NC0007064_Annual Report_20230327

(> DUKE
ENERGY
APR 2 7 2023
Serial: RA-23-0089
Christopher Johnson, Chief, Water Sciences Section
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Water Resources
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Subject: Brunswick Steam Electric Plant (BSEP), Unit Nos. 1 and 2
Duke Energy Progress, LLC
2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Dear Mr. Johnson:
Brunswick Nuclear Plant
8470 River Road SE
Southport, NC 28461-8869
Enclosed are three copies of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant's 2020-2021 Biological
Monitoring Report. The report summarizes the results of the monitoring program required by
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES) No. NC0007064.
Biological monitoring during 2020-2021 reporting period continued to show a reduction in
the number of entrained and impinged fish and shellfish resulting from the combination
of flow minimization, fine -mesh screens, and the fish diversion structure. The fish return
system continued to ensure that large numbers of the most valuable commercial
species exhibit the greatest survival and were returned alive to the estuary. The report
results indicate that operation of the BSEP continues to have no detectable adverse
effect on the populations of fish, shrimp, and crabs residing in estuarine nursery
areas.
Please contact Mr. Kyle Hussey at [phone], or Mr. Drew Petrusic (910) 832-
2728, if there are any questions concerning the data contained in this submittal.
Sincerely,
Jay Ratliff
Plant Manager
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
Cc: Kathy Rawls, NCDMF Director
Enclosure: BSEP 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report (3 copies)

ENCLOSURE
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report

Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant
2020-2021 Biological
Monitoring Report
J
` ' ,p
Cape Fear River Estuary
Water Resources Unit
BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT
2020-2021 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING REPORT

April 2023
Prepared by:
DUKE ENERGY PROGRESS, LLC.
Environmental Field Support - Water Resources
New Hill, North Carolina

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Preface
This copy of the report is not a controlled document as detailed in the Environmental Science Field
Program Quality Assurance Manual. Any changes made to the original of this report subsequent
to the date of issuance can be obtained from:
Manager
Water Resources
Duke Energy Progress, Inc.
New Hill, North Carolina
Duke Energy Progress, LLC i Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table of Contents
Page
Preface................................................................................................................................. i
Tableof Contents.................................................................................... ii
Listof Tables...................................................................................................................... iii
Listof Figures..................................................................................................................... iv
Listof Appendices.............................................................................................................. v
ExecutiveSummary............................................................................................................ vi
1.0
INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................
1-1
2.0
MONITORING PROGRAM...............................................................................
2-1
2.1
Introduction..........................................................................................................
2-1
2.2
Methods................................................................................................................
2-1
2.3
Results and Discussion........................................................................................
2-3
2.3.1
Water Quality.......................................................................................................
2-3
2.3.2
Dominant Species................................................................................................
2-3
2.3.3
Seasonality and Abundance.................................................................................
2-4
2.3.4
Survival Estimates...............................................................................................
2-5
2.3.5
Annual Entrainment and Impingement Rate Comparisons .................................
2-6
2.4
Summary and Conclusions..................................................................................
2-7
3.0
REFERENCES....................................................................................................
3-1
4.0
APPENDICES.....................................................................................................
A-1
Duke Energy Progress, LLC ii Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
List of Tables
Table Page
2.1 Representative species and life stages entrained and impinged at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant showing spawning location and season ........... 2-9
2.2 Annual mean density and percent of total for the ten most abundant taxa/life
stages collected during entrainment sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, 2020-2021.................................................................................................. 2-10
2.3 Total number and percent of the ten most abundant taxa/life stages collected
during larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plan,
2020-2021............................................................................................................ 2-11
2.4 Total number, total weight, and percent of total of the ten most
abundant juvenile and adult organisms collected in the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant impingement samples, 2020-2021 ................... 2-12
2.5 Mean densities of selected larval taxa entrained and impinged at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2020................................................................. 2-13
2.6 Density (no./million m3) and modal length (min) for representative
important taxa collected by month with juvenile and adult impingement
sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2021 .............................. 2-15
2.7 Mean percent survival and percent total number of larval organisms
collected during larval impingement sampling at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2020-2021....................................................... 2-16
2.8 Mean percent survival and percent of total number of organisms collected
during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
2020-2021............................................................................................................ 2-17
2.9 Mean annual percent reduction in the number of representative taxa
entrained and reductions in impingement mortality at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1984-2021....................................................... 2-18
Duke Energy Progress, LLC iii Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
List of Figures
Figure
Page
1.1
Location of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant near Southport,
NorthCarolina.....................................................................................................
1-3
1.2
Location of the fish diversion structure, fish return flume, return basin, and
sampling locations at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant ..................................
1-4
2.1
Mean daily freshwater flow (curs) to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2020-2021.........
2-19
2.2
Annual mean daily freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2000-2021.......
2-19
2.3
Mean monthly intake canal water temperature, 2020-2021 ........................
2-20
2.4
Mean monthly intake canal salinity, 2020-2021......................................
