ifthe question is what is the reference that large-bodied zooplankton is selectively, preyed upon by schoolifig`clupeids," then Brooks and Dodson, 1965,

-Science 150:28-35,'Predaton, Body'Size, and'Composition of Plankton,' provides a'basis for the conclusion' In either case, the staff is reviewing the information provided by the licensee and other sources. In addition, the copies of the licensee's fisheries monitoring information we are providing may answer this question.

V.WS Commentou account for the reduction in abundance of yellow

.;perch, black crappie, pumpkinseed sunfish and an Increase in 'other species of fishas stated in "The community structure remained relatively stable over the 1975-1985 period, with some 6 year-to-year variation Inspecies composition caused by. (1) normal populationifluctuations; (2) reservoir aging; (3) the introduction of forage species and competing predators; (4) the Installation of fish attractors and artificial habitat;'and (5) the increase in. Corbiculadensities.

Post-1 975 changes included: (1) a decline Inrelative abundance of yellow perch (Parca

.flavescens) and black crappie (Promoxis nlgromaculatus); (2) an Increase Inrelative abundance of white perch (Morone americana) and threadfin shad [Dorosomapetenense]; and (3) an

-increase in redear sunfish (Leponis mlcrolophus)abundance,with a correspbndirig decrease In' pumpkinseed (Lepomrig gibbosus).sNore of thes'e changes appeared to be related to NAPS

-operation." - -:; - -. + -

NRC staff response: Full ponid for Lake Ainha was achieved In late" 1973. Community changes' during the first years of the lake'seisterice weeexpectd. None of these changes are-related to pumping and discharge of heated water at North Anna Power Station because Unit 1 did not"'

-.achieve commercial operation until 1978. 'Thie reduction In abundance of some fish species and the increase in abundance ofoperation others during this time'are related to the' impoundment of Lake..

Anna. The construction and constrctionthe of to create Lake AnnLaaesep is aseparate activity and da 6&ea is not within the scope of the SEIS for relice'nsliriof the nuclear plants, as discussed previously.

In addition, the copies of the licensee's fisheries monitoring Information we are providing may answer this question. ' * -

FWS Comment: Page 2-10 There 'continues to be disagreement between the scientific community as to the historical rangeqof aihadrcious fish spawning habitat in the North Anna River. American shad, hickory shad, blueback herring, sea lamprey,'and Armerican eel are reported to migrate to the base of the Ashland Mill Dam bn the South Anna River. The VEPCo report states, "Four non-native fish species'-(striped bass, walleye,"threadfin shad, and blueback herring) have been stocked In Lake Anna by the Virginia Department of Game & Inland

. Fisheries since 1972. . Striped bass were introduced in 1973,' and have been stocked annually:'

sInce 1975. They provide a put row-and-takef fishery;'streams; including the North Anna River that flow Into Lake Anna lack the flow, depth; and length to support striped bass 'spawning runs.'

Studies show that striped bass grow anid provlde'a'substantial recreational fishery in Lake Anna,:

but adults are subject to late-summer habltat'restrictions'(lrlited to cooler-Water refuge areas) -

and growth limitations. Walleye'are 'also st66ked 'annually by the Virginia Department of Game &

Inland Fisheries and are highly sought-after'game filsh:.Threadfin shad were Introduced in 1983' to provide additional forage for striped bass and other top-of-the-food-chain predators. This species is vulnerable to cold shock and winter kills, and would not be able to survive In Lake Anna if it were'not for NAPS operation. Thrdfln shad appear to be'thrivirig In ake Anna and

I it are an important source of food for game fish: Blueback herring,- fish stocked by the Virginia Department of Gamiie & Inland Fisheries In 1980 as 'af6rage'species, have not been as

'successful. A fifth non-native species, the herbivorous grass ca'rp, was' stocked by Dominion (with the approval of the Virginia Department of Game & Inland Fislieries) in'the WHTF [Waste Heat Treatment Facility] in 1994 to control, growth of the nuisance submersed 'aquatic plant' hydrilla (Hydrilla verticillata)."

NRC staff response: This comment is noted. We agree with your comment that the precise

. historical range of anadromous species in the York River drainage is not known. If the intent is

,ito indicate that striped bass, walleye, threadfin shad, and blueback herring may be native (as

'. .'. opposed to non-native), the staff can'acknowlbdge this disagreem'ent in the text of the SEIS.

However, In its 1973 FES for the 'continuation of construction and the operation of Units 1 and 2, the AEC staff did not find these species to be present In the North Anna River. In any event, as discussed previously, the staff does n6t consider the irnpacts'of the construction and continuing operation of the dam to. be within the scope of the 'current proposed action and they will not be evaluated in the SEIS.

- FWS Comment: Page 2-11 The water flow in the North Anna River System changed drastically after the Impoundment was created. The reduction in river flow from Lake Anna during the Spring spawning migration may limit the range of anadromous and riverine species of -

fish in the river. The report describes the river as, "The North Anna River joins the South Anna River 23 miles downstream from the North Anna Dam, forming the Pamunkey River. Before.

1972, when the river.was impounded, flows varied considerably (1 to 24,000 cfs) from year to year and water quality was degraded by acid mine drainage from Contrary Creek. 'After 1972, fluctuations in flow were moderated (40 to 16,000 cfs from'1972 through, 1985) and'water quality was improved as a result of reclamation activities at the Contrary Creek mine site and the acid-neutralizing effect ofiLake Anra's waters. Water'qu'ality downstream'from the North Anna Dam is strongly influenced by conditions in the res6rvoir and releases at the Dam. Water moving from Lake Anna to the North Anna River Is less turbid and more chemnically stable than the pre-impoundment flow. Dissolved oxygen levels are high (averaging 9.6 milligrams per liter' over the 1981-1985 period) Immediately downstream of the Dam and Increase further

downstream, presumably as a result of turbulent mixing (Ref. 2.2-3). Summer water temperatures from, 1970-1985 were higher near the Dam than downstream, reflecting temperatures in the reservoir. The highest water temperature recorded in pre-operational'years was 89.40 F In July 1977, ata station one kilometer below the North Anna Dam. ,The highest temperature recorded in operational years was slightly higher, 90.90F, 'recorded in August 1983 at the same station." Each of these flow related impacts warrant additional river flow study.

NRC staff response: As previously stated, the scope of the current review Is limited to potential impacts associated with the continued operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2. Impacts associated with'the construction of the dam and North Anna Power Station, and the continued operation 'of the'darn, are beyond the scope of the current review. The impacts of lake currents, and temperature regimes on the fish communitywere evaluated as part'of the 316(a)

demonstration and current conditions are permitted by the Commonwealth of Virginla.. In addition, impacts' from heat shock as a result of the plants' discharge is evaluated in the SEIS.

