# Brunswick Steam

Electric Plant

2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Environmental Services Section Cape Fear River Estuary

### BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

2009 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT

Prepared by:

Environmental Services Section

Progress Energy Se rvice Company, LLC

Raleigh, North Carolina

March 2011Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC i Environmental Services Section 

### Preface

This copy of the report is not a controlled docume nt as detailed in the Biology Program

Procedures Manual and Quality Assurance Manual. Any changes made to the original of this report subsequent to the date of issuance can be obtained from:

Director

Environmental Services Section Progress Energy Service Company, LLC. 410 South Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC ii Environmental Services Section 

### Table of Contents
Page

Preface ....................................................................................................................... .......... i

Table of Contents.................................................................................... ii

List of Tables ................................................................................................................ ...... iii List of Figures ............................................................................................................... ...... iv List of Appendices ............................................................................................................ .. v Metric-English Conversion a nd Units of Measure ............................................................. vi Common and Scientific Names of Speci es Used in this Report ........................................ vi Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS ............................................................. 2-1

2.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 2- 1

2.2 Methods................................................................................................................ 2- 1

2.3 Results and Discussion ........................................................................................ 2-2 2.3.1 Water Quality ....................................................................................................... 2-2 2.3.2 Dominant Species ................................................................................................ 2-3 2.3.3 Seasonality and Abundance ................................................................................. 2-4 2.3.4 Fine-Mesh Screens and Cooling Water Flow ...................................................... 2-5

2.3.5 Survival Estimates ............................................................................................... 2-6 2.4 Summary and Conclusions .................................................................................. 2-6

3.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 3-1Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC iii Environmental Services Section 

### List of Tables

Table Page

2.1 Annual mean density and percent of total for the ten most abundant taxa collected during entrainment sampli ng at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 and 2009 ................................................................................. 2-8

2.2 Total number of the ten most abundant ta xa estimated for la rval impingement sampling at the Brunswick St eam Electric Plant during 2008

and 2009 ............................................................................................................... 2-9

2.3 Total number, total weight, and pe rcent of total of the ten most abundant juvenile and adult or ganisms collected in the

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant im pingement samples during 2009 .................. 2-10

2.4 Entrainment densities of selected taxa at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ................................................................................................ . 2-11

2.5 Entrainment rates of selected taxa at the Brunswick St eam Electric Plant during 2009 .......................................................................................................... 2-12

2.6 Estimated total number of selected taxa collected with monthly larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ....... 2-13

2.7 Density and modal length for selected species collected with juvenile and adult impingement sampling pe r month at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ................................................................................... 2-14

2.8 Mean density and biomass of selected juvenile and adult organisms indicating reductions in density and biomass impi nged during 2009 as a result of the

Fish diversion structure. ....................................................................................... 2-15

2.9 Percent effectiveness of fine-mesh scr eens in reducing the number entrained per day for selected taxa at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 .................................................................................................... ...... 2-16

2.10 Estimated numbers and percent surviv al of selected larval organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 .......................................................................................................... 2-17

2.11 Estimated numbers, biomass, and per cent survival of se lected juvenile and adult organisms collected du ring impingement sampling at

the Brunswick Steam Electri c Plant during 2009. ............................................... 2-18Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC iv Environmental Services Section 

### List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Location of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant near Southport, North Carolina .................................................................................... 1-3

1.2 Location of the fish divers ion structure, fish return flume, return basin, and sampling locations at th e Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 .............. 1-4

2.1 Mean daily freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary and monthly intake canal salinity at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ...................... 2-19

2.2 Mean annual freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2005-2009 ................... 2-19

2.3 Mean monthly intake canal water temperature at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ...................................................... 2-20

2.4 Mean winter and summer inta ke canal water temperatures

at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2005-2009 ............................................. 2-20

2.5 Number of taxa collected in en trainment and larval impingement samples at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ............................... 2-21

2.6 Annual number of total organisms en trained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction fr om baseline entrainment estimates,

1979-2009 ............................................................................................................ 2-22

2.7 Annual number of total organisms en trained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1979-2009 and the annua l mean density of total larval organisms collected during larval fish sampling in the Cape Fear Estuary, 1979-1993. ............................................................................ 2-22Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC v Environmental Services Section 

### List of Appendices

Appendix Page

1 Summary of historical environmental studies conducted in association

with the Bruns wick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2009 .......................................... A-1

2 Number of larval organisms collected during entrainment and larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ....... A-3

3 Number and biomass of juvenile and adult organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009 ....... A-6Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC vi Environmental Services Section 

### Metric-English Conversion and Units of Measure

Length

1 micron ( μ m) = 4.0 x 10 -5 inch 1 millimeter (mm) = 0.001 m = 0.04 inch 1 centimeter (cm) = 10 mm = 0.4 inch 1 meter (m) = 100 cm = 3.28 feet 1 kilometer (km) = 1000 m = 0.62 mile Volume

1 milliliter (ml) = 0.034 fluid ounce 1 liter = 1000 ml = 0.26 gallon

1 cubic meter = 35.3 cubic feet 1 cubic foot per sec. = 448.8 gallons per min.

Area

1 square meter (m 2 ) = 10.76 square feet 1 hectare (ha) = 10,000 m 2 = 2.47 acres

Temperature

Degrees Celsius ( ° C) = 5/9 ( ° F-32) Weight

1 microgram ( μ g) = 10 -3 mg or 10 -6 g = 3.5 x 10 -8 ounce 1 milligram (mg) = 3.5 x 10 -5 ounce 1 gram (g) = 1000 mg = 0.035 ounce 1 kilogram (kg) = 1000 g = 2.2 pounds 1 metric ton = 1000 kg = 1.1 tons 1 kg/hectare = 0.89 pound/acre



### Common and Scientific Names of Species Used in this Report

Atlantic sharpnose shark Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Gobies Gobionellus spp

. Smooth butterfly ray Gymnura micrura Gobies Gobiosoma spp

. Atlantic stingray Dasyatis sabina Atlantic cutlassfish Trichiurus lepturus

Atlantic menhaden Brevoortia tyrannus Harvestfish Peprilus alepidotus

Anchovies Anchoa spp. Flounder Paralichthys spp. Bay anchovy A. mitchilli Southern flounder P. lethostigma. Striped anchovy A. hepsetus Blackcheek tonguefish Symphurus plagiusa Shrimp Litopenaeus & Farfantepenaeus spp. Silversides Atherinidae Brown shrimp F. aztecus

Searobin Prionotus spp. Pink shrimp F. duorarum

Pinfish Lagodon rhomboides White shrimp L. setiferus

Star drum Stellifer lanceolatus Hardback shrimp Trachypenaeus spp. Silver perch Bairdiella chrysura Grass shrimp Palaemonetes spp. Weakfish Cynoscion regalis Swimming crab larvae Portunid megalops Spot Leiostomus xanthurus Blue crabs Callinectes spp. Croaker Micropogonias undulatus Blue crab C. sapidus Striped mullet Mugil cephalus Lesser blue crab C. similis

Combtooth blennies Blennidae Brown bar crab Portunus spp.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC vii Environmental Services Section 

### Executive Summary

Biological monitoring of the Cape Fear Estuary (CFE) at Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC) Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP) wa s conducted in 2009 as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (N PDES) permit requirements. Entrainment and impingement studies monitored the effectivene ss of the intake modifications in reducing entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish.

The fish diversion structure excluded most large organisms and many of the impinged larval, juvenile, and adult organisms were succe ssfully returned alive to the estuary by using fine-mesh traveling screens and the fish return system. Evidence for this success includes species composition and abundance of organism s entrained and impinged. Anchovies, gobies, spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crabs were th e dominant larvae entrained and impinged. Use of

fine-mesh screens has decreased the risk of entr ainment for spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crabs. These organisms potentially may be at greater risk of being entrained since they are spawned offshore and must pass by the plant intake in order to reach the nursery areas in the CFE. Anchovies and gobies on the other hand ar e at reduced risk because these species are estuarine residents and spawning oc curs throughout the entire estuar y. Overall reductions in the

annual number entrained due to a combination of fi ne-mesh screens, the fish return system, and reduced cooling water flow have ranged from 57% to 87% since 19 83. Based on survival estimates data, approximately 57% of the larval species historically tested for survival were returned alive to the estuary. Larval survival was greatest (> 90%) for the shrimp and crab larvae, the most valuable commercial taxa.

