### BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT

2008 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT

Prepared by:

Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

Raleigh, North Carolina

December 2009Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. i Environmental, Health and Safety 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, Health and Safety Services Section Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc.

410 South Wilmington Street Raleigh, North Carolina 27601Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. ii Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. iii Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2007 and 2008 ................................................................................. 2-7

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 2007

and 2008 ............................................................................................................... 2-8

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 2008 .................. 2-9

2.4 Entrainment densities of selected taxa at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ................................................................................................ . 2-10

2.5 Entrainment rates of selected taxa at the Brunswick St eam Electric Plant during 2008 .......................................................................................................... 2-11

2.6 Estimated total number of selected taxa collected with monthly larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ....... 2-12

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 2008 ................................................................................... 2-13

2.8 Mean density and biomass of selected juvenile and adult organisms indicating reductions in density and biomass impi nged during 2008 as a result of the

Fish diversion structure. ....................................................................................... 2-14

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 2008 .................................................................................................... ...... 2-15

2.10 Estimated numbers and percent surviv al of selected larval organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 .......................................................................................................... 2-16

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 2008. ............................................... 2-17Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. iv Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 

### List of Figures

Figure Page

1.1 Location of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant near Southport, North Carolina .................................................................................... 1-2

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 2008 .............. 1-3

2.1 Mean daily freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary and monthly intake canal salinity at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ...................... 2-18

2.2 Mean annual freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2004-2008 ................... 2-18

2.3 Mean monthly intake canal water temperature at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ...................................................... 2-19

2.4 Mean winter and summer inta ke canal water temperatures

at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2004-2008 ............................................. 2-19

2.5 Number of taxa collected in en trainment and larval impingement samples at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ............................... 2-20

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

1979-2008 ............................................................................................................ 2-21

2.7 Annual number of total organisms en trained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1979-2008 and the annua l mean density of total larval organisms collected during larval fish sampling in the Cape Fear Estuary, 1979-1993. ............................................................................ 2-21Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. v Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 

### List of Appendices

Appendix Page

1 Summary of historical environmental studies conducted in association

with the Bruns wick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2008 .......................................... A-1

2 Number of larval organisms collected during entrainment and larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ....... A-3

3 Number and biomass of juvenile and adult organisms collected during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008 ....... A-6Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. vi Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. vii Environmental, Health, and Safety 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 2008 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 44% 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 which is significant because 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 1-1 Environmental, Health, and Safety 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 entrainm ent and impingement of organisms.

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.

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 entrainmentBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 1-2 Environmental, Health, and Safety Services Section of organisms (Figure 1.2). Th is report presents data for 2 008 on impingement and entrainment rates of larval, juvenile, and ad ult fish and shellfish and eval uates the effectiveness of the NPDES-required intake modifications.

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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 1-3 Environmental, Health, and Safety 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 2008.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-1 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 (Hog arth and Nichols 1981; CP&L 1989; PEC 2008).

Entrainment sampling during 2008 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 2008 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-2 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008. However, data from 1983 were excluded from the analysis since fine-mesh screen s 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. However, data prior to 1983 can be used to estimate a nnual 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 annua l estimate of total number entrained. Design flow is the rated flow of all main cooling wa ter pumps per unit plus service water and screen

wash flows. The summation of these flows resu lt in a total design flow of 84.15 cms. Details and rated pump capacities can be found in the Proposal for Information Collection compiled as required by the phase II 316(b) rule (PEC 2005) . Linear interpolation was used to estimate entrainment rates on non-sampling days. Annual numbers entrained after 1983 were calculated in a similar fashion with the exception that actu al cooling-water flow was used. A calculated annual baseline entrainment rate was obtained by averaging the annual number entrained for the years 1979 through 1982. The estimated annual number entrained each year after 1983 was

subtracted from the annual baseline estimate to ob tain a percentage reduction from baseline due to the installation of fine-mesh screens, fish re turn system, and reduced cooling-water flow. Additional insight was obtained by comparing annual entrainment estimates 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 12 ppt during September to a high of 34 ppt during January (Figure 2.1). Freshwater i nput varied sporadically during 2008 with peak flows occurring during March, April, September, and December. Except for 2006, the annual mean freshwater input to the CFE remained relatively low from 2004-2008 when compared to the long-term annual mean flow of 270 cms from 1980-2003 (Figure 2.2).Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-3 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section • Intake canal water temperature ranged from 12.2 ° C during January and December to a high of 29.8 ° C during August (Figure 2.3). Mean water temperature during the peak recruitment season for most winter spawne rs (January-March) was relatively warm during 2006, 2007 and 2008 compared to the previous two years (Figure 2.4). Little

difference was evident for mean summer water temperature (June-August) among these years.