FWS Comment: Page 3-15 The Service believes the North Anna Hydroelectric project and the dam may be causing significant Impacts to the North Anna River and the results from earlier'

studies should be reevaluated. The report states, "An exemption from licensing (Ref. 3.6-1) was filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Comnmissin '(FERC) In March 1984; an order granting -

the exemption was issued in' September , 984.'As part of the exemption from licensing by, FERC, the U.S.' Fish and Wildlife Se'rvice requested that Dominiorn perform pre-operational and.

operational fish passage studies to evaluate the6 need'forintake screening. Studies were.

conducted in 1986, 1987, and 1988 (Ref. 3.'I3).Results of these studies indicated thatthe t YteeNthu sin 'ieresuisidcae htte number of fish passing from Lake Anna to h6"Noth-Anna Rive-r was minimal (Ref. 3.5-4).';

NRC staff response As previously stated, 'ie scopeof the current review is limited to

.Y potential impacts associated with the continued operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2. Impacts i associated with the construction of the dam and North Anna Power Station, and the continued

.'*operation of the dam are beyond the scope of the current review. - -

, ., -. ,. 4 in. a{ k- -e ,, . ' sr, , v. . ,. ,- , . . ,

FWS Comnment: Page 4-6 The Service isconcemned with impacts from entrainment of fish and shellfish In early life stages that occur at most power plants. In light of fish passage measures' that may be prescribed to mitigate the'se Impacts, this issue should be evaluated for the current',

and post restoration fish' community: The report'stats,' "Section 316(b) of the CWA requires that any standard established pursuant to Sections'301 'or 306 of the CWA shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impacts (33 USC 1326). Entrainment

'1hrough the condenser cooling system of fish and shellfish in the early life stages Is one of the '

adverse environmental Impacts that the best technology available minimizes. Virginia State Water Control Board regulationsp'rovide that compliance with a Virginia Pollutant Discharge, Elimination System (VPDES) permit constitutes compliance with Sections 301 and 306 of the CWA (Ref. 4.2-1). In response to Board requirerments,' Dominion submitted a CWA Section,'

.316(b) demonstration for NAPS in'May 1985 (Ref. 42-2). Based on this and other input, the Board Issued the NAPS VPDES 'p-erm'it (AppendixB3).- Issuance of the NAPS VPDES permite indicates the Board's conclusion that NAPS, Isboperating in'conformance'with the permit, would be in compliance 'with the CWA require iientsi(Commonwealth of Virginia 2001). Dominion" concludes that the Commonwealth regulation and the NAPS VPDES permit constitute the NAPS CWA 316(b) determination. Dorinlion 'alsioconcludes that any environmental impact from; entrainment of fish and shellfish ii'early l'fe stages is snall and does not'require further mitigation."- ; ;_i,,)';, , , ,'- ' - .-

NRC staff response: The staff Is 'not clear about what FWS means by "current and post-restoration fish crmmunity". In the abo6V rhm'rtrt' As'the citation above indicates, Dominion has conducted a 316(b) dernionstratiin,'and has indicated that it is In compliance with CWA requirements. Annual monitoring of the upper trophic level fish community is conducted by Dominion'. Significat changes in'this'community:could suggest the need to re-evaluate '

entrainment and impingement studies.4 The'staff will review these studies as part of Its preparation of the SEIS' The staff isparticu ly'inteested in any specific Information FWS may have concerning these issues. -, -. '- -' -

' 1 .' ' i, . .

FWS Comment: Pageq4-8 The Sernice agrees with the NRC that concludes that impingement of fish and shellfish is a significant issu67.";NRC'rhade9Impacts on fish and shellfish'resources

resulting from Impingement a Catego'ry'2 issue because it could not assign a single significance'

. level to the Issue.". The Service believes the Impa'cts will likely require mitigation; The report

> states, "npinge'm'rit Impacts are smnall at many;p ants, but might be moderate or large at other.-

it plants (Ref. 4.0-1, Section 4.2.2.1.3). Information to be ascertained lncludes- (1) type of cooling system (whether onc-through or cooling 'pond),' and (2) current CWA 316(b) determination or equivalent state documentation. As Section 3.12 describes, NAPS has a once-through heat dissipation system. Section 4.2 discusses the CWA 316(b'demonstration for NAPS, indicating compliance with the use of best available technology. Section 2.5 also states that no federally-or state listed fish species have been collected in any monitoring studies, nor has any listed species been observed in creel surveys conducted by Dominion biologists and affiliated researchers. Based on the results of the CWA 316(b) Demonstration, Dominion concludes that

'this environmental impact is small and does not require further mitigation."

NRC staff response: As FWS notes, Dominion has conducted a'316(b) demonstration, and is in compliance with CWA requirements' (Virginia Department of Environmental Quality Permit No.

VA0052451, Authorization to DischargeUnderthe Virginia PollutantDischargeElimination System and the Wrginla State Water ControlLaw). Annual monitoring of the upper trophio level fish community is conducted by Dominion. Significant changes In this community could suggest the need to re-evaluate entrainment'and impingement studies. The staff will -review these

-studies as part of its preparation of the SEIS. The staff is particularly interested in any specific information FWS may have 'concerning these issues.

Cooling and Auxiliary Water Systems T WS Comment: Page 2-6 The Service Is concemed with water quality and aquatic habitat.'

impacts from thermal discharges, the canal systems, and the Wste Heat Treatment Facilities (Issues #5, 18, & 44). The report described the conditions as, 'Since its creation, Lake Anria has developed Into a reservoir with three distinct ecological zones: Upper Lake, Mid-Lake, and Lower Lake. The Upper Lake is essentially riverine, shallow (average depth of 13 feet), and shows some evidence of stratification in summer. The Mid-Lake is deeper'and stratifies in

,summer. It receives waters from Contrary Creek that, because of 'years of mining in its floodplain, are sometimes low InpH and high in metals. As' noted earlier in this section, creation' of Lake'Anna has reduced the impacts of acid mine drainage on the North Anna River. The Lower Lake is deeper (average depth of 36 feet), clearer (with more light penetration), and

,.. shows pronounced annual patterns of winter mixing and summer stratification. The epilimnion (warm layer above the thermocline) was generally eight feet deep during pre-operational years, and 26 to 33 feet deep during operational years. The Increase In depth of the epilimnion appears to be related to the heated discharge entering the reservoir from Dike 3 (see Figure 3-

2) and the withdrawal of cooler, deeper water at the NAPS intake (Ref. 2.2-)."

NRC staff response: Impacts associated with the construction and Impoundment of the waste, heat treatment facilities and associated canals were considered under previous environmental documentation (1973 FES)'and are beyond the scope of the current SEIS.. As described in the 316(a) demonstration, the existence of three 'distinct ecological zones in Lake' Anna Is

associated with the inflow of tributary streams and Increasing water depth near the dam. These zones were present during pre-operational as well as post-operational monitoring, and as such, are primarily a consequence of the impoundment of Lake Anna, and are beyond the scope of the SEIS review. The 316(a) demonstration describes the increase in depth of the epilimnfon0, which appears to be related to the discharge of heated water from the waste heat treatment facility into Lake Anna., In the 316(a) demonstration, Dominion' concluded the thermal discharges were not detrimental to the stability of the aquatic community, and North Anna Units I 1 and 2 are in compliance with the CWA. Dominion continues to monitor the upper trophic level

fish community on an annual basis. These studies will be cited Inthe SEIS. The GEIS concluded the potential Impact of therial' tratificatiri (issue #5), eutrophication (Issue #8) and- :

thermal plumne barriers to migrating fish '(issue'#1 8) to be small (GElS sections 4.2.1.2.3 and

-42.2.1.6). The staff is Interested in any new and significant information the Service may have'

.;concerning these Category 1Issues, and will 6cosideir such information in the preparaton of the' SEIS. r - i ;! . ! ... :<.