2-20
2.5 Annual number of total organisms entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021............................................................................................................ 2-21
2.6 Annual number of Spot entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021............................................................................................................ 2-21
2.7 Annual number of Atlantic Menhaden entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021................................................................................. 2-22
2.8 Annual number of portunid crab megalops entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021............................................................................................................ 2-22
2.9 Annual number of commercial shrimp postlarvae entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021................................................................................. 2-23
2.10 Annual number of Atlantic Menhaden impinged at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates,
1977-2021............................................................................................................ 2-23
2.11 Annual number of Bay Anchovy impinged at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates,
1977-2021................................................................................. 2-24
Duke Energy Progress, LLC iv Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
List of figures (continued)
Figure Page
2.12 Annual number of Spot impinged at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates,
1977-2021............................................................................................................ 2-24
2.13 Annual number of flounder, Paralichthys spp., impinged at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline
impingement estimates, 1977-2021..................................................................... 2-25
2.14 Annual number of commercial shrimp (Brown, Pink, and White Shrimp)
impinged at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction
from baseline impingement estimates, 1977-2021.............................................. 2-25
2.15 Annual number of blue crabs (all Callinectes spp. combined) impinged at
the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline
impingement estimates, 1977-2021..................................................................... 2-26
List of Appendices
Appendix Page
1 Summary of historical environmental studies conducted in association
with the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2021.......................................... A-1
2 Total number of larval organisms collected during entrainment and larval
impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2020-2021........ A-3
3 Total number and biomass of juvenile and adult organisms collected during
impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2020-2021........ A-7
Duke Energy Progress, LLC v Water Resources Unit

Executive Summary
Biological monitoring of the Cape Fear River Estuary has been conducted since the early
1960's. Prior to the installation of fine -mesh screens and the fish return system in 1983, data from
intensive sampling from the 1970s through the 1990's indicated that operation of the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant had no measurable adverse effect on fish and shellfish populations in the Cape
Fear River Estuary. More recent fish and shellfish population studies conducted during 2015 -
2018 indicated no declines in abundance of any species or shifts in species composition in the
Cape Fear Estuary that were attributed to station operation.
Entrainment and impingement studies through 2021 indicated that the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant intake modifications and operational measures continued to be effective in reducing
the number of organisms affected by the withdrawal of cooling water from the Cape Fear Estuary.
Evidence supporting this conclusion includes species composition and abundance of organisms
entrained and impinged. The species composition and seasonality of organisms collected in the
entrainment, larval impingement, and Juvenile/Adult impingement studies through 2021 were
similar to previous years and corresponded to the natural seasonality of larval organisms in the
Cape Fear Estuary. Anchovies, gobies, Spot, Atlantic Croaker, Atlantic Menhaden, commercial
shrimp and crabs were the dominant larvae entrained and impinged. However, use of fine -mesh
screens and seasonal flow reductions have reduced the potential risk of entrainment for all larval
taxa. This is especially important for organisms that spawn in the near -shore and offshore ocean
such as Atlantic Menhaden, Spot, Atlantic Croaker, mullet, flounder, commercial shrimp and
crabs. These organisms may potentially be at more risk of being entrained since they are spawned
offshore and pass by the plant intake 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. Use of fine -mesh screens and flow reduction, reduced the
mean annual numbers of all organisms entrained by 60-96%. Consistently greater annual
reductions in entrainment were evident for mullet, flounder, Gobiosoma spp., commercial shrimp
and swimming crab larvae. Except for Gobiosoma spp., all are valuable commercial taxa. Larvae
that would have been entrained were returned alive by the fish return system to the Cape Fear
Estuary in significant numbers. Based on historic survival estimates data, substantial numbers of
the larvae tested for survival were returned alive to the estuary. The most valuable commercial
taxa, flounder, shrimp and swimming crab larvae, exhibited the greatest survival (> 87%).
Considered together, the fish diversion structure and fish return system have substantially
reduced the impingement mortality of larger organisms due to cooling water withdrawal. The fish
diversion structure excludes many of the larger fish and shellfish from entering the canal.
Substantial numbers of fish and shellfish that do get into the intake canal and subsequently become
impinged are returned alive to the estuary by the fish return system. Except for Bay Anchovy,
reductions in the mean annual impingement mortality of the representative taxa ranged from 92-
99%. Historical fish population monitoring indicated no declines in the abundance of Bay
Anchovy as a result of cooling water withdrawal. In addition to a reduction in numbers and
mortality, a shift to the impingement of smaller finfish has resulted as well. This shift to smaller
individuals is important because the larger individuals that are being excluded (saved) are the
reproducing members of the population. In addition, the natural mortality rates of smaller
individuals are relatively high compared to that of older, larger individuals so the loss of these
earlier life stages results in a smaller loss to the spawning stock biomass. The species composition
of organisms collected with impingement sampling also shifted to a greater percentage of shrimp
Duke Energy Progress, LLC vi Water Resources Unit

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 the fish return system (> 90%).
Results indicate that operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant continues to have no
adverse effect on the populations of fish, shrimp, and crabs residing in the Cape Fear Estuary.
Station intake and operational modifications including fine -mesh traveling screens, fish return
system, fish diversion structure, and seasonal flow minimization continue to be effective in
reducing entrainment and impingement mortality after 38 years of operation (1983-2021). Ocean
spawned organisms continue to successfully migrate past the station intake canal to populate
Walden Creek and the upriver nursery areas. Organisms residing in the estuary are responding to
environmental changes and not operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC vii Water Resources Unit

1.0 INTRODUCTION
Duke Energy Progress, LLC (DEP), formerly Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc. doing
business as Carolina Power & Light Company, was issued a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit in December 1974 for operation of the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant (BSEP). The permit allowed for once -through cooling water, withdrawn from the
Cape Fear River Estuary (CFE), to be discharged into the Atlantic Ocean (Figure 1.1). A
stipulation of the NPDES permit requires biological monitoring to provide sufficient information
for a continuing assessment of power 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 structure, fine -mesh screens, and seasonally based flow minimization in reducing the
entrainment and impingement of organisms.