2.3.2 Dominant Species

• Anchovies, Gobiosoma spp., pinfish, spot, and croake r were the most abundant taxa collected in entrainment samp les during 2008 (Table 2.1). Shrimp larvae, Atlantic menhaden, portunid crab megalops, and Bl ennidae were also among the 10 most numerous taxa entrained entrained during 2008. A comple te species list showing numbers collected can be found in Appendi x 2. The annual mean density of total organisms collected in entrainment sa mples during 2008 was approximately 50% greater than that co llected during 2007.

• Ten taxa accounted for 96% of the total larval organisms collected in larval impingement samples during 2008 (Table 2.2 ). The most dominant larvae impinged were shrimp, croaker, Anchoa spp. ( ≥ 13 mm), spot, and pinf ish. Portunid crab megalops, Atlantic menhaden, Blennidae, hardback shrimp, and Gobionellus spp

. were also among the top ten larval taxa impinged during 2008. Although the relative ranking has varied, the same ten most a bundant species have generally dominated larval impingement samples each year sin ce 1984. A complete sp ecies 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 2008 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 2008, J/A impingement samples were numerically dominated by bay anchovy, white shrimp, brown shrimp, pink shrimp, a nd lesser blue crab (Table 2.3). Spot, striped anchovy, brown bar crab, blue crab, and rough silverside were also among the top ten species collected dur ing 2008. These top ten sp ecies accounted for 95% of the number collected and approximately 89% of the biomass collected during 2008.

Prior to intake modifications in 1983, Atlantic menhaden an d 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. This shift is significant because impingement samples have become

dom inated by shrimp and crabs. Both thes e taxa exhibit relatively high survival in the fish return system. Additional species that contributed to the biomass impinged include pinfish (7.8 kg), blackcheek tonguefi sh (7.3 kg), brief squid (6.1 kg), fringedBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-4 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section flounder (5.3 kg), threadfin shad (5.3 kg), and Atlantic cutlassfish (4.3 kg). A complete species list show ing numbers and weights collected can be found in Appendix 3.

• No rare, threatened or endangered species were collected with entrainment or impingement sampling during 2008.

2.3.3 Seasonality and Abundance

• Seasonal variations for larvae entrained and impinged in 2008 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 2008 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., and Blennidae) were most abundant during the spring and summer. The period of abundance for portunid crab megalops occurred during the fall and early winter. Larval Gobionellus spp. was present year-round.

• Seasonality of larger indi viduals collected during J/A impingement sampling were consistent with previous years and the na tural seasonality reported for these species in the lower CFE by Schwartz et al. (1979). Results indicate th at impingement of finfish was comprised mostly of young-of-yea r individuals too sma ll to be excluded 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 abundant during May, June, and December were young-of-year

individuals as indicat ed by modal lengths ≤ 70 mm (Table 2.7). Peak densities of spot and croaker collected during May, J une, and September also consisted of youngof-year individuals. Bay anchovy, collected year round, was most abundant during the winter and spring when past data indicated that most of the individuals comprising the population had grown to a si ze large enough to be impinged on the coarse-mesh traveling screens. The stri ped anchovy was most abundant during late summer. Peak densities of white, br own, and pink shrimp occurred during the summer recruitment period. Blue crab wa s also abundant duri ng the summer and early fall.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-5 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section • The seasonality for total number of all organisms impinged was driven by the large numbers of bay anchovy coll ected (Table 2.7). Once bay anchovy is excluded, a pattern emerges where the greatest numb er impinged by month occurred during the summer months. Shrimp and blue crab were the dominant organisms impinged during the summer. This is significant b ecause both taxa are characterized by high

survival rates in the fish re turn system. (CP&L 1987, 1988).

• Installation of the fish diversi on structure resulted in a decline in the densities of most J/A organisms impinged. Species that domin ated impingement prior to installation

of the diversion structure include Atlantic menhaden, spot, croaker, and blue crabs. During 2008, the mean density of these sp ecies collected with J/A impingement sampling has been reduced by 64% for blue crabs to 99% for Atlantic menhaden in comparison to the average baseline dens ity (Table 2.8). The average biomass (weight per million cubic meters of water) impinged for these species was reduced by approximately 60% for blue crabs to 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 5% in May to 53% 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 eff ectiveness ranged from 1% for Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm)

and Gobiosoma spp. to 52% for portunid crab megalops, a valuable commercial species. During March and April, when fine -mesh screen efficiencies were highest, Unit 2 (Unit 1 refueling outage) was operating with two fine-mesh screens and one

50% fine-mesh screen. The dominant larvae at that time were shrimp, croaker, and spot (Tables 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9). The lowest fine-mesh screen efficiencies for the year were recorded during May when non-co mmercially important taxa such as goby ( Gobiosoma spp.) and anchovy larvae ( Anchoa spp. < 13 mm) were numerically dominant (these taxa exhibit relativ ely 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-6 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 87% 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 44% 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 eleven taxa accounted for approximately

93% of the total number collected and 90% 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 91% of the total number and 92% of the total biomass of organi sms impinged, excluding bay anchovy, were

returned alive to th e estuary during 2008.