';,-FWS Comment: Page 2-7 The VEPCo report conitinues to describe adverse thermal effect on

,aquatic organisms, "Results of Lake Anna temperature monitoring indicate that the shallower Upper Lake' wammis earlier in'spring and 'reaches iTimurn temperature in summer sooner than

.-the Lower Lake. The Lower Lake, with its g-re'ater d6pth and volu-me, w'arms more slowly in

spring and retains its heat later Inthe yeir. It isTestimnated that the heat contributed by NAPS corresponds to about 10 percent of the'solar h6it that enters the reservoir on summer days (Ref. 2.2-3). ;: . .. 'a0 NRC staff response: The 3PI6(a)'der onstrat on describes the thermal effect of North Anna Units I and 2 operation on the temperaturie disirlbkition. 'However, the 316(a) demonstration concluded this temperature distribution did not have'an'adverse effect on the Lake Anna aquatic' community. In addition,'although the thermial contibution of North Anna Units I and 2 to Lake Anna corresponds to about 10%of the solarheat th6at enters'the reservoir, the primary reason forthe described temperature distribution isassciated with water depth, and is thus related to "the impoundment of Lake Anna.' Theupper lake is shallower, with less water volume than the

lower lake. The staff is Interested in a'ny specific information FWS may have concerning these issues and will consider such inforrmation in the'p'reparationdof the SE1S. '

zA:'s FWS Comment: Page 2-7 The Service would like to review the water temperature ranges from the report uDominionts Environmental Policy & Comp iance-Environ ental Biology group submits annual reports to the Virginia Departmrnet of Environmrental Qualityon water temperatures and fisheries m'onitoring In Lake Anna and the Lower North Anna River."

Specifically, the water'temiperature data frornthi month of August, 1983, when the mean water temperature was greater than 88,F (Table 46). <:

NRC staff response: These data are6ontained Inthe 316(a) demonstration, which Is enclosed'

with this letter for FWS review4.': .1 ' : 2 . '-'.: , .' .'.

- ' ' - "' ' ;' -i -,' - +_

+*S > _ ' . - - ,

FWS Comment: Page 4-9 As the NRC states, the Service believes heat shock impacts are importarit and need to be mitigated to the fullest extent possible. The report states, gNRC made impacts on fish and shellfish resources resu tirg from heat shock a Category 2 issue, because of continuing concerns about thermal discharge effects and the possible need to'modify thermal discharges In the future in response to changing environmental conditions (Ref. 4.0-1, Section -

422.1.4). Information to be ascertained includes (1)type of cooling syster (whether 6nce through or cooling pond), and (2)evidence of aECWA Section 316(a) variance or equivalent' state documentation. As Section 3.1.2 describes, NAPS has a once-through heat dissipation system. As discussed below, Dominion has a Section 316(a) variance for NAPS discharges.

Section 316(a) of the CWA establishes'a process whereby a thermal effluent discharger can demonstrate thatfthemial dischargelimitatiios re' mnor'e stringent than necessary and, using a variance, obtairlteiatiV6 facility-specific theiiirl discharge limits (33 USC 1326). Dominion'

It submitted a CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration for NAPS to the Virginia State Water Control Board on June 24,1986 (Ref. 4.4-1). The Fact Sheet (Item 22) accompanying the current NAPS VPDES permit (Appendix B) refers to this submittal, indicating that effluent limitations more

-stringent than the thermal limitations Included in the permit are not necessary to assure the protection and propagation of a balanced indigenous community of shellfish, fish, and wildlife In

'Lake Anna and In the North Anna River downstream of the Lake. Based on the results of the CWA Section 316(a) Demonstration and the NAPS VPDES permit, Dominion concludes that this environmental impact is small and does not warrant further mitigation."

- NRC staff response: North Anna Units 1 and 2 use a once-through cooling system to dissipate

,'., heat from the turbine condensers. Cooling water is drawnr from Lake Anna and is circulated through condensers. The temperature of the cooling water increases by as much as 18.3 0F as it moves through the condensers. To dissipate heat from the cooling water prior to return to Lake Anna, the heated cooling water is discharged Into a 3,400 acre waste heat treatment facility (WHTF). The WHTF is a recognized treatment facility by the Commonwealth of Virginia, the purpose of which Is to provide mitigation for the aquatic community against heat shock. The cooling water residence time is approximately 14 days, and more than halflof the station's waste heat is dissipated during this time.: High-velocity jet discharge into Lake Anna maximizes the mixing of the heated effluent in the Lower Lake, resulting in nearly uniform temperatures across horizontal layers and preventing the formation of a clearly defined thermal plume In the Lower.'

Lake. Discharges from' the.WHTF are in compliance with the CWA and the station's NPDES

-permit. The staff will review information related to this issue, Including the existing mitigation, as it prepares the SEIS. 'The staff is interested In any specific information that FWS may have related to this issue, and will consider such information In the preparation of the SEIS.

Threatened or Endangered Specles FWS Comment: Page 2-16 The Service commends VEPCo for their description of Federal..

and State threatened and endangered species, and the company's efforts to Initiate informal

consultation on these issues. The report describes the conditions as, "Animal and plant species that are federally- or'state-listed as endangered or threatened'and that occur'or could occur (based on habitat and known geographic range) In the vicinity'of. NAPS or along associated transmission lines are listed in Table 2-1. Bald eagles (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus), state and federally classified as threatened, are occasionally observed along Lake Anna. The bald eagle

-forages along coasts, rivers, and large lakes. Dominion is not aware of any eagle nests at NAPS or along the transmission lines. Loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludoviclanus), state-classified as threatened, have been observed in the vicinity of NAPS. Loggerhead shrikes Inhabit agricultural lands and other open areas. With the exception of the bald eagle and loggerhead shrike ( Lanlus ludovicianus), terrestrial species that are federally- and/or state-listed as endangered or threatened are not known to'exist at NAPS or along the transmission lines. As of February 2000, there were no candidate federally threatened or endangered species that Dominion believes might occur at NAPS or along the transmission lines (Ref. 2.5-1)."

NRC response: The staff acknowledges the comment, and will include information on Federal and State threatened and endangered species in the SEIS.

FWS Comment: Page'2-17 The report states errors and gaps in the data regarding some fish and mussel species that need clirification. The report states, uNo federally-listed fish species' range includes the North Anna River and Lake Anna. One state-listed species, the emerald shiner (Notropisatheuinoldes), appears on a Final Environmental Statement list of fish collected

in the North Anna River prior to its impoundment (Ref. 22-1, Appendix 2.14). However, according to several authoritative sources (Refsd.2.53, pp. 397401; and 2.5-4,Ppo. 321 409,,

this species is known only frorn the'Clinch and Powell Rivers In the extreme western part of the state. It appears that the fish was inisidentified. The emerald shiner is often 'confused with the closely-related comely shiner (Notropis amehiis), which occurs throughout the York River'i '

e ;. drainage and has ben documented from Lake Anna and the North Anna River (Ref. 2.5-3). The comely shiner was not listed Inthe Final Envirimental Statement, but has been collected

.. regularly by Dominion biologists in post-operational rmonitoring of the lower North Anna River..

?:,Ref 2.2-8; Tables 4.2.2 and 4.2.3). The emerald shiner has not been collected In any of the

4'p..postvoperntionaI siurv6ys or'mronltoring studies.- 'Based on the Virginia Department of Game'&

a:

-Inland Fisheries' Fish 'and Wildlife: Information Service'database, as many as two state'- and ,

federally-listed freshwater mussel 'species' could occur in streams in the vicinity of NAPS, or in streams crossed by NAPS transmission corridors (Table 2-1). It should be emphasized that, neither of these species has actually been observed as occurring in streams in the vicinity of NAPS or in streams crossed by its transmiss6ln'liris. They have, however, been collected from'

' counties occupIed by NAPS or its transmission corridors."