The fish diversion structure and fish return system, when considered together, substantially reduced the impingement mortality of larger organisms due to cooling water withdrawal. The fish diversion structure excluded many of the larger fish and shellfish from the canal. Those that did get in and subsequently became impinged were returned alive to the CFE by the fish return system. Installation of the fish diversion struct ure significantly reduced the number of larger organisms impinged by as much as 99%, dependi ng upon species. In addition to a reduction in numbers, a shift to the impingement of smaller fi nfish has resulted as well. This is important because the larger individuals that are not impinged are the reproducing members of the population. The species composition of organism s collected with impingement samples also shifted to a greater percentage of shrimp and blue crab rather than larger finfish as a result of the fish diversion structure. This is significant becau se these species exhibit excellent survival in the fish return system (> 90%).

Despite some variability in entrainment ra tes due to environmental and plant operating conditions there has been no evidence of long- term environmental impact. Prior to the installation of fine-mesh screens and the fish return system, data from intensive sampling throughout the 1970s indicated that operation of th e plant had no measurable adverse effect on fish and shellfish populations in the CFE. Mo re recent fish and shellfish population studies conducted during 1999, 2001 and 2002 indicated no decl ines in abundance of any species or shifts in species composition.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 1-1 Environmental Services Section 

### 1.0 INTRODUCTION

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. (PEC), formerly doing business as Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L), was issued an NPDES permit in December 1974. The permit allowed for once-through cooling water, withdrawn from the CFE, to be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1.1). A stipulation of the NP DES permit required biological monitoring to provide sufficient information for a continuing assessment of pow er plant impacts on the marine and estuarine fisheries of the CFE. Data were reported annually and provide an assessment of

the effectiveness of the fish diversion structur e, fine-mesh screens, and seasonally based flow minimization in reducing the entrainment and im pingement of organisms. Organisms small enough to pass through the 9.4 mm me sh traveling screens may be entrained through the cooling water system. Larger organisms retained on the traveling screens are impinged.

A stipulation of the renewed NPDES permit, issued in 1981, and subsequent permits was the implementation of power plant modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement of estuarine organisms resulting from the intake of cooling water. A permanent fish diversion

structure was constructed across the mouth of th e intake canal in November 1982 to reduce impingement by preventing larger fish and shellfis h from entering the inta ke canal (Figure 1.2). In addition, the fish diversion structure significantly reduced the numbers of threatened and endangered sea turtles entering the intake canal . To reduce the entrainment of larvae, 1-mm

fine-mesh screens were installed on two of the four intake trav eling-screen assemblies of each unit in July 1983 and on a third a ssembly per unit in April 1987. At that time, the NPDES permit required that three of the four intake traveli ng-screen assemblies on eac h unit be covered with fine-mesh screens. In August 2003, the NPDE S permit required two full fine-mesh screens along with two 50% fine-mesh scre ens on the four intake traveling screens per unit. Organisms

retained on either the fine mesh or coarse mesh traveling screen panels are gently washed into a fiberglass fish return system and are subsequen tly returned alive to th e CFE (Figure 1.2).

Under the current permit, a maximum intake flow of 26.1 cubic meters per second (cms) per unit is allowed from December through March and 31.1 cms per unit is allowed from April through November. Normally two full fine-mesh sc reens and one 50% fine mesh screen are used during these periods of maximum intake flow. The flow of one unit may be increased to 34.8 cms during July, August, and September. Seasonal flow minimization during December through March is a measure, in addition to fine -mesh screens, to reduce operational impacts on the large numbers of commercial finfish larvae recruiting to the estuarine nursery areas during that time of year.

Environmental studies associated with the BSEP began in 1968 before the plant began withdrawing cooling water from th e estuary. Intensive physical, ch emical, and biological studies of the estuary and near-shore ocean were conducted in the mid and late 1970s. These original studies were followed by a long-term monitori ng program through the early 1990s aimed at monitoring fish and shellfish popu lations within the estuary and documenting the effectiveness

of the intake modifications at reducing the entrainment and im pingement of organisms. A detailed summary of historic environmental studies can be found in Appendix 1.

Intensive assessments throughout the 1970s, before the installation of fine-mesh screens and the fish return system, indicated that cool ing-water withdrawal had no measurable adverseBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 1-2 Environmental Services Section effect on fish and shellfish populations in the Ca pe Fear Estuary. Annual population levels in the Cape Fear Estuary were determined by temp erature, freshwater flow, and salinity.

Beginning in 1994, PEC reduced the biological monitoring program with the concurrence of the North Carolina Department of Environm ent & Natural Resources. Based on almost two decades of operation with no detectable adverse impact on fish and shellfish populations in the CFE, the monitoring program was modified to concentrate on the impingement and entrainment of organisms (Figure 1.2). Fish population spec ial studies conducted in the estuarine nursery areas during 1999, 2001 and 2002 indi cated no declines in abundance of any compared to longterm data collected from the 1980s through 1993 even for bay anchovy, a species exhibiting poor survival in the fish return system. This re port presents data for 2009 on impingement and entrainment rates of larval, juvenile, and adult fi sh and shellfish and evaluates the effectiveness of the NPDES-required intake modifications.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 1-3 Environmental Services Section Atlantic Ocean

Ocean Discharge

Area Dutchman Creek Plant Site Walden

Creek

C a p e

F

e a r R

i v e r Intake

Canal

S

o u t h p o r

t Visitors

Center NORTH

CAROLINA Brunswick

Steam Electric

Plant

N

Kilometers

Miles 0 2 4

0 2 Fish- return flume

Discharge weir

*

Fish-diversion

structure *

Figure 1.1 Location of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant near Southport, North

Carolina.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 1-4 Environmental Services Section Intake structure Fish return flume
Intake canal Nancy's Creek Gum Log Branch Access road

Fish

diversion

structure

Walden Creek

Cape Fear River Return basin

N

0

0 1000 2000 3000 500 1000

meters

feet Plant area

Discharge

Weir Larval Impingement Sampling

Fish Return Flume Impingement Sampling

Fish Return Flume Entrainment Sampling Discharge Weir

Figure 1.2 Location of fish diversion structu re, fish return flume, return basin, and sampling locations at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-1 Environmental Services Section 

### 2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS

2.1 Introduction

Past data indicated that the im pingement of large fish and shellfish of the CFE was reduced as a result of the 9.4-mm (3/8-inch) mesh scr eening on the fish divers ion structure (CP&L 1984, 1985a, 1985b). Organisms small enough to enter th e intake canal through the fish diversion structure may be impinged on the plant intake scr eens and returned to the CFE via a fish return flume or they may be entrained through the plant. Similarly, previous st udies have documented a reduction in the entrainment of small organisms due to the installation of fine-mesh screens at the intake structure and the subseq uent survival of a percentage of impinged larvae returned to the CFE via the fish return flume (Hogar th and Nichols 1981; CP&L 1989; PEC 2008, 2009).

Entrainment sampling during 2009 documented the species composition, seasonality, and

abundances of larval an d postlarval organisms passing through the cooling system. The larval impingement study evaluated the success of the fi ne-mesh screens in reducing entrainment of these organisms. Juvenile and adult (J /A) impingement sampling documented species composition, densities, weights, and lengths of juvenile and adult organisms impinged during 2009 and provided evidence of the con tinued effectiveness of the fish diversion structure. Note that the J/A impingement study a ddressed the impingement of orga nisms that would typically be impinged on conventional 9.4-mm (3/8-inch) mesh traveling screens. Survival study results from previous years were used to estimate the e ffectiveness of the return system for returning impinged organisms alive to the CFE (CP&L 1987, 1988).

2.2 Methods

Intake canal water temperature and salinity measur ements were collected from the fish return flume during impingement sampling. Daily freshwater flow values presente d in the report were downloaded from the United States Geological Surv ey website. Total fres hwater input to the CFE was estimated using data from stream gagi ng stations in the Cape Fear, Northeast Cape Fear, and Black Rivers according to the me thods presented by Gi ese et al. (1979, 1985).

The collection gear used for entrainmen t and impingement sampling has remained unchanged since 1984 (CP&L 1985a). Entrainmen t sampling was conducted in the discharge weir (Figure 1.2). Larval impingement and J/ A impingement sampling were conducted in the fish return flume. The J/A impingement program included fish and shrimp ≥ 41 mm, portunid

crabs ≥ 25 mm, and eels and pipefish ≥ 101 mm. Impinged organisms smaller than these size

limits would have been entrained without use of fine-mesh screens and were analyzed with the larval impingement sampling program.

Densities calculated for all larval organisms were averaged to obtain a mean number per 1,000 m 3 of water entrained through the plant per sampling date. Densities for J/A organisms impinged on each sampling date were calculate d by dividing the total number of organisms collected by the volume of water pumped through the plant. Densities were expressed as the number per million cubic meters of water pumped through the plant during each 24-hour sampling period.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-2 Environmental Services Section For both entrainment and larval impingement sa mpling, rates and densit ies of total number of organisms and selected taxa collected were expanded to give an estimate for 24 hours. Entrainment and larval impingement rate s per 24-hour sampling period during 2008 were

summed to find the total number of larvae affecte d. The percent effectiven ess (how successfully the organisms were kept from being entrained) of fine-mesh screens was calculated as the ratio between the larval impingement rate and the tota l number (entrainment plus larval impingement) affected for each sampling trip.