Environmental studies associated with the BSEP began in 1968 before the plant began
withdrawing cooling water from the estuary. Intensive physical, chemical, 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 monitoring program through the early 1990s aimed at
monitoring fish and shellfish populations within the estuary and documenting the effectiveness of
the intake modifications at reducing the entrainment and impingement of organisms. A more
detailed summary of historical 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 cooling -water withdrawal had no measurable adverse effect on fish, shrimp,
and crab populations in the CFE (CP&L 1980). Annual entrainment and impingement rates were
insignificant compared to the natural mortality rates of the estuary. Annual population levels in
the CFE were determined by changing temperature, freshwater flow, and salinity patterns in the
estuary (CP&L 1980).
A stipulation of the renewed NPDES permit, issued in 1981, and subsequent permits, was the
implementation of power station modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement of
estuarine fish and shellfish at the cooling water intake structure. A permanent fish diversion
structure was constructed across the mouth of the intake canal in November 1982 to reduce
impingement by preventing larger fish and shellfish from entering the intake canal (Figure 1.2).
In addition, the fish diversion structure has 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 traveling -screen assemblies of each unit in
July 1983 and on a third assembly per unit in April 1987. At that time, the NPDES permit required
that three of the four intake traveling -screen assemblies on each unit be covered with fine -mesh
screens. In August 2003, the NPDES permit required two full fine -mesh screens along with two
50% fine -mesh screens on the four intake traveling screens per unit. During January 2012, the
NPDES permit required that the existing total number of fine -mesh screens per unit be distributed
equally across the four intake traveling screen assemblies. This resulted in - identical traveling
screens each having 8 coarse -mesh and 42 fine -mesh screen panels. Intake cooling water traveling
screens are operated continuously. Organisms retained on either the fine mesh or coarse mesh
traveling screen panels are gently washed into a fiberglass fish return system and are subsequently
returned alive to the CFE (Figure 1.2). The fish return system was constructed and became
operational during June 1983 and has remained operational since that time.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 1-1 Water Resources Unit

Past data indicated that the impingement of large fish and shellfish of the CFE was reduced as
a result of the 9.4-mm (3/8-inch) mesh screening on the fish diversion structure (CP&L 1984,
1985a, 1985b). Organisms small enough to enter the intake canal through the fish diversion
structure may be impinged on the plant intake screens and returned to the CFE via a fish return
flume or they may be entrained through the plant. Similarly, previous studies have documented a
reduction in the entrainment of small organisms due to the installation of fine -mesh screens at the
intake structure. Larval and juvenile organisms are returned to the CFE via the fish return flume
(Hogarth and Nichols 1981; CP&L 1989).
Under the current permit, a maximum discharge flow of 1,844 cubic feet per second (cfs)
is allowed from December through March and 2,210 cfs is allowed from April through November
with the ability to increase discharge to 2,235 cfs during the summer months (Jul -Sep). Seasonal
flow minimization during December through March is a measure, in addition to fine -mesh screens,
to reduce operational impacts on ocean spawned larvae recruiting to the estuarine nursery areas
during that time of year.
Beginning in 1994, DEP reduced the biological monitoring program with the concurrence
of the North Carolina Department of Environment & 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. Fish population special studies conducted in the estuarine nursery areas during
2015-2018 indicated no declines in abundance of any target species compared to long-term data
collected from the 1980s through 1993 even for Bay Anchovy, a species exhibiting poor survival
in the fish return system (DEP 2020).
The USEPA published a revised rule to implement §316(b) of the Clean Water Act in the
Federal register on August 15, 2014 (USEPA 2014). DEP is moving forward with compliance
activities required by the revised §316(b) rule. The purpose of this report is to provide an update
of monitoring activities required by the existing NPDES permit. This report presents the 2020-
2021 larval, juvenile, and adult fish and shellfish entrainment and impingement data. Longer term
trends (1977-2021) for selected, representative species are included to evaluate the effectiveness
of the NPDES-required intake modifications designed to reduce the entrainment and impingement
of aquatic organisms.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 1-2 Water Resources Unit

r
Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant
NORTH CAROLINA
Elizabeth River
Ocean
Discharge
Area
�d /ae' creek
Diversion
Fish Return Structure
Plant Site Flume
Intake Canal
Discharge Weir �l
f
c acAg �
O
c'
d �
Southport
• e e O
O
e � 9 • fj+'
N
A
0 1 2 3 4 Miles
0 1.5 3 4.5 6 Kilometers
Atlantic
Ocean
Figure 1.1 Location of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant near Southport, North
Carolina.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 1-3 Water Resources Unit

EnUainnrertt SanNling Larval Intfrng R 5anpliixj Irrpirtgenierrt Sarryiliiig
Discimrge Weir Fish Retrm Flume Fish Rextrn F1mte
i F
N
A
Walden Creek
eeK
C
s
�a(No
Gum Log
Branch
Fish Return
Fish
.— Basin
Diversion
e
Structure
Intake Canal
eti
i
r
F`y
�
Plant
Site
Discharge
Weir
O.A.
l�
0 1,250
I i
2,500 5,000 Feet
I i I
�p,a
0
0 375
750 1,500 Meters
Ga�
Figure 1.2 Location of fish diversion structure, fish return flume, return basin, and
sampling locations at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 1-4 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
2.0 MONITORING PROGRAM
2.1 Introduction
Entrainment sampling documented the species composition, seasonality, and abundance of
larval and postlarval organisms passing through the cooling system. The larval impingement study
evaluated the success of the fine -mesh screens in reducing entrainment of these organisms.