AND. , -

Page 2-18 "None of these mussel species was 6c6olected in pre-lmpoundment surveys of the North Anna River, and none has been colleted in-more recent years byDominion biologists'

-conducting routine monitoring surveys.Ttiree bivalve species were collected in the North:Anna basin prior to impoundment: Elliptia corplahatus, EltipUi, productus, and Sphaeurim striatum (Ref. 2.2-1, Appendix 2.13). None of these is a special-status species. In more recent years, the

> Introduced Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has dominated collections from both Lake Anna and the lower North Anna River. Small numbers of Unionids (Elliptiosp.) and fingernail clams'(

.Sphaoriidae) have also been collected. Acid drainage and sediment from the Contrary Creek mine site (see Section 2.2 discussion) historlcally depressed mussel p6olations downstream -'

from the Contrary Creek-North Anna River confluence but, in the' I980s, there were indications that mussel populations (Elliptio sp.) were recovering Inthe lower North' Anna River (Ref. 2.2-3, Section 6.2)." ' '

NRC staff respon.ise to comments from page 2-17 and 2-1 8: The' staff has completed a preliminary assessment and agrees with Domini6rithat the North Anna Power Station FES is in error. Notropis atherinoidesis not knownin the York River drainage and is easily confused with '

Notropis amoenus. The staff will ensure that' the inf6rmatioi on 'the 'emerald shiner and the various protected mussel species are discussed in the SElS- The staff would appreciate any specific Information from FWS 6n'the for ths species to occur at or near North Anna ooteal Power Station. -: - ' , 4 4 Cumulative Impact Assessment 'i X x FWS Comment: Page 2-12 The Service's main goal is the protection and restoration of ecosystems for people. During a license review, the Service' mitigation goal is to work with the

'license applicant to avoid, 'minimize;and corpensate (in that order) th fullest extent possible. The National EnvirinimentallPolicy Act calls"for past, present, and future ' .'

environmental impacts be identified, as well as'summnarized to'determine cumulative effects of

-the environmental impacts. The VEPCq report clearly Identifies ec6osystem impacts but the6"

Service disagrees'with VEPCo's conclusionfregarding fish and the ecosystem. The report K states,,BIn prm-impoundment surveys, the'fish'comnMunity'of the North Anna River downstream

',~~~ ' ' .: ,. . ,' ' 't.4........., ,,,;

., .,.,1..

from the Contrary Creek inflow was domirniated by pollution-tolerant species. In the years following impoundment (and reclamation of the'Contrary Creek mine site), there was a steady increase in measures of abundance and diversity (species richness) of fish'. In 1984-85, 38 species from 10 families were found in the North Anna River,'compared to 25 species fro' 'eight families in the control strearn, the South Anna River. When reservoir species from Lake Anna were subtracted from the North Anna River totals, the two fish communities showed striking "u-: similarities, indicating that operation of NAPS has had little or no effect on fish populations

.:.downstream from the North Anna Dam." 'Based on the 1999 Annual Report for Lake Anna and

<;the North Anna River, the North Anna River d6wnstream of the North Anna Dam has no major i Aexchanges in the ecosystem (Ref. 2.2-10). A review of the data from the 1999 monitoring studies

4:indicate that Lake Anna and the North Anna River continue to contain healthy, well-balanced o ecological communities."

'NRC staff response: The scope of the current SEIS preparation is to evaluate potential environmental impacts associated with the continued operation' of North Anna Units 1 and 2 for an additional 20 years beyond the current license. Im pacts associated with the construction of the dam and North Anna Power Station, and the continued operation of the dam are beyond the scope of the current review. The staff agrees with the need to avoid, minimize and compensate for any significant adverse impacts associated with the continued operation of North Anna Units 1 and 2. In particular, the staff is interested in any specific Information which bears on any of the issues described Inthe GEIS or to be evaluated in the SEIS that FWS can provide. NRC will evaluate such Information during the preparation of the SEIS.

Mitigation FWS Comment: Page 6-2 The Service believes many of the impacts discussed above will fall under the this policy. We do not agree that all impacts of licenrse rerewal are small and would not require mitigation. The current operations do In'clude some mitigatiori activities that would continue during the term of the' license renewal, but additional efforts Inthe areas of fisheries, water quality, and possibly endangered species will protect and enhance the natural resources in Lake Anna and North Anna River. As stated, Dominion performs routine mitigation and monitoring activities associated with environmental permits to ensure the safety of workers, the public, and the'environment. These activites include the radiologlcal e'nvironmental 'monitoring program, continuous emission monitoring, monitoring of aquatic blota that could be affected by NAPS operation, effluent chemistry monitoring, and effluent toxicity testing." As the NRC's statutory requirements state, 'The [environmental] report must contain a consideration of alternatives for reducing' adverse impacts.. .for all Category 2 license renewal issues.... 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(iii). The environmental report shall include an analysis that considers and balances.. .altematives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects.... 10 CFR 51.45(c) as Incorporated by 10 CFR 51.53(c)(2)."

NRC staff response: During the course'of the SEIS preparation, the NRC will consider mitigation measures when there is specific Information that confirms the potential for impacts associated with the continued operation of North Anina' Units 1'and 2. If continued operation for an additIonal 20-years is'considered as a'whole to have significant effects, all of the specific effects on the environment'(whether or iot significant")will be considered and mitigation measures will be developed where feasible. ' Relevant, reasonable mitigation measures that could improve the project will be Identified. To ensure that environmental impacts of continued operation are fairly assessed, the probability of the mitigation measures being implemented will

also be discuss6d. Based on its preliminary assessment (i.e., 31 6(b) study, licensee evaluation, NRC preliminary review), the staff expects that the measures In place at North Anna Units 1 and 2 (e.g., intake screens and the waste heat treatment facility) provide sufficient mitigation for

-impacts to the aquatic environment and no new mitigation measures will be needed. If FWS

.*hasany specific new or significant information which bears on any of the issues described in the GEIS or to be evaluated in the SEIS the staff will evaluate this Information during the preparation of the SEIS.

- 4:

.. 4

u-Virginia Electric and Power Company North Anna Power Station Surry Power Station cc:

Mr. David R. Lewis, Esquire' Shaw Pittman 2300 N Street, NW Washington, DC 20037

.:,Mr. Richard H. Blount, II

>-..Site Vice President

.: Surry Power Station

-- t.;Virginia Electric and Power Company

.5570 Hog Island Road Surry, Virginia 23883 Dr. W. T. Lough Virginia State Corporation Commission Division of Energy Regulation P.O. Box 1197 Richmond, Virginia 23209 Robert B. Stroube, M.D., M.P.H.

Acting Deputy State Health Commissioner Office of the Commissioner Virginia Department of Health

-:Room 214 P. O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Old Dominion Electric Cooperative

.4201 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060 Mr. Stephen P. Sarver, Director Nuclear Licensing & Operations Support Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Blvd.

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060-6711 Office of the Attomey General Commonwealth of Virginia 900 East Main Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Mr. William Corbin Virginia Electric and Power Company Innsbrook Technical Center 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glenn Allen, Virginia 23060-6711.