An overall assessment of reductions in entrainment due to fine-mesh screens, fish return system, and NPDES permit limitations on plan t cooling-water flow was conducted using

historical entrainment data collected from 1979 through 2009. However, da ta collected in 1983 were excluded from the analysis since fine-mes h screens and the fish return system were not fully operational for a portion of that year. Both of these intake modifications were completed during June 1983. Data prior to 1983 can be used to estimate annual numbers entrained during a period with no controls in place (i .e., no fine-mesh screens, fish return system, or NPDES permit limitations of flow). Mean daily entrainment densities were multiplied by design cooling water

flow and summed to obtain an annual estimate of total number entrained. Design flow is the rated flow of all main cooling water pumps per unit plus service water and screen wash flows.

The summation of these flows result in a total design flow of 84.15 cms. Details and rated pump capacities can be found in the Proposal for Info rmation Collection compiled as required by the Phase II 316(b) rule (PEC 2005). Linear interpola tion was used to estimate entrainment rates on non-sampling days. Annual numbers entrained afte r 1983 were calculated in a similar fashion with the exception that actual cooling-water fl ow was used. A calculated annual baseline entrainment rate was obtained by averaging th e annual number entrained for the years 1979 through 1982. The estimated annual number entraine d each year after 1983 was subtracted from the annual baseline estimate to obtain a percentage reduction from baseline due to the installation of fine-mesh screens, fish return system, and reduced cooling-water flow. Additional insight was obtained by comparing annual entrainment estim ates to the mean annual density of larvae entering the estuary from 1979 through 1993.

Survival in the return system was determin ed for selected size classes of the dominant organisms that have been impinged at the BSEP in past years (CP&L 1985a, 1986, 1987, 1988). Survival estimates were calculated using survival rates determined during previous studies for fast-screen rotation (CP&L 1987, 1988).

2.3 Results and Discussion

2.3.1 Water Quality

• Intake canal salinity ranged from a low of 14 ppt during December to a high of 29 ppt during November (Figure 2.1). Freshwater input varied during 2009 with peak flows occurring during March, November, and De cember. Except for 2006, the annual mean freshwater input to the CFE remained relatively low flows for the period 2005- 2009 when compared to the long-term annua l mean flow of 269 cms for the period 1980-2004 (Figure 2.2).Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-3 Environmental Services Section • Intake canal water temperature ranged from 8.5 ° C during March to a high of 29.9 ° C during August (Figure 2.3). Mean water temperature du ring the peak recruitment season for most winter spawners (Janua ry-March) was relatively cool during 2009, compared to temperatures for the previous three years (Figure 2.4). Little difference was evident for mean summer water temp erature (June-August) among these years.

2.3.2 Dominant Species

• Anchovies, spot, and Gobiosoma spp. were the most abundant taxa collected in entrainment samples during 2009 (Table 2.1). Croaker, shrimp (larval Penaeidae), silversides, portunid crab megalops, Blennidae, and At lantic menhaden were also among the ten most numerous taxa entr ained entrained duri ng 2009. A complete species list showing numbers collected can be found in Appendix 2. The annual mean density of total organisms collect ed in entrainment samples during 2009 was approximately 30% less than the annual m ean density of total organisms collected during 2008.

• Ten taxa accounted for 86% of the total larval organisms collected in larval impingement samples during 2009 (Table 2.2 ). The most dominant larvae impinged on the fine-mesh screens were shrimp, spot, croaker, and Anchoa spp. ( ≥ 13 mm). Hardback shrimp, portunid crab megalops, Gobiosoma spp., Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm), swimming crabs (juvenile Portunidae), and Atlantic menhaden were also among the top ten larval taxa impinged during 2009. Although the relative ranking has varied, the same ten most abundant species have generally dominated larval impingement samples each year since 1984. A complete species list showing numbers collected can be found in Appendix 2.

• Commercially and recreationally important ta xa dominated larval impingement samples indicating that use of fine-mesh screens succ essfully reduced the entrainment of these important taxa. The number of taxa co llected in larval impingement samples by month was generally greater than the number collected in entrainment samples during 2009 due to the use of fine-mesh screens (Figure 2.5). This relationship is important because it indicates that use of fine-mesh screens reduces the risk of

entrainment for the larvae found in the CFE.

• During 2009, J/A impingement samples were numerically dominated by bay anchovy, white shrimp, and spot (Table 2.3). Br own shrimp, croaker, blackcheek tonguefish, Atlantic menhaden, threadfin shad, blue cr ab and rough silversi de were also among the top ten species collected during 2009. These top ten species accounted for 93% of the number collected and approximately 85% of the biomass collected during

2009. Prior to intake modifi cations in 1983, Atlantic me nhaden and larger finfish, such as spot and croaker, dominated both the number and biomass collected with J/A impingement sampling (CP&L 1980a, 1980b, 1982, 1983). This shift in species composition was a result of the exclusion of larger finfish by the fish diversion structure and is significant because impingement samples have become dominated by

shrim p and crabs. Both shrimp and crabs exhibit relatively high survival in the fish return system. Additional species that c ontributed to the biom ass impinged includeBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-4 Environmental Services Section smooth butterfly ray (6.0 kg), fringed flounde r (3.4 kg), and lesser blue crab (3.1 kg). A complete species list showing number s and weights collected can be found in Appendix 3.

• No rare, threatened or endangered species were collected with entrainment or impingement sampling during 2009.

2.3.3 Seasonality and Abundance

• Seasonal variations for larvae entrained and impinged in 2009 were similar to seasonal variations observed in previous years an d corresponded to the seasonality of larval fish in the CFE (Tables 2.4, 2.5, and 2.6; CP&L 1994). This observation is important since it indicates that recruitment to and within the estuary is functioning normally and has not been disrupted by cooling wa ter withdrawal or other environmental perturbations. Minor changes in p eaks of abundance in entrainment and impingement of organisms are normal a nd can be influenced by environmental conditions such as changing freshwater di scharge to the estuary, operating fewer fine-mesh screens, increasing or decreasing the flow of cooling water as determined by plant operational needs, and sampling pe riod (Blumberg et al. 2004; Copeland et al. 1979; Lawler et al . 1988; Thompson 1989).

• The typical winter and summer periods of abundance observed during 2009 in the entrainment program were also observe d in the larval im pingement program (Table 2.6). Atlantic me nhaden, spot, croaker, and pinfish, all ocean-spawned species, were most abundant during winter and early spring. Shrimp larvae were most abundant during spring, summer, and early fall. Estuarine-spawned species (e.g., anchovies, Gobiosoma spp., silversides, and Blennida e) were most abundant during the spring and summer. The period of abundance for portunid crab megalops occurred during the fall and early winter.

• Seasonality of larger indi viduals collected during J/A impingement sampling were consistent with data collected from pr evious years and the natural seasonality reported for these species in the lower CF E by Schwartz et al. (1979). Results indicate that impingement of finfis h was comprised mostly of young-of-year

individuals too small to be ex cluded by the fish diversion structure. Impingement of significant numbers of larger fish has been virtually eliminated by the installation of

the fish diversion structure. Atlantic menhaden that were abundant during January were yearling individuals (Table 2.7). Peak densities of spot and croaker collected during January through March also consis ted of yearling individuals spawned the previous calendar year. Bay anchovy, co llected year round, was most abundant during the winter and fall when past data indicated thatmost of the individuals comprising the population had grown to a si ze large enough to be impinged on the coarse-mesh traveling screens. Peak de nsities of white, brown, and pink shrimp occurred during the summer recruitment period. Blue crab was most abundant during August.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-5 Environmental Services Section • The seasonality for total number of all or ganisms impinged (January through March, November, and December) was driven by the large numbers of bay anchovy collected (Table 2.7). Once bay anchovy is excluded, a pattern emerges where the greatest number impinged by month oc curred during January, August, and November. Shrimp and blue crab were the dominant organisms impinged during August and November. Both ta xa are characterized by high su rvival rates in the fish return system (CP&L 1987, 1988).

• Installation of the fish divers ion structure has resulted in a decline in the densities of most J/A organisms impinged. Species that dominated impingement prior to

installation of the diversion structure include Atlantic menhaden, spot, croaker, and blue crabs. During 2009, the mean density of these species collected with J/A impingement sampling has been reduced by 59% for spot to a reduction of 99% for Atlantic menhaden in comparison to the av erage baseline density (Table 2.8). The average biomass (weight per million cubic meters of water) impinged for these species was reduced by approximately 65 % for spot to a reduction of 99% for Atlantic menhaden when compared to the baseline biomass.