Organisms collected with larval impingement sampling were organisms that would have been
entrained without the use of fine -mesh screens. Juvenile and adult (J/A) impingement sampling
documented species composition, densities, weights, and lengths of juvenile and adult organisms
impinged on conventional 9.4-mm (3/8-inch) mesh traveling screens and provided evidence of the
continued effectiveness of the fish diversion structure. Survival study results from previous years
were presented to provide insight regarding the effectiveness 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 measurements were collected from the fish return
flume during impingement sampling. Daily freshwater flow values presented in the report were
downloaded from the United States Geological Survey website. Total freshwater input to the CFE
was estimated using data from stream gaging stations in the Cape Fear (2105769), Northeast Cape
Fear (2108000), and Black Rivers (2106500) according to the methods presented by Giese et al.
(1979, 1985).
The collection gear used for entrainment and impingement sampling has remained unchanged
since 1984 (CP&L 1985a). Entrainment 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 turn, portunid crabs > 25 turn, 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. These size class cut-off lengths were determined from examination of historic
entrainment and impingement length -frequency information.
Densities calculated for all larval organisms were averaged to obtain a mean number per 1,000
m3 of water entrained through the plant per sampling date. Densities for J/A organisms impinged
on each sampling date were calculated 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.
Survival in the return system was determined for selected size classes of the dominant
organisms that have been impinged at the BSEP in past years (CP&L 1985a, 1986, 1987, 1988).
Studies conducted from 1984-1987 were designed to assess survival of larger organisms impinged
on the traditional traveling screens and survival of the entrainable size classes of organisms
impinged on the 1-mm fine mesh. Weekly survival studies were conducted initially. The
frequency of studies was reduced to the major periods of abundance for selected species and size
class during the latter two years of studies to target species and size classes where data was lacking.
Acute and latent 96-hour survival was assessed. Results of the four -years of survival studies were
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-1 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
summarized in the 1987 Biological Monitoring Report (CP&L 1988) and reproduced in section
2.3.4 of this report.
An overall assessment of reductions in entrainment due to fine -mesh screens, fish return
system, and reductions in plant cooling -water flow was conducted using historical entrainment
data collected from 1979 through 2021. However, data collected in 1983 was excluded from the
analysis since fine -mesh screens and the fish return system were not fully operational for a portion
of that year. Both 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
continuously rotating fine -mesh screens or fish return system). Mean daily entrainment densities
were multiplied by design cooling water flow and summed to obtain an annual estimate of total
number entrained. The design flow of 84.15 cubic meters per second (cros) is the rated flow of all
main cooling water pumps per unit. 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 NPDES permitted cooling -water flow (i.e., reduced 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 obtain a percentage reduction from
baseline due to the installation of fine -mesh screens, fish return system, and reduced cooling -water
flow.
A similar process allowed for the calculation of annual numbers impinged for comparison to
a calculated baseline annual impingement rate. Two additional years of data, 1977 and 1978, were
recovered from historical data sets for inclusion with the long-term comparisons. The period 1977-
1982 represents a period without impingement controls in place (i.e., no fish diversion structure,
fish return system, or flow reductions). The calculated baseline impingement rates were obtained
by averaging the annual number impinged from 1977-1982 with the exception that data from 1980
and 1981 were not used in the baseline calculation since a temporary fish diversion structure was
in place during that time. The estimated annual number impinged each year after 1983 was
subtracted from the annual baseline estimate to obtain a percentage reduction from baseline due to
the installation of the fish diversion structure, fish return system, and reduced cooling -water flow.
Impingement sampling only occurred during the last 6 months of 1983 because construction of the
fish return system was in progress earlier that year. Because of this, results of impingement
sampling during 1983 are presented but not included in the percentage reduction calculations. The
inclusion of survival data allowed for an assessment of reductions in impingement mortality due
to the fish diversion structure and the return system together for different species.
Ten taxonomic groups were selected for the detailed comparisons of annual numbers entrained
and impinged to a calculated baseline as described above (Table 2.1). These taxonomic groups
were selected as representative taxa (RT) and life stages based upon 4 main criteria. First, they
account for roughly 78% and 66%, respectively, of the larvae and nekton collected in the CFE
during the original Cape Fear Studies conducted prior to 1980 (CP&L 1980). In addition, these
organisms represent approximately 80% of the larvae and juvenile/adult organisms collected with
entrainment and impingement sampling (CP&L 1980, CP&L 1985b, CP&L 1994, DEP 2019).
Secondly, these taxonomic groups encompass the spectrum of life history strategies evident within
the CFE with respect to spawning location and season. Estuarine dependent species representing
both temporary and resident species are included within these taxonomic groups. The third
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-2 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
criterion for consideration is that the majority of these taxonomic groups, except for anchovies and
gobies, are commercially and recreationally important species. Finally, there is precedent
established for the use of these taxonomic groups as RT. Except for the addition of gobies
(Gobiosoma spp.), blue crabs, and portunid crab megalops, these were the same taxonomic groups
used by the principal investigators during the original Cape Fear Studies during the 1970's
(CP&L1980). This is important in that use of these taxonomic groups provides a direct link back
to the original studies conducted prior to 1980. The additional two taxa (gobies and portunid crabs)
were included beginning in 1980 since relatively large numbers of these taxa may be entrained
seasonally. Common names are used throughout the body of the report. The associated scientific
names may be found in appendices 2-4.