Mr. Alan Nelson

United States Department of the Interior OFFICE OF MMB SECRETARY CMI Hamus,~Roma 244 3200 Cest Set

.: .VPfkO ^. , :-.20 IN RE

. i ;July'24, 2002 ER 02/407 Chief; Rules Review and Directives Branch U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mail Stop T6-D59 Washington, D.C. 21555-0001 Attention: Andrew Kuglpr ' ' '. ' ' '

Re: NUREG-1437, Draft S7pplement 7 to the GericEnronmentalImpact Stdtementfor License Renewal ofNucPclear"PouwrPk;ts-NorthAnna Power Station, Units I and2

Dear Sir:

K>i The U S. Depaitmezit'fihe hterior (,bpartnient)has reviewed and offers the following comments on the referenced dift documeint. Please give these co'mments careful.consideration in completing the final S '- .; :

General Comments ;' . - .. -

The Department shares a common goal with theU.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to bring the North An'aa Nuclear rgltonsroti n'[o thAe NS.esh Power Statio;i'nto compliance'wt wnviro current currenthenvfirnental TO' representative te U.S.'Fis and Wildlife Srvice's (WS)'

Chesapeake Bay Field Office visited the site o nMay 21 2002, to help the NRC identify, assess, avoid, and mitigate any adverse environmental impacts. With the advances in human:

understanding of ecological relati8nhipst it'i appropn ate and useful that Federal and state natural resource agencies periodically reviewvisite conditions in order to maintain the'highest level

of environmental protection. Since the North AnnoPower Station came online in 1978, Dominion Energy Company'(parent coi nPnof Virginia Electric and Power Company) and the."

NRC have initiated measures for the protectinn of the natural resources around the Power Station, lake, and river areas..-

,Th.e .a.

4 bd.t'e. *1 *,

n'. dtatV, ;theo fdhA;ii ;.1' '...' 1.: ';-, ,v' The FWS 'has determined that;'the North Anna o5perations and minor refurbishment may have