2.3.4 Fine-Mesh Screens and Cooling Water Flow

• The overall effectiveness of fine-mesh screens in reducing entrainment for total organisms ranged from 2% in May to 44% in April (Table 2.9). The variability of their effectiveness in reducing entrainmen t was influenced by the number of finemesh screens operating, species composition, seasonality, and organism size. Species body size and shape have been shown to have an effect on screening efficiency for other species of larval fi sh (Tomljanovich et al. 1978; Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation 1984).

• By taxon, the overall annual effectiveness ranged from < 1% for combtooth blenny to 87% for juvenile blue crabs (swimming crabs), a valuable commercial species. During March when fine-mesh screen efficien cies were highest, the dominant larvae were larger anchovies (Anchoa spp. ≥ 13 mm), spot, pinfish, croaker, Atlantic menhaden and shrimp (Tables 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9). The lowest fine-mesh screen efficiencies for the year were reco rded during May when non-commercially important taxa such as goby ( Gobiosoma spp.), silversides, and smaller anchovy larvae ( Anchoa spp. < 13 mm) were numerically dominant (these taxa typically exhibit relatively poor fine-mesh screen efficiency).

• The percentage reduction in entrainment fr om baseline for total organisms has ranged from 57% to 87% since 1983 (Figure 2.6). This meets the entrainment reduction thresholds (60-90%) proposed by the Phase II 316(b) rule currently in revision. Comparison of the annual number entrained to the mean annual larval density from 1979 through 1993 indicated that the reducti ons in entrainment were due to the installation of the fine-mesh traveling screen s and the fish return system plus reduced cooling water flow and not due to any decl ines in the abundance of larvae in the CFE (Figure 2.7). Although there was normal inte r-annual variability in the density of larvae collected from the CFE through 1993 there was no decreasing trend in density.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-6 Environmental Services Section 2.3.5 Survival Estimates

• Fourteen of the most commonly impinged la rval taxa were previously tested for survival on fast-screen rotation speed (Tab le 2.10). These four teen taxa accounted for approximately 91% of the total larval impingement catch. Survival during fastscreen rotation ranged from appr oximately 1% for anchovies ( Anchoa spp. ≥ 13 mm) to approximately 96% for pink and white shrimp.

• Approximately 57% of the selected larval orga nisms were returned alive to the estuary.

• Eleven taxa of the dominant J/A organi sms impinged were previously tested for survival during fast-screen rotation (T able 2.11; CP&L 1987, 1988). In addition, survival of star drum and silver perch was estimated using data for two closely related species (croaker and spot). These thirteen taxa account ed for approximately

93% of the total number collected and 87% of the total weight collected.

• Excluding bay anchovy, survival ranged from 16% for Atlantic menhaden to 96% for

blue crabs. The most valuable commercial species (shrimp and blue crabs) exhibited the highest survival rates. Survival estimates indicated that 76% of the total number and 72% of the total biomass of organi sms impinged, excluding bay anchovy, were

returned alive to th e estuary during 2009.

2.4 Summary and Conclusions

There has been no evidence of long-term enviro nmental impact despite some variability in

entrainment rates due to environmental and plant operating conditions. The seasonality of organisms collected in the entrainment, larval impingement, and J/A im pingement studies during 2009 were similar to previous years and corres ponded to the natural s easonality of larval organisms in the Cape Fear Es tuary. The Brunswick Steam Elect ric Plant intake modifications and operational measures continued to be effect ive in reducing the number of organisms affected by the withdrawal of cooling wa ter from the Cape Fear Estuary. Evidence supporting this conclusion includes species composition and abunda nce of organisms entrained and impinged. Anchovies, gobies, spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crabs were the dominant larvae entrained and impinged. Use of fine-mesh screens has decreased the risk of entrainm ent for spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crabs. These organisms may potentially be at more risk of being entrained since they are spawned offshore and pass by the pl ant intake in order to reach the nursery areas in the Cape Fear Estuary. Conversely, anchovies and gobies are at less risk since they are estuarine residents and spawning occurs throughout the entire estuary. Over all, use of fine-mesh screens reduced the numbers of all organisms entrained by up to approximately 44% during 2009. The greatest reductions in entrainment due to fine-mesh were evident for shrimp and crab larvae, the most valuable commercial species. Larvae that would have been entrained were returned alive by the fish return system to the CFE in significant numbers . Overall reductions in

the annual number entrained due to a combination of fine-mesh screens, th e fish return system, and reduced cooling water flow ranged from 57% to 87% since 1983. Based on survival estimates data, approximately 57% of the larvae te s ted for survival were returned alive to the estuary. The most valuable commercial taxa, sh rimp and crab larvae, exhibited the greatest survival (> 87%).Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-7 Environmental Services Section Considered together, the fish diversion struct ure and fish return system has substantially reduced the impingement mortality of larger organisms due to cooling water withdrawal. The

fish diversion structure excludes ma ny of the larger fish and shellfis h from the canal. Those that do get in and subsequently become impinged and substantial numbers of fish and shellfish are returned alive to the CFE by the fish return syst em. Installation of the fish diversion structure significantly reduced the number of larger organisms impinge d at the plant. Conservative

estimates of the effectiveness were between 57%-99% for the historically dominant species impinged. In addition to a reduction in numbers, a shift to the impingement of smaller finfish

has resulted as well. This shif t to smaller individuals is importa nt because the larger individuals that are being excluded (saved) are the reproduci ng members of the population. In addition, the natural mortality rates (predation, w eather, tides, etc.) of smaller individuals is relatively high compared to the natural mortality rates of olde r, larger individuals so many of the smaller

individual would not survive to maturity even in the absen ce of Plant operation. The species composition of organisms collected with impingement sampling also shifted to a greater percentage of shrimp and blue crabs rather than larger finfish as a result of the fish diversion structure. This shift in species composition is significant since juvenile and adult shrimp and

crabs exhibit excellent survival in th e fish return system (> 90%).Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-8 Environmental Services Section Table 2.1 Annual mean density (no./1000 m 3 ) and percent of total for the ten most abundant taxa collected during entrainment sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 and 2009 (based on ranking for 2009).

2008 2009

Annual mean Annual mean Taxon density Percent density Percent

Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 11.4 8.2 21.7 22.4

Spot 15.1 10.9 16.3 16.9

Gobiosoma spp. 22.7 16.4 15.3 15.8

Anchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 28.8 20.8 13.7 14.2

Croaker 14.8 10.7 7.9 8.3

Shrimp 8.0 5.8 5.5 5.7

Silversides 1.4 1.0 5.0 5.2

Portunid crab megalops 2.5 1.8 2.1 2.1

Blennidae 1.5 1.1 1.5 1.6

Atlantic menhaden 3.2 2.3 1.4 1.4

Other taxa (n = 44 for 2008) 29.3 21.2 6.3 6.5 (n = 42 for 2009)

Total organisms + 138.7 100.0 96.7 100.0

+ Total may vary from summation due to rounding of individual taxon.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-9 Environmental Services Section Table 2.2 Total number of the ten most abundant taxa estimated for larval impingement sampling at the Brunswi ck Steam Electric Plant during 2008 and 2009 (based on ranking for 2009).

2008 2009

Taxon Total number + Percent Total number + Percent

Shrimp 3.0 x 10 6 24.4 3.5 x 10 6 28.4

Spot 1.8 x 10 6 14.3 1.6 x 10 6 12.8

Croaker 2.3 x 10 6 19.0 1.4 x 10 6 11.7

Anchoa spp. ( ≥ 13 mm) 2.3 x 10 6 18.9 1.6 x 10 6 11.0

Hardback shrimp 1.4 x 10 5 1.2 8.4 x 10 5 6.8

Portunid megalops 4.6 x 10 5 3.8 6.4 x 10 5 5.2

Gobiosoma spp. 6.5 x 10 4 0.5 4.3 x 10 5 3.5

Anchoa spp. (<13 mm) 5.6 x 10 4 0.5 2.9 x 10 5 2.4

Swimming crabs 6.0 x 10 4 0.5 2.1 x 10 5 1.7

Atlantic menhaden 4.0 x 10 5 3.3 9.9 x 10 4 0.8

Other taxa (n = 51 for 2008) 1.7 x 10 6 13.7 5.1 x 10 5 4.7 (n = 56 for 2009)

Total & 12.2 x 10 6 100.0 10.8 x 10 6 100.0

+ Total number is a sum of the twelve sampling-day totals.

& Total may vary from summation due to rounding of individual taxon.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-10 Environmental Services Section Table 2.3 Total number, total weight, and p ercent of total of th e ten most abundant juvenile and adult organisms collected in the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant impingement samples during 2009.