2.3 Results and Discussion
2.3.1 Water Quality
• Freshwater flow to the estuary during 2020-2021 mostly exhibited the typical seasonal
patterns of higher freshwater flow during the winter/spring and lower freshwater flow
during summer/fall. 2020 experienced two notable exceptions with high flow events in
June and November. Heavy rainfall across central North Carolina in June and tropical
Storm Eta in November caused flood like conditions in the Cape Fear River basins
(Figure 2.1). The mean annual daily freshwater flow was 445 cros for 2020, representing
the third highest since 2000, and 317 cros for 2021 (Figure 2.2).
• Intake canal salinity ranged between 9 parts per thousand (ppt) and 37 ppt for 2020-2021
(Figure 2.3). Salinity is typically higher in the summer months when freshwater flow to
the estuary is lower and decreases in the winter months when freshwater flow to the
estuary is greatest.
• Mean water temperature of the intake canal and exhibited the typical seasonal pattern of
peak cooler temperatures in January/February and peak higher temperatures during
July/August (Figure 2.3). The lowest water temperature (9.7°C) was recorded in January
2021 and the highest water temperature (30.7°C) was recorded in July 2020.
2.3.2 Dominant Species
• Atlantic croaker, Gobiosoma spp., Anchoa spp., and Spot were the most abundant taxa
collected in entrainment samples from both 2020 and 2021 (Table 2.2).
Ctenogobious/Gobionellus spp., Penaeidae (postlarvae), and Atlantic Menhaden were
also among the ten most numerous taxa entrained during both years. A complete species
list showing total number collected can be found in Appendix 2.
• Ten taxa (out of a total of 36 taxa) accounted for 97.6% of the total larval organisms
collected in larval impingement samples from 2021 (Table 2.3). The most dominant
larvae impinged on the fine -mesh screens for both 2020 and 2021 were Atlantic Croaker,
Penaeidae (postlarvae), Anchoa spp., and swimming crab megalops. Spot, Gobooma
spp., Atlantic Menhaden, and Silver Perch were also among the top ten larval taxa
impinged during over both years. Although the relative ranking has varied, the same ten
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-3 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
most abundant taxa have generally dominated larval impingement samples each year
since 1984. A substantial number of larvae impinged on the fine -mesh screens were
returned alive to the CFE (section 2.3.4). A complete species list showing total number
collected can be found in Appendix 2.
• J/A impingement samples were numerically dominated by Brown Shrimp, White
Shrimp, and Bay Anchovy during 2021 (Table 2.4). Additional taxa that were among
the top ten collected include Atlantic Croaker, Star Drum, Spot, Threadfin Shad, Atlantic
Menhaden, and Blue Crab. Considered together, Bay anchovy, commercial shrimp
(Brown, White, and Pink), Atlantic Croaker, and Blue Crab were a significant percentage
of the number and biomass impinged on the traveling screens. Prior to installation of the
fish diversion structure in 1982, Atlantic Menhaden was consistently the top species
collected in terms of number and biomass (CP&L 1980a, 1980b, 1982, 1983). Larger,
Age 1+ finfish, such as Spot and Atlantic Croaker also comprised a significant portion
of the number and biomass collected with impingement sampling prior to 1983. This
shift in species composition after 1983 was a result of the exclusion of larger finfish by
the fish diversion structure. This is significant because commercial shrimp and portunid
crabs have become the more dominant taxa impinged other than Bay Anchovy. Both
shrimp and crabs exhibit relatively high survival in the fish return system. A complete
species list showing numbers and weights collected for all species can be found in
Appendix 3.
2.3.3 Seasonality and Abundance
• Seasonal variations for larvae entrained and impinged in 2020 represent the seasonal
patterns expected. Atlantic Menhaden, Spot, Atlantic Croaker, and Pinfish all ocean -
spawned species, were most abundant during winter and early spring (Table 2.5).
Atlantic Croaker also exhibited a fall recruitment period beginning in September.
Estuarine -spawned species (e.g., anchovies, Gobiosoma spp., and silversides) were most
abundant during the spring and summer. Seatrout were present during the spring and
summer. Portunid crab megalops larvae were collected sporadically throughout the year.
• Variation in the daily mean densities per month for larval organisms entrained and
impinged were similar to seasonal variations observed in previous years and
corresponded to the seasonality of larval fish in the CFE (Table 2.5). This observation
is important since it indicates that recruitment to and within the estuary is functioning
normally and has not been disrupted by cooling water withdrawal. Changes in peaks of
abundance in entrainment and impingement of organisms are within the bounds of
previous observations and can be influenced by environmental conditions such as
changing freshwater flow to the estuary (Blumberg et al. 2004; Copeland et al. 1979;
Lawler et al. 1988; Thompson 1989).
• The seasonality of larger individuals collected during 2021 J/A impingement sampling
were consistent with data collected from previous years and the natural seasonality
reported for these species in the lower CFE by Schwartz et al. (1979). Results indicate
that impinged finfish were mostly of young -of -year (YOY) or yearling individuals too
small to be excluded by the fish diversion structure. Impingement of significant numbers
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-4 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
of larger fish has been virtually eliminated by the installation of the fish diversion
structure. Bay Anchovy, collected year-round, was most abundant during the winter
when past data indicated that most of the individuals in the population had grown to a
size large enough to be impinged on the coarse -mesh traveling screens. Peak densities
of brown and pink shrimp occurred during the summer recruitment period. White Shrimp
density increased and peaked in August. Blue crabs (Callinectes spp.) were most
abundant during summer and fall.