2.4 Summary and Conclusions

The Brunswick Steam Electric Plant intake modifications and operational measures continued to be effective in reducing the numbe r of organisms affected by the withdrawal of cooling water from the Cape Fear Estuary. Ev idence supporting this conc lusion includes species composition and abundance of organisms entrai ned and impinged. Anchovies, gobies, spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crab s were the dominant larvae entrained and impinged. Use of finemesh screens has decreased the risk of entrainmen t for spot, croaker, pinfish, shrimp and crabs. These organisms may potentially be at more ri sk of being entrained since they are spawned offshore and pass by the plant intake in order to r each the nursery areas in the Cape Fear Estuary. Conversely, anchovies and gobies are at less risk since they ar e estuarine residents and spawning occurs throughout the entir e estuary. Overall, use of fine-m esh screens has reduced the numbers of all organisms entrained by up to approximately 52%. The greatest redu ctions 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 return ed 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, the fish return system, a nd reduced cooling water flow ranged from 57% to

87% since 1983. Based on survival estimates da ta, approximately 44% of the larvae tested for

survival were returned alive to the estuary. The most valuable co mmercial taxa, shrimp and crab larvae, exhibited the grea test survival (> 87%).

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 are retu rned alive to the CFE by the fish returnBrunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-7 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section system. Installation of the fish diversion struct ure significantly reduced the number of larger organisms impinged at the plant. Conservative estimates of the effectiveness were between 64%-99% for the historically dominant species imp inged. In addition to a reduction in numbers, a shift to the impingement of smaller finfish ha s resulted as well. This shift to smaller individuals is important because the larger indi viduals that are being excluded (saved) are the reproducing members of the population. In add ition, the natural morta lity rates (predation, weather, tides, etc.) of smaller i ndividuals is relatively high compared to the natural mortality rates of older, larger individuals so many of th e smaller individual would not survive to maturity

even in the absence of Plant operation. The species composition of organisms collected with impingement sampling also shifted to a greater per centage of shrimp and bl ue 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 crab s exhibit excellent survival in the fish return system (> 90%).

There has been no evidence of long-term envi ronmental impact desp ite some variability

in entrainment rates due to environmental and plant operating conditi ons. The seasonality of organisms collected in the entrainment, larval impingement, and J/A im pingement studies during 2008 were similar to previous years and corres ponded to the natural s easonality of larval organisms in the Cape Fear Estuary. Fish population studies conducted during 1999, 2001 and 2002 indicated no declines in abundance of any species or shifts in species composition compared to long-term data collected from the 1980s through 1993 even for bay anchovy, a species exhibiting poor survival in the fish retu rn system. Intensive assessments throughout the 1970s, before the installation of fine-mesh screen s and the fish return system, indicated that cooling-water withdrawal had no m easurable adverse effect on fish and shellfish populations in the Cape Fear Estuary. Annual population levels in the Cape fear Estuary were determined by temperature, freshwater flow, and salinity.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-8 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2007 and 2008 (based on ranking for 2008).

2007 2008

Annual mean Annual mean Taxon density Percent density Percent

Anchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 4.0 4.3 28.8 20.8

Gobiosoma spp. 10.1 11.1 22.7 16.4

Pinfish 0.8 0.9 20.8 15.0

Spot 40.5 44.0 15.1 10.9

Croaker 10.2 11.1 14.8 10.7

Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 7.9 8.6 11.4 8.2

Shrimp 4.2 4.6 8.0 5.8

Atlantic menhaden 0.7 0.8 3.2 2.3

Portunid crab megalops 2.6 2.8 2.5 1.8

Blennidae 0.9 1.0 1.5 1.1

Other taxa (n = 39 for 2007) 7.5 6.6 9.9 7.1 (n = 35 for 2007)

Total organisms + 92.1 100.0 138.7 100.0

+ Total may vary from summation due to rounding of individual taxon.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-9 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2007 and 2008 (based on ranking for 2008).