'Pot"nitiaitr adver iely fect fiia' turalieoisuices: i The federally threatened bald eagle, i does not 'ppbir-td'b'etbffe't~dd- but 'a scientific approach should be maintained to -evluate and documenti any m6ralitie's'. Similar records for other migratory bird i.. impacts should be maintained arid any,mrW'alit repoited to the FWS.

~~~~~~~. 5 ;*I. ': .,:-,2,,. . .:...

it 2

Regarding aquatic species, potential impacts include the.cooling water intake, discharge, and dam that provide the impounded cooling-water. The rotating screens of the cooling water intake at the Power Station provide nearly unimpeded Water intake, but the biota are likely to incur high.

mortality as a result of entrainment and impingement. There is probably less mortality associated with the cooling water discharge, but the effects on fish behavior and ecology are potentially damaging. Another fisheries impact is the Lake Anna Dam. While downstream fish passage maybe acceptable, the blockage of upstream migrations of American eel, and possibly anadromous fish during high flow seasons, should be corrected during this relicensing. The FWS offers the following comments on topics where the environmental standards have improved and new information is available.

Specific Comments The FWS agrees that the potential is low for the North Anna Power Station to adversely affect the bald eagle, a federally threatened species. Our primary concern is for the incidental mortality to migratory birds associated with the transmission lines. In the event of migratory bird mortality, Virginia Electric and Power Company should complete a Raptor Incident Report for the FWS and the appropriate state agencies.

The North Anna facility lacks a component of the cooling water intake system that Virginia Electric and Power Company has developed at the Surry Power Station. The traveling mesh screens. at the Surry Power Station include a spray wash systemi that removes the biota from the screens and returns them to the Jamees River, The North Anna facility utilizes a similar technology for the screens, but fails to provide the mechanism to return the biota tnharmed back to the Lake.

The traveling screens and wash system at Surry clearly minimize aquatic impacts more than the North Anna facility, which discards the impinged biota into a disposal bin. A similar process, such as at Surry, could be developed, to minimize the aquatic impacts by returning the impinged biota safely back to the Lake. To further minimize the impacts, we recommnend replacing worn or damaged screens with mesh less than or equal to one millimeter wide'and adopting entrance velocities less than or' equal to 0.5 feet per second (Gowan, C. and G. Garman 1999).

The cooling water discharge is an'additional potential hazard to fish. Unlike the Surry Power.l Station that discharges to th'e mouth of the tidal James River, the North'Anna Station discharges into a series of open canals that flow back to the Lake.' While the thermal discharge is likely to have a greater effect in the colder months, the increased temperatures in the summer could also have an adverse effect on fish behavior and ecology in the Lake.

The Lake Anna Dam provides cooling water for the Power Station, but also blocks migratory fish moving upstream from the North Anna River. Anadromous, catadromous, and freshwater fish move upstream to spawn in the' spri tg, and possibly need the habitat 'at other times of the year, when fish are searching for forage, refuge, or suitablehabitats. American eel are well known for their migrations and are present downstream of the Dam. The Atlantic.States Marihe Fisheries:

Commission's plan recommends restoring eels to their historical habitat and increasing their abundance in habitats where they currently reside. River herring are likely to have historically

3 K 'ascended to the habitat upstream of the Dam during nitural flow conditions.

In addition to restoring fish to their historical or preferred habitats, freshwater'mussel popuations are distributed in a watershed by the movement of mussel host fish species c6mmonn to the North Anna River. The muisels and host fish will both hEit -om'fish passage: ..

xt*

,; Re ,-i..... -

Summary Comments and Recommendations The Department recommends that the NRC adopt the following recommendations in order to maintain optimum protection of fish and wildlife resources at North Anna Power Station:

1. Maintain an efficient recording and reporting system for migratory bird mortality at the North Anna Power Station;

2. Develop a method to return impinged fish, on the cooling water intake screens, back to the Lake. The intake screen should be replaced with mesh size of one millimeter or less wide with intake water velocities less than 0.5 feet per second;

3. Determine the impacts from the thermal discharges on fish distribution, spawning, and feeding. The specific study design should be developed with the North Anna Power Station staff FWS, and other interested parties; and

4. Assess the upstream movement offishto theDam with continuous sampling of water

.quality, fow, and species composition from Febniary 1-to Novemnber 30. The specific study design should be developed with the North Anna Power Station Staff, FWS, and other interested parties.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the draft environmental document and provide comment on natural resource protection. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact David W. Sutherland of the Service's Chesapeake Bay Field Office by phone at (410) 573-4535, or by e-mail at David_Sutherland&fws.gov.

Sincerely, Michael T. Chezik Regional Environmental Officer cc . .. . . .

cc:

Dominion Energy Company.(Tony Banks) -. . .

5000 D6minion Boulevard -;' -

Glen.-Allen, VA23060 ... .' .. : . :

, L-4 References Gowan, C. and G.Garnan. 1999.. Design criteria for fish screens in Virgina: Recommendations based on a review of the literature. Preparedfor:Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA.

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Chesapeake Bay Field Office

\ J.

177 Admiral Cochrine Drive - - * - ..

Annapolis, MD 21401 February 4, 2003 -

.. . . ._ *I . -

. ~

Chief, Rules Reviewand Directives Branch-'D t ;

C. ;

U.S. Nuclear Reulatory Commnssion "I Mail Stop T6-D59 - . , -- ' .

WashingtonD.C. 21555-0001 ' t II . .

Attention: Andrew Kugler : -*'

Re: NUREG-1437, Final'Supplement7-to'the Generic EnvironmentalImpactStatement -

RegardingNorthAnna Power'Station'(NAPS),'Units t and2 '" .

Dear Sir:

The U.S. Department ofthe Interior,;Fish and Wildlife Service has reviewed the Virginia Electric Y and Power Company (VEPCO), Final Environmental Impact Statement (ES), to relicense the above referenced project and offers'the following comments. The Service is responding pursuant to the Clean Water'Act (33 U.S.C. § 1251 'etsq.)and the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347),`and our authorities inder the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)

(16 U.S.C. 661.667e) aid the Endange'ed Sp-ices.A t (ESA) (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). :

Gerl -Comiets'-- --tt 2-The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) has identified and assessed the potential impacts at North Anna Lake'and River for VEPCO totaketie necessary steps for natural'resource protection and enhancement during their license renewal; According to the FEIS, no new data was collected or changesi made to benefit natiuresources during this relicensing period. In' light of tie past'improvenments'and th etc naLa u i the.. ,nd -

FWS has provided newand signific'nt thifniationhthat applies to'the operation ofNAPS. 'When the NAPS had its' initial enviromential'review inA1973, certain measures'such"as diadromous fish surveys'and fish passage were delayed b'eause'ofacid mine drainage'(AMD). The AMD impact is no longer a significant issue, and the FEIS describes the fish populations in the'Lake as "well balanced" and "diverse and relatively stable" with "diversity of fish and mussel populations in the North AiuiaRivei". 'Alas- been'achieved at hundreds of dams in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, the reeitablishinint of historical spawning' hibitats will'be a success story for fish;'.VEPCO, and the people in the wOateished. For the NAPS nianagement to'achieve this goal of fish'passage, VEPCO, theNuIclear Reblatory'Commission (NRC), and FWS need to K.~i reopen our dialogue on this most important issuie&..-.

Specific Comments The FWS reaffirms our conclusion that the North Anna operations adversely affects natural resources.

Anadromous, catadromous, and native fish are blocked from spawning habitats in the spring and other times of the year when fish are searching.for forage, refuge, or suitable habitats. Anadromous fish are documented in the North Anna River to the "Fall Hole"

upstream of Interstate 95, and similar latitudes in the South Anna and Mattaponi Rivers.

It is reasonable to believe that shad and herring can ascend upstream only an additional 20 miles from the Fall Hole to the North Anna Dam. For American eel passage, an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fish Management Plan recommends.

restoring eels to their historical habitat and increasing their abundance in habitats where

-they currently reside. iln addition to restoring fish to their historical and preferred habitats, freshwater mussel populations are distributed in a watershed by the movement of mussel fish host species that are native to the North Anna River. The mussels and fish

host will benefit from fish passage at the dam. The starting point to address the passage issue should be a focused migration study to determine the extent of fish movements to the dam during average and high flows.

The North Anna facility lacks a component of the cooling water intake system that

- VEPCO has developed at the Surry.Power Station. The traveling mesh screens at the Surry Power Station include a spray wash system that removes the biota from the screens and returns them to the James River. .The North Anna facility utilizes a similar technology for the screens, but fails to provide the mechanism to return the biota

unharmed back to the Lake. The traveling screens and wash system at Surly clearly