• The seasonality for total number of all organisms impinged peaked in June and was
driven by the large numbers of Brown Shrimp (Table 2.6). Star Drum, although not
displayed on the table were responsible for the other peak in January. Additionally,
White and/or Brown Shrimp were the dominant organism impinged for four months out
of the year. Commercial shrimp are characterized by high survival rates (>90%) in the
fish return system (CP&L 1987, 1988).
2.3.4 Survival Estimates
• Seventeen of the impinged larval taxa were previously tested for survival from 1984-
1987 (CP&L 1988). Survival of Pinfish was estimated using data for Atlantic Croaker
as a surrogate since Atlantic Croaker and Pinfish both recruit to the estuary during the
winter months. These eighteen taxa accounted for approximately 88% of the total
number collected with larval impingement sampling during 2020 and 65% during 2021
(Table 2.7). Survival during fast -screen rotation ranged from approximately 1% for
anchovies (Anchoa spp. > 13mm) to approximately 96% for pink and white shrimp.
Survival adjusted for controls was 100% for commercial shrimp postlarvae, portunid crab
megalops, and blue crabs.
• Eleven taxa of the dominant J/A organisms impinged were previously tested for survival
during fast -screen rotation (Table 2.8; CP&L 1987, 1988). In addition, survival of Star
Drum and Silver Perch was estimated using data for two closely related species (Atlantic
Croaker and Spot) as surrogates. Data for blue crabs was used as a surrogate for Portunus
spp. crabs. These fifteen taxa accounted for approximately 93% of the total number
collected with J/A impingement sampling during 2020 and 92% during 2021 (Table 2.8).
• Excluding Bay Anchovy, survival ranged from 16% for Atlantic Menhaden to 96% for
blue crabs (Table 2.8). Survival adjusted for controls was 100% for commercial shrimp
and blue crabs. The most valuable commercial species (shrimp and blue crabs) exhibited
the highest survival rates.
2.3.5 Annual Entrainment and Impingement Rate Comparisons
• The use of continuously rotating fine -mesh screens, fish return system, and reduced
cooling water flow has successfully reduced the number of organisms entrained since
1983. Reductions in the mean annual number of RT entrained compared to a pre-1983
annual baseline entrainment ranged from 60% for spot to 96% for portunid crab megalops
(Table 2.9). RT exhibiting relatively high reductions (79-95%) in the annual number
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-5 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
entrained compared to a calculated baseline include portunid crab megalops, flounder,
mullet, commercial shrimp, Gobiosoma spp., and anchovies. Mean annual reductions in
the number of total organisms entrained was relatively high at 71%. Moderate reductions
(60-61%) in the annual number entrained were exhibited by Atlantic Croaker, Atlantic
Menhaden, seatrout, and Spot.
• Variability in the annual number entrained was evident and consistent with the natural
variability of larvae within the estuary (Figures 2.5-2.9). Natural variability in
recruitment and natural mortality were determined to be significantly greater than
entrainment rates and there is no evidence of adverse effects on the annual distribution
and abundance of organisms in the CFE due to cooling water withdrawal even prior to
intake and operational modifications to reduce entrainment (CP&L 1980). Large-scale
fluctuations in the number of larvae entering the estuary are natural and expected due to
spawning success, offshore transport mechanisms, and climate conditions (Nelson et al.
1977, Norcross and Austin 1981, Norcross and Shaw 1984). In addition, changing
freshwater flow patterns and temperature during recruitment to the CFE has a strong
effect on the distribution of larvae within the estuary (Copeland et al. 1979, Lawler et al.
1988, Rogers et al. 1984, Thompson 1989, Weinstein 1979, Weinstein et al. 1979, 1980).
Higher freshwater flow during the recruitment season of a species tends to limit dispersal
of larvae to the upper estuary and increase the number and availability of larvae
potentially entrained with the cooling water withdrawn from the lower estuary. The
estimates of annual number entrained compared to baseline estimates have not been
normalized for changes in larval recruitment, freshwater flow, or other environmental
variables so variability is expected. The mean annual percent reduction values presented
in Table 2.9 minimize the annual variability due to changing environmental conditions.
Despite the annual variability evident for some taxa, there has been an overall reduction
in the annual number of larvae entrained since 1983 for all RT.
• Installation of the fish diversion structure, continuously rotating traveling screens, and
fish return system has substantially reduced impingement mortality by reducing the
numbers of organisms impinged and returning alive large numbers of those organisms
that were impinged back to the CFE. Mean annual reductions in impingement mortality
of RT since 1984 ranged from 34% for Bay Anchovy to > 99% for Atlantic Menhaden,
and blue crabs (Table 2.9). Mean annual reductions in impingement mortality for all
other RT was > 90% over 37 years of monitoring.
• Consistently large reductions (99%) in the annual number impinged were evident for
Atlantic Menhaden (Figure 2.10). A reduction in the annual number of Atlantic
Menhaden impinged during 1979, 1980, and 1981 occurred as a result of temporary fish
diversion structures installed for those years. A temporary, prototype fish diversion
structure was installed and operational only during the period of abundance of Atlantic
Menhaden early in 1979. Severe failure of the screens after the first few months in 1979
limited its effectiveness for other species (CP&L 1981). A more substantial prototype
structure was in place during 1980 and 1981.
• Bay Anchovy has been the numerically dominant species collected within impingement
samples since 1984. Small to moderate reductions in the annual number of Bay Anchovy
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-6 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
impinged since 1984 were evident for some years and impingement rates were highly
variable (Figure 2.11). This was not unexpected since most individuals of this species
are small enough to pass through the 9.4-mm mesh screens installed on the fish diversion
structure. Bay Anchovy is also characterized by poor survival on the traveling screens
so little reduction in impingement mortality was noted for this species. While reductions
in the mortality of Bay Anchovy was relatively poor, abundance has not declined over
three decades of population monitoring conducted in the CFE (CP&L 1980, 1994, 2002;
DEP 2017, 2019, 2020).