2007 2008

Taxon Total number + Percent Total number + Percent

Shrimp 2.2 x 10 6 16.6 3.0 x 10 6 24.4

Croaker 2.6 x 10 6 19.4 2.3 x 10 6 19.0

Anchoa spp. ( ≥ 13 mm) 1.0 x 10 6 7.7 2.3 x 10 6 18.9

Spot 4.6 x 10 6 34.9 1.8 x 10 6 14.3

Pinfish 1.0 x 10 5 0.8 9.9 x 10 5 8.1

Portunid megalops 7.8 x 10 5 6.0 4.6 x 10 5 3.8

Atlantic menhaden 1.5 x 10 5 1.2 4.0 x 10 5 3.3

Blennidae 2.4 x 10 4 0.2 2.6 x 10 5 2.2

Hardback shrimp 2.2 x 10 5 1.6 1.4 x 10 5 1.2

Gobionellus spp. 1.1 x 10 5 0.9 1.3 x 10 5 1.0

Other taxa (n = 51 for 2007) 1.4 x 10 6 10.8 4.9 x 10 5 4.0 (n = 51 for 2008)

Total & 13.1 x 10 6 100.0 12.2 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-10 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

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

Bay anchovy 82,442 44.9 70.9 10.1

White shrimp 39,334 21.4 335.0 47.5

Brown shrimp 29,645 16.1 80.4 11.4

Pink Shrimp 6,533 3.6 11.0 1.6

Lesser blue crab 5,525 3.0 41.4 5.9

Spot 2,950 1.6 17.4 2.5

Striped anchovy 2,285 1.2 7.2 1.0

Brown bar crab 2,053 1.1 4.9 0.7

Blue crab 1,598 0.9 59.2 8.4

Rough silverside 1,488 0.8 2.2 0.3

Other taxa (n = 72 for 2008) 9,821 5.3 76.0 10.8

Total 183,673 100.0 705.5 100.0

+

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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-11 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Month

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

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0 870 133 38 30 5 17 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 1,764 14 41 21 61 175 0 47 351 186 23 81

Spot 16 1,053 236 143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinfish 50 1,924 0 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Atlantic croaker 417 208 238 417 3 0 0 0 44 35 20 39

Atlantic menhaden 9 58 108 131 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 52 43 34 12 2 0 0 0

Gobionellus spp. 5 6 3 33 6 0 0 12 7 4 0 3

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 666 1,154 122 151 90 0 0 0

Portunid crab
megalops 0 2 0 3 6 22 7 6 1 0 195 0

Shrimp 19 35 77 322 21 152 86 29 14 0 16 0

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 53 3 9 0 0 0 0

Total organisms 2,302 3,324 752 1,178 1,861 1,966 376 355 554 252 266 134

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

sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-12 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section Table 2.5 Entrainment rates (million pe r sampling day) of selected taxa + at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008.

Month

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

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0 4.599 0.703 0.208 0.162 0.027 0.090 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 7.957 0.064 0.091 0.055 0.324 0.926 0 0.256 1.854 0.985 0.123 0.365

Spot 0.070 4.751 0.533 0.377 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinfish 0.224 8.679 0 0.047 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.015

Croaker 1.883 0.936 0.536 1.101 0.016 0 0 0 0.231 0.185 0.104 0.177

Atlantic menhaden 0.040 0.263 0.243 0.345 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.021 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 0.273 0.226 0.187 0.064 0.010 0 0 0

Gobionellus spp. 0.021 0.028 0.007 0.086 0.031 0 0 0.064 0.039 0.019 0 0.015

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 3.518 6.099 0.665 0.824 0.476 0 0 0

Portunid crab
megalops 0 0.007 0 0.008 0.031 0.116 0.037 0.032 0.008 0 1.029 0

Shrimp 0.086 0.159 0.173 0.852 0.110 0.802 0.471 0.161 0.072 0 0.086 0

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0 0 0 0.280 0.016 0.048 0 0 0 0

Total organisms 10.385 14.996 1.697 3.113 9.834 10.392 2.053 1.937 2.927 1.333 1.404 0.603

+ Selected taxa comprised ≥ 1% of the total sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-13 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Month

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

A nchoa spp. (< 13 mm) 0 0 0 0 0.038 0.009 0.001 0.003 0.001 0.005 0 0

A nchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 1.350 0.340 0.017 0.040 0.043 0.069 0 0.013 0.177 0.097 0.049 0.113

Spot 0.044 0.959 0.392 0.346 0.010 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pinfish 0.068 0.906 0 0.011 0.002 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0.001

Atlantic croaker 0.372 0.267 0.392 1.255 0.002 0 0 0 0.003 0.015 0.011 0.010

Atlantic menhaden 0.006 0.032 0.151 0.212 0.001 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Combtooth

blennies 0 0 0 0 0.261 0.002 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gobionellus spp. 0.007 0.001 0.011 0.097 0.004 0 0 0 0.005 0.001 0 0.015

Gobiosoma spp. 0 0 0 0 0.013 0.023 0.001 0.013 0.013 0.001 0 0

Portunid crab
megalops 0.025 0.998 0.010 0.087 0.082 0.015 0.014 0.005 0.019 0.003 0.090 0.014

Shrimp 0.054 0.079 0.381 1.323 0.049 0.478 0.442 0.076 0.074 0.012 0.012 0.002

Hardback shrimp 0 0 0.006 0 0 0.023 0.038 0.065 0.004 0.004 0 0.002

Total organisms 1.951 2.741 1.365 3.443 0.567 0.655 0.513 0.194 0.345 0.141 0.181 0.148