Taxon Number + Percent & Weight (kg) + Percent &

Bay anchovy 73,328 64.6 77.1 19.2

White shrimp 11,778 10.3 79.8 19.9

Spot 8,776 7.7 74.5 18.6

Brown Shrimp 3,172 2.8 21.2 5.3

Croaker 2,120 1.9 32.1 8.0

Blackcheek toungefish 2,098 1.8 9.1 2.3

Atlantic menhaden 1,949 1.3 20.7 5.1

Threadfin shad 1,154 1.0 4.9 1.2

Blue crab 1,037 0.9 21.8 5.4

Rough silverside 1,027 0.9 1.8 0.4

Other taxa (n = 77 for 2009) 7,520 6.8 58.2 14.6

Total 113,959 100.0 401.2 100.0

+

Numbers and weights are sums of the twelve sampling day totals.

& Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-11 Environmental Services Section Table 2.4 Entrainment densities (mean no./1000 m 3 per sampling day) of selected taxa +

at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Month

Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0 1,773 198 46 157 34 0 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 20 58 31 2 168 601 225 55 15 21 79 127

Spot 392 629 596 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Pinfish 20 24 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Croaker 247 66 58 25 0 0 0 0 0 78 101 240

Atlantic menhaden 7 57 58 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6

Silversides 0 0 0 242 269 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 657 557 208 59 38 33 0 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 80 27 35 6 6 0 0 0

Microgobius spp. 0 0 0 2 3 68 15 9 7 0 0 0

Shrimp 33 10 21 122 0 169 61 13 28 59 34 10

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 0 33 0 0 3

Swimming crabs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0

Portunid crab
megalops 0 0 0 0 11 3 0 0 5 131 33 34

Total organisms 731 894 834 482 3,092 1,681 611 317 172 333 280 435

+ Selected taxa comprised ≥ 1% of the total sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement

sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-12 Environmental Services Section Table 2.5 Entrainment rates (million pe r sampling day) of selected taxa + at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Month

Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0 9.370 1.045 0.253 0.859 0.184 0 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 0.088 0.262 0.070 0.008 0.890 3.178 1.229 0.299 0.081 0.112 0.416 0.574

Spot 1.771 2.838 1.344 0.211 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015

Pinfish 0.090 0.109 0.045 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Croaker 1.114 0.300 0.130 0.113 0 0 0 0 0 0.412 0.533 1.085

Atlantic menhaden 0.030 0.256 0.131 0.049 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.029

Silversides 0 0 0 1.084 1.420 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 3.470 2.994 1.136 0.323 0.208 0.176 0 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 0.422 0.141 0.192 0.034 0.034 0 0 0

Microgobius spp. 0 0 0 0 0.018 0.360 0.079 0.050 0.036 0 0 0

Shrimp 0.147 0.047 0.047 0.548 0 0.894 0.332 0.069 0.151 0.310 0.177 0.045

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.080 0 0.180 0 0 0.015

Swimming crabs 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.033 0 0 0

Portunid crab
megalops 0 0 0 0 0.060 0.015 0 0 0.025 0.694 0.177 0.153

Total organisms 3.298 4.034 1.882 2.159 16.342 8.882 3.332 1.728 0.940 1.762 1.478 1.961

+ Selected taxa comprised ≥ 1% of the total sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-13 Environmental Services Section Table 2.6 Estimated total number (million per sampling day) of selected taxa + collected with monthly larval impingement samp ling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Month

Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0.006 0.089 0.042 0.057 0.105 0.001 0 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 0.085 0.014 0.023 0.016 0.110 0.107 0.494 0.110 0.081 0.006 0.162 0.144

Spot 0.309 0.501 0.518 0.227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.008

Pinfish 0.010 0.032 0.032 0.007 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002

Croaker 0.230 0.141 0.136 0.055 0.001 0 0 0.001 0 0.008 0.105 0.756

Atlantic menhaden 0.008 0.033 0.056 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.002

Silversides 0 0 0 0.011 0.002 0 0 0.002 0 0 0 0

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 0.014 0.320 0.021 0.059 0.004 0.005 0.002 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Microgobius spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0.015 0.005 0 0 0 0 0

Shrimp 0.068 0 0.001 1.249 0.096 1.152 0.273 0.057 0.191 0.080 0.193 0.025

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0.109 0.159 0.066 0.426 0.014 0.061 < 0.001

Swimming crabs 0 0 0 0.003 0.003 0.108 0.002 0.016 0.024 0.044 0.012 0.001

Portunid crab
megalops 0.002 0 0.001 0.008 0.018 0.031 0.018 0.021 0.083 0.125 0.285 0.043

Total organisms 0.725 0.791 0.877 1.668 0.403 1.931 1.039 0.464 0.818 0.293 0.839 0.998

+ Selected taxa comprised > 1% of the total sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-14 Environmental Services Section Table 2.7 Density (no./million m 3 of water entrained during each 24-hour sampling period) and modal length for selected species + collected with juvenile and adult impingement sampling per month at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Month

Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

Bay anchovy &

density 3,963 1,205 6,204 675 450 101 18 35 18 1 1,841 4,339

Atlantic

menhaden density 288 13 7 3 14 1 2 0 < 1 0 0 0
modal length 85 100 95 95 115 IN § IN IN IN

Spot density 1,396 291 382 6 15 3 0 2 2 0 0 0

modal length 75 75 75 80, 85 45 110 IN IN

Croaker density 338 18 32 90 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

modal length 100 110 110 60 IN IN IN

White shrimp density 1,106 20 6 2 3 0 1 307 100 78 512 290

modal length 105 90 135 IN 120 IN 95 120 110 75 85

Brown shrimp density 0 0 0 0 35 204 282 62 5 0 0 0

modal length 50 85 105 90 70

Pink shrimp density 5 2 0 1 7 0 0 112 13 3 14 25

modal length IN IN IN IN 45 , 55 65 50, 55 70 50

Blue crab &

density 57 23 9 37 24 21 22 96 45 15 17 33

Total organisms 3 ,190 367 436 139 100 229 308 579 166 97 543 348 excluding bay anchovy

Total organisms 7,153 1,572 6,640 814 550 330 326 614 184 98 2,384 4,723

+ Selected species, with the exception of bay anchovy, are commercially and re creationally important species that accounted for greater than 1% of the total catch by number or weight.

& Length-frequency analysis was not conducted on bay anchovy or blue crab data.

§ IN= insufficient number collected for length-frequency analysisBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-15 Environmental Services Section Table 2.8 Mean density and biomass of selected juvenile and adult organisms indicating reductions in density and biomass impinged during 2009 as a result of the fish

diversion structure.

Density (number/million m 3 ) + Biomass (kg/million m 3 ) +

Taxa Pre-diversion & 2009 Percent

reduction Pre-diversion & 2009 Percent

reduction

Atlantic menhaden 5,481 26 99.5 38.8 0.4 99.9

Spot 362 150 58.6 3.7 1.3 64.9

Croaker 199 36 81.9 5.7 0.6 89.5

Blue crabs 351 34 90.3 4.5 0.4 90.4

+ Density and biomass are expressed as number and weight (kg) of organisms impinged per

million m 3 of water pumped by the plant.

& Density values are means of all years (197 7-1981) prior to completion of the diversion

structure.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-16 Environmental Services Section Table 2.9 Percent effectiveness + of fine-mesh screens in reducing the number entrained per day for selected taxa at the Br unswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Month

Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual

Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) NP & NP NP 100 1 4 18 11 1 NP NP NP 2

Anchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 49 5 25 67 11 3 29 27 50 5 28 20 16

Spot 15 15 28 52 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 35 20

Pinfish 10 23 42 100 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 100 25

Croaker 17 32 51 33 100 NP NP 100 NP 2 16 41 28

Atlantic

menhaden 21 11 30 0 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 6 17

Silversides NP NP NP 1 1 NP NP 100 NP NP NP NP 1

Gobiosoma spp. NP NP NP NP 0 10 2 15 2 3 100 NP 5

Combtooth blenny NP NP NP NP 0.2 0 0 0 0 NP NP NP 0.1

Microgobius spp. NP NP NP NP 0 4 6 0 0 NP NP NP 4

Shrimp 32 0 2 70 100 56 45 45 56 21 52 36 55

Hardback shrimp NP NP NP NP NP 100 67 100 70 100 100 1 75

Swimming crabs NP NP NP 100 100 100 100 100 42 100 100 100 87

Portunid crab megalops 100 NP 100 100 23 67 100 100 77 15 62 22 36

Total Organisms 18 16 32 44 2 18 24 21 47 14 36 34 21

+ Percent effectiveness = [no. collect ed in larval impingement samp les/( no. collected in larval impingement samples + no. collected in entrainment samples)] x 100

& NP = Not Present.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-17 Environmental Services Section Table 2.10 Estimated numbers and percent survival of selected larval organisms collected during fine-mesh screen sampling (larval impingement) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Total Percent + Number &

Taxa number survival survived

Shrimp 3,480,048 90.3 3,142,483 Croaker 1,433,232 33.7 482,999

Anchoa spp. > 13 1,351,728 0.7 9,462 Spot 1,562,544 29.4 459,388 Portunid Megalops 636,336 87.0 553,612 Atlantic menhaden 99,216 3.2 3,175 Hardback shrimp 835,632 78.8 658,478

Gobionellus spp. 67,392 15.4 10,378

Blue crabs 243,072 91.7 222,897 Flounder spp. 22,896 93.2 21,339 Pink and white shrimp 4,608 95.8 4,414 Weakfish 11,088 12.6 1,397 Mullet 70,416 69.8 49,150

Prionotus spp. 5,616 89.8 5,043

Total selected taxa 9,823,824 57.3 5, 624,217

+ Reference: CP&L 1987 and 1988 (fast-screen rotation).