• Spot and flounder are taxa that provide examples of some variability in the annual
number impinged per year (Figures 2.12 & 2.13). When an estimate of survival of the
remaining impinged fish is factored in, overall reductions in impingement mortality are
greater than 80% per year for most years.
• Shrimp and blue crabs exhibited high reductions (94-99%) in annual impingement
mortality (Table 2.9). Shrimp are examples of organisms that are not as effectively
excluded by the fish diversion structure (Figure 2.14). However, reduction in annual
impingement mortality per year was > 90% due to the high survival rates (90-94%) for
impinged shrimp.
2.4 Summary and Conclusions
Biological monitoring of the CFE has been conducted since the early 1970's. Results of
intensive sampling throughout the 1970s and the early 1980's, prior to installation of intake
modifications to reduce entrainment and impingement, indicated that power station operations had
no measurable adverse effect on fish and shellfish populations in the CFE.
Entrainment and impingement studies through 2021 indicated that the BSEP intake
modifications and operational measures were effective in reducing the number of organisms
affected by the withdrawal of cooling water from the CFE. Evidence supporting this conclusion
includes species composition and abundance of organisms entrained and impinged. The species
composition and seasonality of organisms collected in the entrainment, larval impingement, and
J/A impingement studies through 2021 were similar to previous years and corresponded to the
natural seasonality of larval organisms in the CFE. Anchovies, gobies, Spot, Atlantic Croaker,
commercial shrimp and crabs were the dominant larvae entrained and impinged. Use of fine -mesh
screens has decreased the risk of entrainment for all larval taxa. This is especially important for
organisms that spawn in the near -shore and offshore ocean such as Atlantic Menhaden, Spot,
Atlantic Croaker, mullet, flounder, shrimp and crabs. These organisms may potentially be at more
risk of being entrained since they are spawned offshore and are transported past the intake canal
to the nursery areas in the CFE. Conversely, anchovies and gobies are at less risk since they are
estuarine residents and spawning occurs throughout the entire estuary. Use of fine -mesh screens
and flow reduction over three decades reduced the mean annual numbers of all organisms entrained
by 60-96%. Consistently greater reductions in entrainment were evident for mullet, flounder,
Gobiosoma spp., shrimp postlarvae and portunid crab megalops. Except for Gobiosoma spp., all
are valuable commercial taxa. Larvae that would have been entrained were returned alive by the
fish return system to the CFE in significant numbers. Based on historic survival estimates data,
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-7 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
substantial numbers of the larvae tested for survival were returned alive to the estuary. The most
valuable commercial taxa, flounder, shrimp and swimming crab larvae, exhibited the greatest
survival.
Considered together, the fish diversion structure and fish return system have substantially
reduced the impingement mortality of larger organisms due to cooling water withdrawal. The fish
diversion structure excludes many of the larger fish and shellfish from entering the canal.
Substantial numbers of fish and shellfish that do get into the intake canal and subsequently become
impinged are returned alive to the estuary by the fish return system. Except for Bay Anchovy,
reductions in the mean annual impingement mortality of the representative taxa ranged from 90-
99%. Recent and historical fish population monitoring in the CFE indicated no declines in the
abundance of Bay Anchovy as a result of cooling water withdrawal. In addition to a reduction in
numbers and mortality, a shift to the impingement of smaller finfish has resulted as well. This
shift to smaller individuals is important because the larger individuals that are being excluded
(saved) by the fish diversion structure are the reproducing members of the population. In addition,
the natural mortality rates (predation, weather, tides, etc.) of smaller individuals is relatively high
compared to the natural mortality rates of older, larger individuals, so many of the smaller
individuals would not survive to maturity even in the absence of power station 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 the fish return system (> 90%). Results indicate that operation of the
BSEP continues to have no detectable adverse effect on the populations of fish, shrimp, and crabs
residing in the CFE. Station intake and operational modifications including fine -mesh traveling
screens, fish return system, fish diversion structure, and seasonal flow minimization continue to
be effective in reducing entrainment and impingement mortality after over many decades of
operation. Interannual variability in species distribution and abundance is driven by environmental
variables with no detectable effect of facility cooling water withdrawal.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-8 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.1 Representative species and life stages' entrained and impinged at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant showing spawning location and season.
Entrainment
Impingement
Spawning
location¶
Spawning
season§
Anchovies (Anchoa spp.)
Bay Anchovy
E, NSO
SP, SU
Atlantic Menhaden
Atlantic Menhaden
OSO
W
Spot
Spot
OSO
W
Atlantic Croaker
Atlantic Croaker
OSO
W
Seatrout (Cynocion spp.)
Seatrout
E, NSO
SP, SU, F
Mullet (Mugil spp.)
Mullet
OSO
W
Flounder (Paralichthys spp.)
Flounder
OSO
W
Gobiosoma spp
E
SP, SU
Shrimp (Litopenaeus spp,
Shrimp postlarvae
Farfantepenaeus spp.)
OSO
SP, SU
Portunid crab megalops
Blue crabs (Callinectes spp)
NSO
F
'Larval and juvenile life stages are smaller size classes of organisms typically entrained with the
cooling water whereas sub adult and adult size classes of organisms are larger organisms
impinged on traditional 9.4 mm mesh traveling screens.