+ Selected taxa comprised > 1% of the total sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement sampling.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-14 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Month

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

Bay anchovy **&**

density 1,385 470 581 481 508 1,356 10 28 1,202 74 2,386 9,325

Atlantic

menhaden density 4 < 1 0 0 17 13 0 0 0 0 7 39 modal length 110 IN § 50 50 50 65,70

Striped anchovy density 5 1 112 63 258 0 0 389 1,130 58 252 17

Spot density < 1 < 1 0 0 95 120 1 2 17 8 3 365 modal length IN IN 45 55 IN IN 110 95,100 IN 65

Croaker density 0 1 0 0 4 12 0 0 18 0 4 0 modal length IN IN 55 55 IN

White shrimp density 3 13 32 3 16 0 16 96 5,335 321 47 1,849 modal length IN 95 135 IN 160 55 45, 60 95 100 75 100

Brown shrimp density 0 0 0 0 3 5,390 42 94 49 22 5 0 modal length IN 70 95 110 70 70 45

Pink shrimp density 0 7 0 0 13 0 1 33 1,060 103 15 17 modal length 55 115 IN 60, 65 55 50 40 70, 85

Blue crab **&**

density

14 2 0 0 32 224 11 42 929 30 56 11

Total organisms 15 0 44 166 55 269 5,958 87 611 8,666 630 412 2,622 excluding bay anchovy

Total organisms 1,535 514 747 536 777 7,314 97 639 9,868 704 2,798 11,947

+ 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-15 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section Table 2.8 Mean density and biomass of selected juvenile and adult organisms indicating reductions in density and biomass impinged during 2008 as a result of the fish

diversion structure.

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

Taxa Pre-diversion **&** 2008 Percent

Reduction Pre-diversion **&** 2008 Percent

Reduction

Atlantic menhaden 5,481 7 99.9 38.8 0.04 99.9

Spot 362 53 85.4 3.7 0.31 91.6

Croaker 199 4 98.0 5.7 0.03 99.4

Blue crabs 351 128 63.6 4.5 1.80 59.9

Total Organisms 10,538 3,293 68.8 60.6 12.65 79.1

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

million m 3 of water pumped by the plant.

**&** These values are means of all years (1977-1981) prior to completi on of the diversion structure.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-16 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Month

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

Anchoa spp. (< 13 mm) NP & NP NP NP 1 1 0 2 4 5 NP NP 1

Anchoa spp. (> 13 mm) 15 84 16 42 12 7 NP 5 9 28 24 15 23

Atlantic

menhaden 13 11 38 38 100 NP NP NP NP NP NP NP 31

Spot 39 17 42 48 100 100 NP NP NP NP NP NP 23

Croaker 16 22 42 53 11 NP NP NP 1 8 10 5 31

Pinfish 23 9 NP 19 100 100 NP NP NP NP NP 6 10

Combtooth blenny NP NP NP NP 49 1 0 0 0 NP NP NP 26

Gobionellus s pp. 22 15 42 56 11 13 44 NP NP 6 6 8 20

Gobiosoma spp. NP NP NP NP < 1 < 1 < 1 2 3 100 NP NP 1

Shrimp 39 33 69 61 31 37 48 32 51 100 12 100 50

Hardback shrimp NP NP 100 NP NP 8 70 58 100 100 NP 100 29

Portunid crab megalops 100 99 100 92 73 11 27 14 70 100 8 100 52

Total Organisms 16 15 45 53 5 6 20 9 11 10 11 20 17

+ 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-17 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Total Percent + Number &

Taxa number survival survived

Shrimp 2,981,376 90.3 2,692,183 Croaker 2,327,616 33.7 784,407

Anchoa spp. > 13 2,309,184 0.7 16,164 Spot 1,750,896 29.4 514,736 Portunid Megalops 463,104 87.0 402,900 Atlantic menhaden 403,056 3.2 12,896 Hardback shrimp 142,416 78.8 112,224

Gobionellus spp. 125,568 15.4 19,337

Blue crabs 69,696 91.7 63,911 Flounder spp. 41,616 93.2 38,786 Pink and white shrimp 14,832 95.8 14,209 Weakfish 14,256 12.6 1,796 Mullet 13,248 69.8 9,247

Prionotus spp. 5,616 89.8 5,043

Total selected taxa 10,662,480 44.0 4,687,869

+ 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-18 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Total Total Percent Number Biomass

Taxa number biomass survival + survived **&** survived

Bay anchovy 82,422 70.9 4.9 4,040 3.5 Pink & white shrimp 45,867 345.9 93.7 42,977 324.1 Brown shrimp 29,645 80.4 90.4 26,799 72.6 Blue crabs 7,164 100.9 96.2 6,892 97.0 Spot 2,950 17.4 60.4 1,782 10.5 Blackcheek tonguefish 1,206 7.3 83.1 1,002 6.0