& The number survived is a total for the 12 sampling days and not the entire year.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-18 Environmental Services Section Table 2.11 Estimated numbers, biomass (kg), a nd percent survival of selected juvenile and adult organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Total Total Percent Number Biomass

Taxa number biomass survival + survived & survived

Bay anchovy 73,628 77.1 4.9 3,608 3.8 Pink & white shrimp 12,732 81.8 93.7 11,930 76.6 Brown shrimp 3,172 21.2 90.4 2,867 19.2 Blue crabs 1,395 26.0 96.2 1,342 25.0 Spot 8,776 74.5 60.4 5,301 45.0 Blackcheek tonguefish 2,098 9.1 83.1 1,743 7.5 Atlantic menhaden 1,494 20.7 15.6 233 3.2 Croaker 2,120 32.1 45.1 956 14.5

Star drum ¶ 468 1.6 45.0 211 0.7

Weakfish 60 0.3 35.0 21 0.1 Silver perch ¶ 323 2.3 60.4 195 1.4 Striped mullet 39 0.7 92.0 36 0.6

Flounder 39 1.3 71.1 28 0.9

Total 106,344 348.6 28473 198.6

Percent survival 26.8 56.9

(selected taxa)

Percent survival 76.0 71.7
(selected taxa excluding bay anchovy)

+ Reference: CP&L 1988 (f ast-screen rotation).

& Number and weight collected and survived ar e a total for the 12 sampling days and not the entire year.

¶ Survival percentages for star drum and silver perch are estimates ba sed upon data for similar
species (croaker, spot)Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-19 Environmental Services Section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200Salinity (ppt)Freshwater Flow (cms)

Freshwater Flow Intake canal salinity

Figure 2.1 Mean daily freshwater flow to th e Cape Fear Estuary and monthly intake canal salinity at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.



### 0 100 200 300

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Freshwater Flow (cms) 269 cms = mean a nnual flow 1980-2004

Figure 2.2 Mean annual freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2005–2009.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-20 Environmental Services Section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Jan Feb Mar A pr Ma y Jun Jul A u g Sep Oct No v DecTemperature(°C)

Figure 2.3 Mean monthly intake canal water temperature ( 

### ° C) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.



## 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Temperature (°C)



## Winter Summer

Figure 2.4 Mean winter and summer intake canal water temperatures ( ° C) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2005-2009.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-21 Environmental Services Section 13 14 11 18 21 21 19 23

13 21

16 20 57

9 10 12 16 19 21

10 15 12 10 8 9 44



### 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec AnnualNumber of Taxa Larval impingement

Entrainment

Figure 2.5 Number of taxa collected in entrainment and larval impingement samples at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Photograph of February 2006 larval impingement sample.

These larvae would have been entrained without the use of fine-mesh screens (Provided for information only and is not cited in the text.)Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 2-22 Environmental Services Section 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90001979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Percent ReductionNumber Entrained (millions)

Percent reduction

Baseline

Fine-mesh screens and return system installed 1983

Annual number entrained

Figure 2.6 Annual number of total organisms entrained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from base line entrainment estimates, 1979-2009. (Annual numbers entrained prior to 1983 we re averaged to obtain the baseline entrainment estimate.)

0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 90001979198019811982198319841985198619871988198919901991199219931994199519961997199819992000200120022003200420052006200720082009Larv al density (Nu./1000 m3)Number Entrained (millions)

Annual number entrained Mean Annual Larval Density

Figure 2.7 Annual number of total organisms entrained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1979-2009 and the annual mean de nsity of total larval organisms collected during larval fish sampling in the Cape Fear Estuary, 1979-1993 (Estuarine larval fish sampling was discontinued after 1993) .Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 3-1 Environmental Services Section 

### 3.0 REFERENCES

Blumberg, A. F., D. J. Dunning, H. Li, D. Heimbugh, and W. R. Geyer. 2004. Use of a particle tracking model for predicting entrainment at power plants on the Hudson River. Estuaries. 27 (3): 515 - 526 .

CP&L. 1984. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1983. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

.1985a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual bi ological monitoring report, 1984. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

. 1985b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape F ear Studies, Interpreti ve Report. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

. 1986. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monito ring report, 1985. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

. 1987. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monito ring report, 1986. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

. 1988. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monito ring report, 1987. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

. 1989. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monito ring report, 1988. Carolina Power & Light Company, Southport, NC.

Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, and R. J. Monroe . 1979. Larvae and postla rvae in the Cape Fear Estuary, North Carolina, during operation of th e Brunswick Steam Electri c Plant, 1974-1978.

North Carolina State Un iversity, Raleigh, NC.

Giese, G. L., H. B. Wilder, and G. G. Parker, Jr. 1979. Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds of North Carolina. United States Geological Su rvey. Water resources investigations 79-46. Raleigh, NC.

. 1985. Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds of Nort h Carolina. United States Geological Survey. Water-suppl y paper 2221. Alexandria, Va.

Hogarth, W. T. and K. L. Nic hols. 1981. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant intake modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement losses. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.

Lawler, J. P., M. P. Weinstein, H. Y. Chen a nd T. L. Englert. 1988. Mo deling the physical and behavioral mechanisms influencing the recruitmen t of spot and Atlantic croaker to the Cape Fear Estuary. Am. Fish. Soc. Sym. 3: 115-131.

PEC. 2005. Progress Energy Brunswick Steam Electric Plant proposal for information collection. NPDES Permit No. NC0007064. Progr ess Energy Carolinas Inc., Raleigh, NC.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC 3-2 Environmental Services Section . 2008. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2007 biol ogical monitoring report. Progress Energy Carolinas Inc., Raleigh, NC.

. 2009. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 biol ogical monitoring report. Progress Energy Carolinas Inc., Raleigh, NC.

Schwartz, F. J., P. Perschbacher, L. Davidson, C. Simpson, D. Mason, M. McAdams, K. Sandoy and J. Duncan. 1979. An ecological study of fishes and invertebrate macrofauna utilizing the Cape Fear River Estuary, Carolina Beach In let, and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, 1973-1977. BSEP Cape Fear Studies, Volume XIV. Repor t to Carolina Power & Li ght Co., Institute of Marine Sciences, University of No rth Carolina, Morehead City, NC.

Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. 1984. A dvanced intake technology study. Research project 2214-2. Prepared for the Electric Powe r Research Institute. Prepared by Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. Boston, MA.

Thompson, T. E. 1989. Factors limiting the movement of spot, Leiostomus xanthurus , into a freshwater-oligohaline tidal mars h. Master’s thesis. Departme nt of Biological Sciences, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.

Tomljanovich, D. A., J. H. Heuer, and C. W. Voigtlander. 1978. A concept for protecting fish

larvae at water intakes. Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 30:105 - 106

.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-1 Environmental Services Section 

### APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of historical environmen tal studies conducted in association with the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2009.

As part of the initial nucl ear licensing efforts Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L, predecessor to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc) commenced environmental impact studies in 1968. Physical/chemical studies included dye an d flow studies, water chemistry, and thermal studies. Biological studies in cluded phytoplankton, zooplankton, be nthos and larval fish and shellfish diversity, distribution and abundance studies in the main stem of the estuary. Juvenile and adult fish and shellfish population studies we re also conducted in the estuary. Special emphasis was placed on Walden Creek and Snow’s Marsh adjacent to the plant’s intake canal. Entrainment and impingement studies were also conducted after Unit 2 came online in 1974. In addition, thermal tolerance, swimming performan ce studies and marsh pro ductivity studies were

conducted.