minimize aquatic impacts more than the North Anna facility, which discards the impinged biota into a disposal bin. A similar process, such as at Surry, could be developed to minimize the aquatic impacts by returning the impinged biota safely back to the Lake. To further minimize the impacts, in the process of replacing worn or damaged screens, the service recommends mesh less than or equal to one millimeter wide and entrance velocities less than or equal to 0.5 feet per second (Gowan and Gariman 1999).

The cooling water discharge is also a potential hazard to fish. ,Unlike the Surry Power

Station that discharges to the mouth of the tidal James River, the North Anna Station

.discharges into a series of open canals that flow back to the Lake. While the thernal discharge is likely to have a greater effect in the coldermonths, the increased temperatures in the summer could also have an adverse effect on fish behavior and

ecology in the Lake.

-The FWS agrees that the potential is low for the North Anna Power Station to adversely

affect bald eagle, Haliaeetusleucocephalus, a federally threatened.species. Our concern.

is for the incidental mortality to migratory birds associated with the transmission lines. In the event of migratory bird mortality, VEPCO should complete a Raptor Incident Report for the FWS and the appropriate State agencies.

Specific Comments The FWS reaffirms our conclusion that the North Anna operations adversely affects natural resources. . -

Anadromous, catadromous, and native fish are blocked from spawning habitats in the spring and other times of the year *ibehifish are searching for forage, refuge, or suitable habitats. Anadromous fish are documented in the North Anna River to the 'Fall Hole" upstream of Interstate 95, and similar latiides in'the South Anna and Mattaponi Rivers.

It is reasonable to believe that sha4 rnd fierrng can'ascend upstieani only an additional 20 miles from the Fall Hole to the North Anna Dam. For American eel passage, an Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Fish Management Plan recommends restoring eels to their historical habitat'and increasing their abundance in habitats where they currently reside. Inr addition to restoring fish to their historical and preferred habitats, freshwater mussel populations are distributed in a watershed by the movement of mussel fish h6st specie's 'that'areniative to theNorth Anna River. The mussels and fish host will benefit from fish passage at the dam. The starting'point to address the passage issue should be a focused migration study to determine the extent of fish movements to

the'dam during average'and high flows'.-: ^--'

The North Anna facility lacks a co.po neit of the cooling water intake system that '.:

VEPCO has developed at the Surry Power Station. The traveling mesh'screens at the Surry Power Station include a spray'wash system that removes the biota from the screens K> and returns them to the James River. TheNorth Anna facility utilizes a similar technology for the screens, but fails to provide the mechanism to return the biota unharmed back to the Lake. The traveling screens and wash system at Surry clearly.

minimize aquatic impacts more than the North Anna facility, which discards the" impinged biota into a disposal bin. A similar process, such as at Surry could be developed to minimize the aquatic impacts by returning the impinged biota safely'back to the Lake. To further minimize the impacts, in the process of replacing worn or damaged screens, the service recommends mesh less than or equal to one millimeter wide and entrance velocities less than or equal to 0.5'feet per second (Gowan and Gaiman 1999)..

The cooling water discharge is also a potential hazard to fish. 'Unlike the Surry Power Station that discharges to the mouth of the tidal James River, the North Anna Station discharges into a series of open canals that flow back to the Lake. While the' thermal discharge is likely to have a greater effect in the colder months, the increased temperatures in the summer could also have an adverse effect on fish behavior and ecology in the Lake.

The FWS agrees that the potential is low for'the North Amia Power Station to adversely affect bald eagle, Haliaeetusieucocephalus, a federally threatened species. Our concern is for the incidental mortality to migratory birds associated withithe transmission lines. In the event of migratory bird mortality, VEPCO should complete a Raptor Incident Report for the FWS and the appropriate State agencies.

U-Summar Comments and Recommendations The FWS recommends that the NRC adopt the following items in order to establish up-to-date protection of fish and wildlife resources at North Anna Power Station:

1. Install upstreamfishpassageatthedamnfordiadromousandnative fish,

2. Develop a method to return impinged fish from the cooling water intake screens back to the lake. When the intake screens are replaced, install a mesh size of one millimeter or less wide;

3. Minimize any impacts from the thermal discharges on fish distribution, spawning, and feeding; and

4. Maintain an efficient recording and reporting system for migratory bird mortality at the North Anna Power Station.

We appreciate the opportunity to review the environmental document and provide comment on natural resource protection. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact David W. Sutherland of the Service's Chesapeake Bay Field Office by phone at (410) 573-4535, or by e-mail at DavidSutherland~fws.gov.

Sincerely, j ,,John P. Wolflin Superviso cc: Dominion Energy Company (Tony Banks) 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 USFWS Attn: K. Mayne VDGIF Attn: A. Weaver EPA Attn: D. Rigney DOI Attn: M. Chesik References Gowan, C. and G. Garman; 1999. Design criteria for fish screens in Virginia: Recommendations based on a review of the literature. Preparedfor:Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA.

Dominion ATTACHMENT 7.

FACILITY FACT SHEET NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Prepared by:

Dominion Electric Environmental Services January 31, 2005

Facility Fact Sheet - North Anna FACILITY FACT SHEET- NORTH ANNA POWER STATION Table of Contents 1.0 Aspects Applicable to Phase 11 Rule Requirements 2.0 Existing Hydraulic Conditions 3.0 Plant Description & Operation of Cooling Water Intake Structure 4.0 Description of Fish and Shellfish Community 2

Facility Fact Sheet - North Anna FACILITY FACT SHEET- NORTH ANNA POW1ER STATION 1.0 Aspects Applicable to Phase 11 Rule Requirements EPA's definition of a "Phase II - existing facility" as defined in §125.91 and §125.93:

Exhibit 1. Aspects Applicable to Phase II Requirements FNORTH ANNA POWER STATION I Commenced construction before January 17, 2002 Yes Is a point source Yes Uses cooling water intake structures with a total design intake flow of 50 million Yes gallons per day (MGD) or more Withdraws cooling water from waters of the United States Yes Primary activity, the facility both generates and transmits electric power Yes Uses at least 25 percent of water withdrawn exclusively for cooling purposes, measured Yes on an average annual basis.

Only Impingement Mortality reduction requirements are applicable Yes 2.0 Existing Hydraulic Conditions The North Anna River was dammed in 1972 to form Lake Anna for the purpose of supplying cooling water for North Anna Power Station operations. By EPA's definition, a freshwater body of water is considered to be a lake or reservoir if the water's residence time is greater than seven days. Lake Anna would be considered a reservoir, since the retention time in Lake Anna is approximately 555 days, and, therefore, would not be required to meet the entrainment reduction standard. The dam has to maintain a minimum discharge of 40.0 cfs, but the annual discharge averages 219.0 cfs. Lake Anna is 13,000 acres comprised of the 9,600 acre North Anna Reservoir and the Waste Heat Treatment Facility, a separated, privately owned part of Lake Anna. The water level in the lake ranges from El. 255 ft (maximum) to El. 242 ft (minimum).

The mean water level is El. 250 ft. The average depth of the lake is 24.9 ft with a maximum of 78.7 ft at the dam. A Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WVHTF) also uses the lake. This facility is used to dissipate heat from North Anna's once-through cooling flow. The WHTF was created by construction of dikes across the first three tributaries upstream from the dam. Effluent from the North Anna cooling system flows into the first of the three interconnected lagoons. The warm water then flows through the other two lagoons, where it is returned to the main lake at the third dike. The facility has a surface area of 5.31 square miles, a volume of 59,687.8 acre-ft, an average depth of 18.0 ft and a maximum depth of 49.2 ft in the vicinity of the dikes.

The intake structure is designed to provide a 1.0 ft/sec approach velocity perpendicular to the trash racks at the total plant flow requirement of 4,139.6 cfs during periods of low water levels.

Each screen is 14 ft wide resulting in a screen approach velocity of 1.4 ft/sec.

3

Facility Fact Sheet - North Anna 3.0 PlantDescription& Operationof Cooling Water Intake Structure North Anna Nuclear Power Station (North Anna) utilizes a once-through cooling water system with a shoreline intake structure and a discharge canal. The power plant is located on Lake Anna approximately 30 miles northwest of Richmond, VA. North Anna has two nuclear units with a total design rating of 2,910 MW but is currently licensed to operate at a rating of 2,785 MW.

The total annual energy generated by North Anna is approximately 24,396,600 MWH.

Cooling water for both units is withdrawn from the lake through one intake structure. The intake structure is located north of the station. A trash rack is installed across the intake structure to prevent the passage of large debris. There are eight traveling water screens, each 14 ft wide. The screens are designed to rotate once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months or when the differential pressure increases to a predetermined level.