Atlantic menhaden 392 2.5 15.6 61 0.4

Croaker 202 1.8 45.1 91 0.8

Star drum ¶ 125 0.7 45.0 83 0.3

Weakfish 100 0.6 35.0 35 0.2 Silver perch ¶ 74 2.3 60.4 45 1.4 Striped mullet 25 0.2 92.0 23 0.2

Flounder 11 0.4 71.1 8 0.3

Total 170,263 631.1 83,838 517.4

Percent survival 49.2 82.0

(selected taxa)

Percent survival 90.9 91.7
(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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-19 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

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 2008.



## 0 100 200 300

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Freshwater Flow (cms) 270 cms = mean annual flow 1980-2003

F igure 2.2 Mean annual freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2004–2008.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-20 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecTemperature (°C)

Figure 2.3 Mean monthly intake canal water temperature ( 

### ° C) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant during 2008.



### 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Temperature (°C)



### Winter Summer

Figure 2.4 Mean winter and summer intake canal water temperatures ( ° C) at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2004-2008.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-21 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 14 15 14 20 23 23

16 17 20

12 12 12 53

13 15

10 13 24

19

12 13 14

7 9 6 46

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 2008.

Photograph of February 2006 larval impingement sample.

These larvae would have been entrained without the use of fine-mesh screens Provided for information only a nd is not cited in the text.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. 2-22 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 0 20 40 60 80 100

0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Percent 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, 1979-2008. (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 9000197919801981198219831984198519861987198819891990199119921993199419951996199719981999200020012002200320042005200620072008Larval 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, 1979-2008 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 Carolinas, Inc 3-1 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 Carolinas, Inc 3-2 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section . 2008. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2007 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-1 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section 

### APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of historical environmen tal studies conducted in association with the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2008.

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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-2 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 interest 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 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-3 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section Appendix 2. Number + of larval organisms collected during entrainment and larval impingement sampling at the Brunswi ck Steam Electric Plant during 2008.

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common na me entrainment impingement

Elopidae Tarpons Elops saurus (leptocephalus) Ladyfish (leptocephalus) 2 38 Megalops atlantica (leptocephalus) Tarpon (leptocephalus) 0 0 Anguillidae Freshwater eels Anguillia rostrata American eel 1 3 Ophichthidae Snake eels 1 Myrophis punctatus (leptocephalus) Speckled worm eel 17 154 Myrophis punctatus Speckled worm eel 4 15 Ophichthus gomesi Shrimp eel 0 1 Clupeidae Herrings Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden 120 740 Engraulidae Anchovies

Anchoa spp. < 13 mm Anchovy larvae < 13 mm 655 127

Anchoa spp. ≥ 13 mm Anchovy larvae ≥ 13 mm 1,654 4,335

A. mitchilli Bay anchovy 11 0 A. hepsetus Striped anchovy 1 0 Synodontidae Lizardfishes Synodus foetens Inshore lizardfish 1 1 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 1 Cyprinodontidae Killifishes Cyprinodon variegates Sheepshead minnow 0 1

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 5 0 Fundulus majalis Striped killifish 0 33

Poeciliidae Livebearers Poecilia latipinna Sailfin molly 0 0

Gadidae Codfishes Urophycis floridana Southern hake 0 1

Atherinidae Silversides 56 2

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 0 0 Syngnathidae Pipefishes and seahorses Syngnathus spp. Unidentified pipefish 2 0 S. fuscus Northern pipefish 3 9

S. louisianae Chain pipefish 2 19 Hippocampus erectus Lined seahorse 0 0 Triglidae Searobins

Prionotus spp. Searobin 5 10

P. carolinus Northern searobin 0 1

P. tribulus Bighead searobin 0 2

Serranidae Seabasses Myctoperc a spp. Grouper 0 0 Percichthyidae Temperate basses

Morone spp. Temperate bass 0 0Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-4 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section

Appendix 2 continued

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common name entrainment impingement

Carangidae Jacks Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 0 2 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper 1 0

Selene vomer Lookdown 0 0

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 0

Centrachidae Sunfishes Lepomis spp. Sunfish larva 0 0 Gerridae Mojarras 7 5

Haemulidae Grunts 11 0 Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 27 41 Sparidae Porgies Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 1,242 1,743 Archosargus probotocephalus Sheepshead 0 0

Sciaenidae Drums Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 47 20 Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout 33 4 C. regalis Weakfish 17 25

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 781 3,108

Menticirrhus spp. Kingfish spp. 6 0 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 678 4,215 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 5 11 Pogonias cromis Black drum 7 0 Stellifer lanceolatus Star drum 2 0 Ephippidae Spadefishes Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 0 0 Mugilidae Mullets Mugil cephalus Striped mullet 9 11