Studies were expanded and intensified in 1976 to address the potential adverse impact on the entire estuary by the intake under full 2-unit operation. These comprehensive studies were developed through an interagency review group assembled at CP&L’s initiative and included representatives of the EPA, NRC, National Marine Fisheries Serv ice, United States Fish and Wildlife Service, North Carolina Division of Ma rine Fisheries, North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (predecessor to NC DENR), the League of Women Voters, and CP&L. Exhaustive dye tracer, hydrographic, tidal , temperature, and salinity studies were conducted to model estuarine flow dynamics rela tive to plant intake fl ows. Various gear efficiency and sampling methodolog y studies were conducted to ensu re that statistically valid data were collected. The biological studies were modified to pr ovide adequate data concerning the larval, juvenile, and adult fish and shellfish populations having the greatest potential to be adversely affected by plant operation. In addi tion to weekly entrainment and impingement studies, population studies were conducted in the near-shore ocean, main stem estuary, estuarine shallows, and tidal creek nursery areas from be low Southport, NC upstream to the vicinity of Wilmington, NC. Specific criteri a studied included species com position plus spatial, seasonal, and inter-annual abundance as well as age, grow th, dietary, and tagging st udies. The principal investigators from CP&L, NCSU, Institute of Ma rine Science and Lawler, Matusky and Skelly

consultants used results of thes e studies to determine the mechanisms by which larvae enter and are retained in this intensively flushed estuary and to provide insight re garding the lack of any detectable adverse environmental impact on fish and shellfish populations due to cooling water

withdrawal. Results of these studies were compiled in the 20 volume Cape Fear Studies.

Beginning in 1980 and continuing thr ough 1993, CP&L conducted a long-term Biological Monitoring Program that would provide for the continued assessment of the impact that the cooling water withdrawal might have on the Cape Fear River Estuary. Using historic biological study results as a guide, particular em phasis was placed on marine fisheries. With some modification, these Biological Monitoring Studies were a continuation of the studies conducted since 1976, thus, allowing fo r long-term trending of results. Certain studies were also expanded or added to address the effectiveness of the circa 1983 intake modi fications in reducing the number of organisms entrained and impinge d. Beginning in 1984 a larval impingement study was conducted in addition to the standard entrainment and impingement studies asBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-2 Environmental Services Section Appendix 1. continued

another means to assess the succ ess of fine-mesh screens in re ducing entrainment of larvae. Larval fish sampling was conducted in the ship ch annel and the mouths of two major tidal creek nursery areas. A larval fish discrete depth sa mpling study was conducted to better understand the distribution of larvae during recrui tment to the estuary and to valid ate the standard larval fish study. A marsh nursery study using trawl, seine, and rotenone sampling was conducted to assess recruitment to and use of the tidal creek nursery areas with special inte rest placed on Walden Creek adjacent to the Plant’s intake canal and se veral nursery areas upstream of the intake canal. Sampling stations also included a location in the fish return basi n. This station along with a special tagging study demonstrated that juvenile fish and shellfis h used the return basin as a shallow water nursery area in a fashion similar to the headwaters of a natural tidal creek. A nekton study using trawl and gill net sampling was conducted to assess the populations of juvenile and adult fish and shellfish that could po tentially be subject to impingement at the plant intake structure. Sampling stations in the CFE ranged from below Southport, NC to the vicinity of Wilmington, NC. Several sampling stations in the intake canal were used as an additional means of assessing the success of the fish diversio n structure in reducing impingement. Survival studies were conducted in the fish return system to assess the success of the return system in returning larval, juvenile, and adult organisms al ive to the estuary. A weekly temperature and salinity study was conducted along the main stem of the estuary since historic results indicated that freshwater flow, salinity, a nd temperature were the main dete rminants of fish and shellfish

distribution and abundan ce in the estuary.

Beginning in 1994 and continuing through the current permit cycle, the biological monitoring program was significa ntly reduced with the concu rrence of State regulatory and resource agencies. Because of almost two decades of data demonstrating that the cooling water withdrawal has no adverse impact to the fish and shellfish populations in the estuary, the monitoring program was reduced to concentrat e on entrainment and impingement only. This

allowance was based on the fact that if the im pingement mortality and entrainment performance remains relatively consistent then the environm ent remains protected. Sampling frequency was reduced to monthly sampling and re sults demonstrated the continuing effectiveness of the intake modifications in reducing entrainment and impingeme nt of fish and shellf ish. Periodic special study trawl surveys conducted in the marsh/tidal creek nursery areas continued to show no adverse impact on the recruitment to and use of these nursery areas by juvenile fish and shellfish. PEC believes over three decades of biological and environmental monitoring has resulted in one

of the most extensive and informative data base s concerning our nation’s es tuaries. These data can provide valuable insight regarding the ecology of our nation’s estuaries and any future phase II 316(b) regulations once th e rule becomes finalized.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-3 Environmental Services Section Appendix 2. Number + of larval organisms collected during entrainment and larval impingement sampling at the Brunswi ck Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common na me entrainment impingement

Gambusia holbrooki Eastern mosquitofish 0 1 Elopidae Tarpons Elops saurus (leptocephalus) Ladyfish (leptocephalus) 1 43 Megalops atlantica (leptocephalus) Tarpon (leptocephalus) 1 4 Anguillidae Freshwater eels Anguillia rostrata American eel 2 3 Ophichthidae Snake eels 0 0 Myrophis punctatus (leptocephalus) Speckled worm eel 8 26 Myrophis punctatus Speckled worm eel 2 12 Ophichthus gomesi Shrimp eel 1 0 Clupeidae Herrings Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden 44 182 Engraulidae Anchovies

Anchoa spp. < 13 mm Anchovy larvae < 13 mm 785 653

Anchoa spp. ≥ 13 mm Anchovy larvae ≥ 13 mm 684 2574

A. mitchilli Bay anchovy 16 0 A. hepsetus Striped anchovy 0 0 Synodontidae Lizardfishes Synodus foetens Inshore lizardfish 0 3 Ophidiidae Cusk-eels Ophidion welshi Crested cusk-eel 0 0

Batrachoididae Toadfishes Opsanus tau Oyster toadfish 0 0

Belonidae Needlefishes Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 0 0 Exocoetidae Flying fishes Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Silverstripe halfbeak 0 5 Cyprinodontidae Killifishes Cyprinodon variegates Sheepshead minnow 0 0

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 5 1 Fundulus majalis Striped killifish 0 0

Poeciliidae Livebearers Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly 0 0

Gadidae Codfishes Urophycis floridana Southern hake 0 0

Atherinidae Silversides 206 28 Menidia beryllina Inland silverside 1 0

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 0 0 Syngnathidae Pipefishes and seahorses Syngnathus spp. Unidentified pipefish 3 0 S. fuscus Northern pipefish 1 4

S. louisianae Chain pipefish 2 13 Hippocampus erectus Lined seahorse 0 0 Triglidae Searobins

Prionotus spp. Searobin 3 15

P. carolinus Northern searobin 0 0

P. tribulus Bighead searobin 0 0

Serranidae Seabasses Mycteroperca spp. Grouper 0 2Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-4 Environmental Services Section

Appendix 2 continued

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common name entrainment impingement

Percichthyidae Temperate basses

Morone spp. Temperate bass 7 0 Carangidae Jacks 2 6 Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 0 0 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper 0 1

Selene vomer Lookdown 0 1

Trachinotus carolinus Florida pompano 0 0 T. falcatus Permit 0 0 Oligoplites saurus Leatherjacket 0 0 Lutjanidae Snappers 0 0 Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper 0 6 Lutjanus synagris Lane snapper 0 2

Centrachidae Sunfishes Lepomis spp. Sunfish larva 0 0 Gerridae Mojarras 5 8

Haemulidae Grunts 0 0 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 5 89 Sparidae Porgies Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 19 155 Archosargus probotocephalus Sheepshead 0 0

Sciaenidae Drums Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 12 38 Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout 22 3 C. regalis Weakfish 2 20

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 512 2750

Menticirrhus spp. Kingfish spp. 2 5 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 278 2879 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 3 5 Pogonias cromis Black drum 4 1 Stellifer lanceolatus Star drum 0 1 Ephippidae Spadefishes Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 0 0 Mugilidae Mullets Mugil cephalus Striped mullet 19 123

M. curema White mullet 1 3 Sphyraenidae Barracudas

S. borealis Northern sennet 0 0 Uranoscopidae Stargazers Astroscopus guttatus Northern stargazer 0 1

Blenniidae Combtooth blennies 60 2 Eleotridae Sleepers

Dormitator maculatus Fat sleeper 0 1 Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek sleeper 0 1

Gobiidae Gobies

Gobionellus spp. Goby 23 137

Gobiosoma spp. Goby 716 823 Microgobius spp. Goby 60 65

Trichiuridae Snake mackerels Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic cutlassfish 0 0