A circulating water pump is located downstream of each screen. Screened cooling water flow is conveyed to the circulating water pumps through individual bays. Eight circulating water pumps, four per unit, are located in the cooling water intake structure (CWIS). Screenwash pumps are also installed in the CWIS. Lake water is periodically pumped from the CWIS to the service water reservoir, located south of the plant, and the bearing cooling tower, located adjacent to the intake structure. Each unit has separate circulating water systems except for the common discharge. The plant discharge channel is located about 200 ft south of the intake structure. The discharge channel conveys cooling water into the first of three lagoons that disperse the heat before the water is returned to the main lake through the dike of lagoon three.

The intake structure is located at the end of a cove on the south shore of Lower Lake Anna. The intake structure is 189 ft long and has eight 20 ft bays.

The trash rack extends across the entire length of the intake structure and prevents debris from entering the screenwells. Eight traveling water screen bays are located downstream of the trash racks. Each trash rack is 20 ft wide, extending from the intake structure invert at El. 220 ft-3 3/4 in. to the intake deck at El. 265 ft. The racks have a IH: 14V slope. The steel trash rack has 0.5 in. wide by 3.5 in. thick vertical bars spaced at 4 in. on center, providing a 3.5 in. clear opening.

Debris collected by the trash racks is removed by horizontally traversing mechanical rakes. The debris is then collected in hoppers that discharge the debris into wire baskets for disposal as solid waste.

The traveling water screens are located about 16 ft downstream from the invert of the trash rack.

Each screen is 14 ft wide and constructed of 14-gage wire providing 3/8-inch (9.5 mm) square openings. The screens are designed for intermittent operation, rotating once every 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months or whenever a predetermined pressure differential exists across the screens. The time for one complete rotation is 10 minutes. Debris and fish collected by the traveling screens are washed into wire baskets for disposal as solid waste.

4

Facility Fact Sheet - North Anna The screens have a front spray wash system with the debris collection trough located on the upstream side of the screens. There are four screen wash pumps, which supply 380 gpm at 80 psi per traveling screens. The screen wash pump suctions are located downstream of the traveling water screens. Guides are located on the support walls upstream of the screens to allow installation of stoplogs. The stoplogs allow dewatering for maintenance and to isolate the bays when screens are removed. A bridge crane is located on the screenhouse to remove the traveling water screens and pumps.

The circulating water pumps, auxiliary flash evaporator pump, service-water pumps, and fire protection pumps are located in the CWIS downstream of the screens. The eight circulating water pumps, four for each unit, are vertical, wet-pit type pumps. The operating design point for each pump is 530.7 cfs at 25 ft of total head and 250 rpm. The bellmouth inlets for each pump are located at El. 227 ft-7 in. Icing has rarely been an issue at North Anna.

4.0 Description of Fish Community' Approximately 39 species of fish (representing 12 families) have been identified in Lake Anna (VEPCo 1986). Species include those historically found in the North Anna River, those that had been in local farm ponds inundated by the new reservoir, and species introduced by VDGIF.

Recreational species include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), walleye (Stizostedion vitreum), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), yellow perch (Perca flavescens), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white perch (Morone americana),

pumpkinseed (L. gibbosus), redear sunfish (L. microlophus), redbreast (L. auritus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus) and white catfish (Ameiurus catus). Forage species include threadfin shad (Dorosoma petenense) and gizzard shad (D. cepedianum). Striped bass and walleye are stocked annually by VDGIF. Striped bass provide a "put-grow-and-take" fishery.

Streams, including the North Anna River, that flow into Lake Anna appear to lack the flow, depth, and length to support striped bass spawning runs (VEPCo 1986, VEPCo 2001b). VDGIF also placed 20 underwater fish structures in the reservoir over the 1983-1990 period to provide additional fish habitat in areas with "clean" bottoms. These fish structures were intended primarily to provide habitat for largemouth bass, black crappie, and sunfish (bluegill in particular). Sterile triploid herbivorous grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella) was stocked by VEPCo in the WHTF in 1994 to control growth of a nuisance submersed aquatic plant, namely the water hyacinth (Hydrilla verticillata).

The Virginia Fish and Wildlife Information Service is a searchable database of the most current and comprehensive information about all of Virginia's wildlife resources, available at this web site (http://vafwis.orglWIS/ASP). Listed on the following pages are all fishes and aquatic mollusk species known or likely to occur within a 2 mile radius of North Anna Point Power Station.

5

VAFWIS Geographic Seach, Species List Page l of 4 tG 11 vC

'A

(!0:-M6 r)

Species List Report List of species known or likely to occur within a 2 mile radius of 38,03,58 77,47,29 in 109 Louisa, 177 Spotsylvania, VA.This report Is compiled on 1/6/2005,1:11:36 PM 1-66 Svecics Records Bova Status* Common Name . cName Confirmed Database(s) 060121 FC Kidneyshell, fluted Ptychobranchus No BOVA subtentum 060029 FSSS Lance, yellow Elliptio No BOVA lanceolata 010077 SS Shiner, bridle Notropis No BOVA bifrenatus 010080 Shiner, common Luxilus Yes Collections cornutus 010082 Shiner, spottail Notropis Yes Collections hudsonius 010086 Shiner, swallowtail Notropis procne Yes Collections 010087 Shiner, rosyface Notropis No BOVA rubellus 010099 Minnow, bluntnose Pimephales Yes Collections notatus 010101 Dace, blacknose Rhinichthys No BOVA atratulus 010102 Dace, longnose Rhinichthys No BOVA cataractae 010103 Chub, creek Semotilus No BOVA atromaculatus 010104 Fallfish Semotilus Yes Collections corporalis 010105 Sucker, white Catostomus Yes Collections commersoni 010106 Chubsucker, creek Erimyzon Yes Collections oblongus 010108 Sucker, northern hog Hypentelium Yes Collections l nigricans 010116 Redhorse, shorthead Moxostoma Yes Collections macrolepidotum http://vafwis.org/WIS/asp/geographic sppList.asp?ln=I&sID=39015&nav=geographicCo... 01/06/2005

VAFWIS Geographic Seach, Species List Page 2 of 4 010120 Catfish, white Ameiurus catus lYes Collections 010122 Bullhead, yellow Ameiurus Yes Collections natalis 010123 Bullhead, brown Ameiurus Yes Collections nebulosus 010125 Catfish, channel Ictalurus Yes Collections punctatus 010128 Madtom, tadpole Noturus gyrinus No BOVA 010129 Madtom, margined Noturus insignis Yes Collections 010131 Eel, American Anguilla Yes Collections rostrata 010143 Killifish, banded Fundulus Yes Collections diaphanus 010148 Mosquitofish, eastern Gambusia Yes Collections holbrooki 010163 Perch, pirate Aphredoderus Yes Collections sayanus

._ _ sayanus 010166 Perch, white Morone Yes Collections americana 010168 Bass, striped Morone saxatilis Yes Collections 010173 Sunfish, mud Acantharchus Yes Collections pomotis 010177 Warmouth Lepomis Yes Collections gulosus 010178 Sunfish, bluespotted Enneacanthus No BOVA gloriosus 010180 Sunfish, redbreast Lepomis auritus Yes Collections 010181 Sunfish, green Lepomis Yes Collections

___ ___ _cyanellus 010182 Pumpkinseed Lepomis Yes Collections

_gibbosus 010183 Bluegill Lepomis Yes Collections macrochirus 010185 Sunfish, redear Lepomis Yes Collections microlophus 010186 Bass, smallmouth Micropterus No BOVA dolomieu 010188 Bass, largemouth Micropterus Yes Collections K salmoides 010189 Crappie, white Pomoxis No BOVA http://vafwis.org/WIS/asp/geographic.-sppList.asp?ln=I&sID=3901 5&nav=geographicCo... 01/06/2005

VAFWIS Geographic Seach, Species List Page 3 of 4 annularis 010190 Crappie, black Pomoxis Yes Collections nigromaculatus 010204 Darter, glassy Etheostoma Yes Collections vitreum 010206 Perch, yellow Perca Yes Collections flavescens 010211 Darter, stripeback Percina Yes Collections notogramma 010213 Darter, shield Percina peltata Yes Collections 010216 Walleye Stizostedion Yes Collections vitreum vitreum 010283 Sculpin, mottled Cottus bairdi No BOVA 010364 Pike, northern Esox lucius No BOVA 010397 Darter, tessellated Etheostoma Yes Collections olmstedi 010408 Minnow, eastern silvery Hybognathus No BOVA regius 060025 Mussel, eastern elliptio Elliptio No BOVA

. complanata 010040 Shad, American Atosa No BOVA

._ sapidissima 010041 Shad, gizzard Dorosoma Yes Collections

. cepedianum 010042 Shad, threadfin Dorosoma Yes Collections

._ petenense 010045 Herring, blueback Alosa aestivalis Yes Collections 010054 Mudminnow, eastern Umbra No BOVA pygmaea 010055 Pickerel, redfin ' Esox No BOVA americanus americanus 010056 Pickerel, chain Esox niger Yes Collections 010060 Dace, mountain redbelly Phoxinus oreas No BOVA 010062 Carp, common Cyprinus carpio Yes Collections 010063 Minnow, cutlips Exoglossum No BOVA maxillingua 010066 Chub, bluehead Nocomis Yes Collections leptocephalus 010067 Chub, river Nocomis No BOVA http://vafwis.org/WIS/asp/geographic-sppList.asp?ln=I&sID=39015&nav=geographicCo... 01/06/2005

VAFWIS Geographic Seach, Species List Page 4 of 4 imicropogon 010068 Shiner, golden Notemigonus Yes Collections

. crysoleucas 010072 Shiner, comely Notropis Yes Collections amoenus 010073 Shiner, satinfin Cyprinella Yes Collections analostana 010074 Shiner, rosefin Lythrurus No BOVA ardens

FE=Federal Endangered; FT=Federal Threatened; FC=Federal Candidate; FS=Federal Species of Concern (not a legal status; list maintained by USFWS Virginia Field Office); SE=State Endangered; ST=State Threatened; SS=State Special Concern (not a legal status).

© 1998-2003 Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Complied 1/6/2005 Institution 39015 http://vafwis.orgfWIS/asp/geographic.-sppList.asp?ln=I&sID=39015&nav=geographicCo... 01/06/2005

ML051150244

Text

Dear Mr. Bowden:

Background

SUMMARY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Dear W. Davis:

Dear Sir:

SUBJECT:

Dear Mr. WoMin:

Enclosure:

Dear Mr. Wofflin:

Enclosure:

Dear Sir:

Dear Sir:

Navigation menu

Search