M. curema White mullet 0 13 Sphyraenidae Barracudas

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

Blenniidae Combtooth blennies 64 491 Eleotridae Sleepers

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

Gobiidae Gobies

Gobionellus spp. Goby 34 224

Gobiosoma spp. Goby 1,004 163 Microgobius spp. Goby 25 11

Trichiuridae Snake mackerels Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic cutlassfish 0 1

Str omateidae Butterfishes Peprilus alepidotus Harvestfish 0 0

P. triacanthus Butterfish 0 0Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-5 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section

Appendix 2 continued

Number

collected Number

collected

Scientific name Common name entrainment impingement

Bothidae Lefteye flounders Citharichthys spp. Whiff larvae 10 37 Paralichthys spp. larvae Flounder larvae 6 74

Soleidae Soles

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker 18 11 Gobiesocidae Clingfishes

Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish 19 4 Cynoglossidae Tonguefishes Symphurus spp. Tonguefish larvae 1 2

Balistidae Filefishes Monacanthus hispidus Planehead filefish 0 1

Tetraodontidae Puffers Spheroides maculatus Northern puffer 0 2 Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish 0 1

Invertebrates

Penaeidae Shrimp

Penaeid shrimp larvae, postlarvae stage Shrimp larvae
(pink, brown, white) 279 5752 Farfantepenaeus aztecus Brown shrimp 0 0

F. duorarum Pink shrimp 0 0 Litopenaeus setiferus White shrimp 1 25 Trachypeneus constrictus T-con or hardback shrimp 25 271 Portunidae Swimming crabs

Portunid crab < 10 mm Swimming crabs 2 134 Portunid crab larvae, megalops stage Swimming crab megalops 68 1183

Callinectes spp. < 20 mm Unidentified Callinectes crab 0 22

Total organisms 6,969 23,103

+ Numbers represent total number collected pe r 5-minute sample summed over all samples.Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-6 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 2008.

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Carcharhinidae Sharks Rhizoprionodon terraenovae Atlantic sharpnose shark 0 0 Dasyatidae Skates and Rays Dasyatis americana Southern stingray 2 310

D. sabina Atlantic stingray 0 0 Gymnura micrura Smooth butterfly ray 3 475 Anguillidae Freshwater eels Anguilla rostrata American eel 0 0 Elopidae Tarpons Elops saurus Ladyfish 0 0 Ophichthidae Snake eels Myrophis punctatus Speckled worm eel 20 128 Ophichthus gomesi Shrimp eel 1 205 Clupeidae Herrings

Alosa aestivalis Blueback herring 0 0 A. sapidissima American shad 7 39 Brevoortia tyrannus Atlantic menhaden 52 470 Dorosoma cepedianum Gizzard shad 3 14 D. petenense Threadfin shad 49 242 Opisthonema oglinum Atlantic thread herring 5 23 Engraulidae Anchovies Anchoa hepsetus Striped anchovy 189 945

Anchoa mitchilli Bay anchovy 3,847 3,824 Synodontidae Lizardfishes Synodus foetens Inshore lizardfishes 8 307

Gadidae Codfishes Urophycis floridana Southern hake 1 13 U. regia Spotted hake 1 15 Ophidiidae Cusk-eels Ophidion welshi Crested cusk-eel 1 26

Batrachoididae Toadfishes Opsanus tau Oyster toadfish 3 39 Gobiesocidae Clingfishes

Gobiesox strumosus Skilletfish 1 4.0 Exocoetidae Flying fishes Hyporhamphus unifasciatus Silverstripe halfbeak 1 1

Belonidae Needlefishes Strongylura marina Atlantic needlefish 1 85 Cyprinodontidae Killifishes

Fundulus heteroclitus Mummichog 12 28 Fundulus majalis Striped killifish 1 6

Atherinidae Silversides

Membras martinica Rough silverside 61 119

Menidia menidia Atlantic silverside 8 18

Fistulariidae Cornetfishes

Fistularia tabacaria Bluespotted cornetfish 0 0 Syngnathidae Pipefishes Syngnathus fuscus Northern pipefish 38 46 Syngnathus louisianae Chain pipefish 37 104 Hippocampus erectus Lined seahorse 1 3Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-7 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section Appendix 3 continued

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Scorpaenidae Scorpionfishes Scorpaena sp. Scorpionfish 1 25 Triglidae Searobins

Prionotus evolans Striped searobin 0 0

Prionotus scitulus Leopard searobin 5 9

Prionotus tribulus Bighead searobin 39 194

Serranidae Sea basses Mycteroperca microlepis Gag 1 43 Centropristis striata Black seabass 0 0