Stromateidae Butterfishes Peprilus alepidotus Harvestfish 1 0Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-5 Environmental Services Section

Appendix 2 continued

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common name entrainment impingement

Stromateidae Butterfishes

P. triacanthus Butterfish 0 0

Bothidae Lefteye flounders Citharichthys spp. Whiff larvae 0 15 Paralichthys spp. larvae Flounder larvae 4 38

Soleidae Soles

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker 5 12 Gobiesocidae Clingfishes

Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish 4 1 Cynoglossidae Tonguefishes Symphurus spp. Tonguefish larvae 3 13 Symphurus plagiusa Blackcheek tonguefish 1 0

Balistidae Filefishes Monacanthus hispidus Planehead filefish 0 28

Tetraodontidae Puffers Spheroides maculatus Northern puffer 0 0 Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish 0 1

Invertebrates

Penaeidae Shrimp

Penaeid shrimp larvae, postlarvae stage Shrimp larvae
(pink, brown, white) 301 6772 Farfantepenaeus aztecus Brown shrimp 0 3

F. duorarum Pink shrimp 0 5 Litopenaeus setiferus White shrimp 0 6 Trachypeneus constrictus T-con or hardback shrimp 29 1577 Portunidae Swimming crabs

Portunid crab < 10 mm Swimming crabs 5 628 Portunid crab larvae, megalops stage Swimming crab megalops 110 1911

Callinectes spp. < 20 mm Unidentified Callinectes crab 0 55

Total organisms 3,983 21,760

+ Numbers represent total number collected pe r 5-minute sample summed over all samples.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-6 Environmental Services Section Appendix 3. Number + and biomass (g) of juvenile and adult organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswi ck Steam Electric Plant during 2009.

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Carcharhinidae Sharks Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark 5 1436 Dasyatidae Skates and Rays Dasyatis americana Southern stingray 0 0

D. sabina Atlantic stingray 9 1445 Gymnura micrura Smooth butterfly ray 28 6024 Anguillidae Freshwater eels Anguilla rostrata American eel 0 0 Elopidae Tarpons Elops saurus Ladyfish 1 26 Ophichthidae Snake eels Myrophis punctatus Speckled worm eel 155 1965 Ophichthus gomesi Shrimp eel 72 3166 Clupeidae Herrings

Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring 17 35 A. sapidissima American shad 77 366 Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden 1494 20662 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 0 0 D. petenense Threadfin shad 1154 4934 Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring 100 600 Engraulidae Anchovies Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy 680 3962

Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy 73628 77125 Synodontidae Lizardfishes Synodus foetens Inshore lizardfishes 12 367

Gadidae Codfishes Urophycis floridana Southern hake 4 22 U. regia Spotted hake 73 566 Ophidiidae Cusk-eels Ophidion welshi Crested cusk-eel 6 42

Batrachoididae Toadfishes Opsanus tau Oyster toadfish 33 1241 Gobiesocidae Clingfishes

Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish 0 0 Exocoetidae Flying fishes Hemiramphus brasiliensis Ballyhoo 18 6 Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Silverstripe halfbeak 112 168

Belonidae Needlefishes Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 0 0 Cyprinodontidae Killifishes

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 14 29 Fundulus majalis Striped killifish 0 0

Atherinidae Silversides

Membras martinica Rough silverside 1027 1777

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 123 263

Fistulariidae Cornetfishes

Fistularia tabacaria Bluespotted cornetfish 0 0 Syngnathidae Pipefishes Syngnathus fuscus Northern pipefish 163 291 Syngnathus louisianae Chain pipefish 168 427Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-7 Environmental Services Section Appendix 3 continued

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Hippocampus erectus Lined seahorse 0 0 Scorpaenidae Scorpionfishes Scorpaena sp. Scorpionfish 0 0 Triglidae Searobins

Prionotus evolans Striped searobin 1 16

Prionotus scitulus Leopard searobin 14 73

Prionotus tribulus Bighead searobin 174 795

Serranidae Sea basses Mycteroperca microlepis Gag 0 0 Centropristis striata Black seabass 0 0

Pomatomidae Bluefishes

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 41 298 Rachycentridae Cobia Rachycentron canadum Cobia 7 44 Carangidae Jacks Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 0 0 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper 10 242 Oligoplites saurus Leatherjack 0 0

Selene vomer Lookdown 40 437 Trachinotus falcatus Permit 10 58 Lutjanidae Snappers Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper 2 8 Lobotidae Tripletails

Lobotes surinamensis Tripletail 0 0

Centrachidae Sunfishes Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 0 0 Gerridae Mojarras Diapterus auratus Irish pompano 0 0 Eucinostomus argenteus Spotfin mojarra 12 136

Haemulidae Grunts Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 18 161 Sparidae Porgies Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 4 40 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 382 1960

Sciaenidae Drums Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 323 2311 Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout 2 2723 C. regalis Weakfish 60 325 Larimus fasciatus Banded drum 0 0

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 8776 74509

Menticirrhus americanus Southern kingfish 0 0

M. saxatilis Northern kingfish 0 0 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 2120 32056 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 21 32 Stellifer lanceolatus Star drum 468 1630 Ephippidae Spadefishes Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 1 30 Chaetodontidae Butterfly fishes

Chaetodon ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish 0 0 Mugilidae Mullets Mugil cephal us Striped mullet 39 653

M. curema White mullet 2 33Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-8 Environmental Services Section

Appendix 3 continued

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Sphyraenidae Barracudas Sphyraena barracuda Great barracuda 0 0

S. borealis Northern sennet 0 0

Labridae Wrasses Tautoga onitis Tautog 0 0 Uranoscopidae Stargazers Astroscopus guttatus Northern stargazer 0 0 A. y-graecum Southern stargazer 0 0

Blenniidae Combtooth blennies Chasmodes bosquianus Striped blenny 5 26 Hypsoblennius hentz Feather blenny 9 157

H. ionthas Freckled blenny 0 0 Eleotridae Sleepers Eleotris pisonis Spinycheek sleeper 0 0

Gobiidae Gobies

Gobionellus oceanicus Highfin goby 0 0

Gobiosoma bosc Naked goby 7 22

Microdesmidae Wormfishes Microdesmus longipinnis Pink wormfish 0 0

Trichiuridae Snake mackerels Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic cutlassfish 134 1959

Scombridae Mackerels

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel 0 0

Stromateidae Butterfishes Peprilus alepidotus Harvestfish 39 567

P. triacanthus Butterfish 0 0 Bothidae Lefteye flounders Ancylopsetta quadrocellata Ocellated flounder 42 312 Citharichthys spilopterus Bay whiff 294 2565 Etropus crossotus Fringed flounder 477 3430 Paralichthys dentatus Summer flounder 35 133 P. lethostigma Southern flounder 4 1172 Scophthalmus aquosus Windowpane 0 0

Soleidae Soles

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker 26 154 Cynoglossidae Tonguefishes Symphurus plagiusa Blackcheek tonguefish 2098 9069 Balistidae Triggerfishes and filefishes Monacanthus hispidus Planehead filefish 0 0 Aluterus schoepfi Orange filefish 0 0

Tetraodontidae Puffers Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish 2 195 Sphoeroides maculates Northern puffer 44 1535

Invertebrates Mollusks, shrimps, and crabs

Aphysiidae Sea hares Aplysia sp. Sea hare 0 0 Lologinidae Sea hares Lolliguncula brevis Brief squid 265 1922

Limulidae Horseshoe crabs

Lim ulus polyphemus Horseshoe crab 1 1360Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2009 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Service Company, LLC A-9 Environmental Services Section

Appendix 3 continued

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Squillidae Mantis shrimps Squilla empusa Mantis shrimp 51 855 Alpheidae Snapping shrimps Alpheus sp. Snapping shrimp 9 9 Sicyoniidae Rock shrimps Sicyonia sp. Rock shrimp 0 0

Penaeidae Prawns Farfantepenaeus aztecus Brown shrimp 3172 21219

F. duorarum Pink shrimp 954 2017 Litopenaeus setiferus White shrimp 11778 79774 Trachypeneus constrictus T-con or hardback shrimp 328 282 Portunidae Swimming crabs Ovalipes sp. Lady crab 0 0 Portunus sp. Swimming crabs 76 323 P. spinimanus Brown bar crab 93 176

Callinectes ornatus Shelligs crab 293 1027 C. sapidus Blue crab 1037 21805

C. similus Lesser blue crab 965 3118 Eurypanopeus abbreviatus Mud crab 19 276

Reptiles

Emydidae Emydiaeid turtles Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 2 188

Total organisms 113,959 401,161

+ Numbers and biomass represent total number and weight collected per 24-hour sample summed over all sample dates.