Pomatomidae Bluefishes

Pomatomus saltatrix Bluefish 1 38 Rachycentridae Cobia Rachycentron canadum Cobia 2 189 Carangidae Jacks Caranx hippos Crevalle jack 7 240 Chloroscombrus chrysurus Atlantic bumper 4 75 Oligoplites saurus Leatherjack 0 0

Selene vomer Lookdown 8 115 Trachinotus falcatus Permit 2 50 Lutjanidae Snappers Lutjanus griseus Gray snapper 2 35 Lobotidae Tripletails

Lobotes surinamensis Tripletail 2 22

Centrachidae Sunfishes Lepomis macrochirus Bluegill 1 3 Gerridae Mojarras Diapterus auratus Irish pompano 1 1 Eucinostomus argenteus Spotfin mojarra 0 0

Haemulidae Grunts Orthopristis chrysoptera Pigfish 0 0 Sparidae Porgies Archosargus probatocephalus Sheepshead 5 99 Lagodon rhomboides Pinfish 126 957

Sciaenidae Drums Bairdiella chrysoura Silver perch 12 270 Cynoscion nebulosus Spotted seatrout 0 0 C. regalis Weakfish 10 57 Larimus fasciatus Banded drum 0 0

Leiostomus xanthurus Spot 336 1,730

Menticirrhus americanus Southern kingfish 1 5

M. saxatilis Northern kingfish 0 0 Micropogonias undulatus Atlantic croaker 19 501 Sciaenops ocellatus Red drum 2 3 Stellifer lanceolatus Star drum 21 88 Ephippidae Spadefishes Chaetodipterus faber Atlantic spadefish 7 206 Chaetodontidae Butterfly fishes

Chaetodon ocellatus Spotfin butterflyfish 0 0 Mugilidae Mullets Mugil cephalus Striped mullet 3 20

M. c urema White mullet 2 4Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-8 Environmental, Health and Safety 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 1 181

Blenniidae Combtooth blennies Chasmodes bosquianus Striped blenny 0 0 Hypsoblennius hentz Feather blenny 0 0

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

Gobiidae Gobies

Gobionellus oceanicus Highfin goby 1 19

Microdesmidae Wormfishes Microdesmus longipinnis Pink wormfish 1 4

Trichiuridae Snake mackerels Trichiurus lepturus Atlantic cutlassfish 86 1618

Scombridae Mackerels

Scomberomorus maculatus Spanish mackerel 1 1

Stromateidae Butterfishes Peprilus alepidotus Harvestfish 3 76

P. triacanthus Butterfish 3 7 Bothidae Lefteye flounders Ancylopsetta quadrocellata Ocellated flounder 1 4 Citharichthys spilopterus Bay whiff 18 82 Etropus crossotus Fringed flounder 15 127 Paralichthys dentatus Summer flounder 4 236 P. lethostigma Southern flounder 2 77 Scophthalmus aquosus Windowpane 1 37

Soleidae Soles

Trinectes maculatus Hogchoker 0 0 Cynoglossidae Tonguefishes Symphurus plagiusa Blackcheek tonguefish 44 277 Balistidae Triggerfishes and filefishes Monacanthus hispidus Planehead filefish 1 5 Aluterus schoepfi Orange filefish 1 1

Tetraodontidae Puffers Chilomycterus schoepfi Striped burrfish 3 124 Sphoeroides maculates Northern puffer 1 6

Invertebrates Mollusks, shrimps, and crabs

Aphysiidae Sea hares Aplysia sp. Sea hare 1 176 Lologinidae Sea hares Lolliguncula brevis Squid 76 562

Limulidae Horseshoe crabs Limulus polyphemus Horseshoe crab 0 0Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2008 Biological Monitoring Report

Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. A-9 Environmental, Health and Safety Services Section

Appendix 3 continued

Total Total

Scientific name Common name number weight (g)

Squillidae Mantis shrimps Squilla empusa Mantis shrimp 22 610 Alpheidae Snapping shrimps Alpheus sp. Snapping shrimp 0 0 Sicyoniidae Rock shrimps Sicyonia sp. Rock shrimp 0 0

Penaeidae Prawns Farfantepenaeus aztecus Brown shrimp 1,597 5,548

F. duorarum Pink shrimp 206 479 Litopenaeus setiferus White shrimp 1,770 12,672 Trachypeneus constrictus T-con or hardback shrimp 13 10 Portunidae Swimming crabs Ovalipes sp. Lady crab 3 15 Portunus sp. Swimming crabs 200 481 P. spinimanus Brown bar crab 0 0

Callinectes ornatus Shelligs crab 8 41 C. sapidus Blue crab 133 7,176

C. similus Lesser blue crab 243 1,871

Reptiles

Emydidae Emydiaeid turtles Malaclemys terrapin Diamondback terrapin 0 0

Total organisms 108,668 273,412.3

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