¶Spawning location designations are estuarine (E), near -shore ocean (NSO), and offshore ocean
(OSO).
§Spawning season designations are winter (W), spring (SP), summer (SU), and fall (F).
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-9 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.2 Annual mean density (no./1000 m3) and
percent of total' for the ten most
abundant taxa/life
stages collected
during entrainment sampling at the
Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant,
2020-2021
(ranking based on 2021 results).
2020
2021
Annual Mean
Annual mean
Taxon
density
Percent
density
Percent
Gobisoma spp.
27.2
13.1
33.4
24.2
Anchoa spp. (<13mm)
5.1
2.5
25.5
18.5
Atlantic Croaker
85.3
41.1
19.1
13.9
Anchoa spp. (>13mm)
31.4
15.1
17.8
12.9
Spot
26.2
12.6
10.4
7.5
Commercial ShrimpT postlarvae
7.9
3.8
9.1
6.6
Silversides
1.3
0.6
8.4
6.1
Oenogobius/Gobionellus spp.
2.1
1.0
3.2
2.3
Silver Perch
10.5
5.1
1.9
1.4
Atlantic Menhaden
1.9
0.9
2.0
1.4
Other taxa (n = 26 for 2021)
(n = 32 for 2020)
8.6
4.1
8.0
5.8
Total organisms'
207.5
100.0
134.0
100.0
'Total may vary from summation due to rounding of individual taxon.
I� Brown, Pink, and White Shrimp.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-10 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.3 Total number+ and percents of the ten most abundant taxa/life stages
collected during
larval impingement
sampling
at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, 2020-2021 (based on ranking for 2021).
2020
2021
Taxon
Total number+
Percent
Total number'
Percent
Atlantic Croaker
6,247,504
38.4
5,365,068
37.0
Anchoa spp. (<13mm)
149,968
0.9
3,870,890
26.7
Commercial Shrimp? Postlarvae
4,388,782
27.0
1,854,416
12.8
Spot
1,715,800
10.6
779,108
5.4
Gobisoma spp.
279,541
1.7
721,383
5.0
Swimming Crabs (megalops)
713,796
4.4
527,535
3.6
Anchoa spp. (>:Omm)
414,119
2.5
368,502
2.5
Silver Perch
1,148,515
7.1
362,379
2.5
Gobinellus/Ctenogobious spp.
184,974
1.1
201,739
1.4
Atlantic Menhaden
161,296
1.0
113,830
0.8
Other taxa (n = 36 for 2021)
1,157,945
7.1
347,840
2.4
(n = 39 for 2020)
Total8'
16,250,976
100.0
14,512,690
100.0
+Total number is a sum of the twelve sampling -day totals.
'ITotal may vary from summation due to rounding of individual taxon.
? Brown, Pink, and White Shrimp.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-11 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.4 Total number, total weight, and percent of total of the ten most abundant
juvenile and adult organisms collected in the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant
impingement samples, 2020-2021.
2020
Taxon
Number'
Percent&
Weight (kg)'
Percent'
White Shrimp
61,089
51.1
328.0
57.8
Bay Anchovy
25,514
21.3
31.1
5.5
Brown Shrimp
15,727
13.1
33.9
6.0
Blue Crab
3,111
2.6
81.2
14.3
Pink Shrimp
2,590
2.2
4.7
0.8
Striped Anchovy
1,804
1.5
10.2
1.8
Atlantic Croaker
1,494
1.2
16.9
3.0
Spot
874
0.7
5.9
1.0
Atlantic Menhaden
845
0.7
13.6
2.4
Threadfin Shad
841
0.7
2.0
0.3
Other taxa (n = 73)
5,726
4.8
40.5
7.1
Total
119,616
100.0
568.0
100.0
2021
Taxon
Number'
Percent&
Weight (kg)'
Percent'
Brown Shrimp
19,371
32.8
69.8
19.5
White Shrimp
14,053
23.8
61.3
17.2
Bay Anchovy
9,031
15.3
11.8
3.3
Atlantic Croaker
3,893
6.6
89.0
24.9
Star Drum
2,719
4.6
7.8
2.2
Spot
2,089
3.5
11.4
3.2
Threadfin Shad
1,505
2.5
6.9
1.9
Atlantic Menhaden
1,407
2.4
37.3
10.4
Blue Crab
900
1.5
21.7
6.1
Lesser Blue Crab
727
1.2
1.9
0.5
Other taxa (n = 63)
3,329
6.0
38.0
11.0
Total
59,024
100.0
357.0
100.0
'Numbers and weights are sums of the twelve sampling day totals.
Percentages may not add up to 100 due to rounding.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-12 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.5 Mean densities (mean no./1000 m3 per sampling day) of selected larval taxa+
entrained and impinged (1-mm fine mesh) at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, 2020.
Month
Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Atlantic Menhaden*
Larvae entrained
6.7
89
24
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Larvae impinged
2.2
14
4.5
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Spot*
Larvae entrained
96
1,658
122
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Larvae im in ed
12
335
16
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Atlantic Croaker*
Larvae entrained
558
3,482
364
474
22
0
0
0
1 3.1
1 140
11,026
72
Larvae impinged
90
624
65
177
8.3
0
0
0
1 1.0
1 5.5
1 406
8.6
Pinfish
Larvae entrained
24
86
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Larvae impinged
1.6
37
0.4
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.1
Seatrout*
Larvae entrained
0
0
0
0
34
1 12
1 13
1 13
0
0
0
0
Larvae impinged
0
0
0
0
7.3
3.2
1.6
0.2
0
0
0
0
Mullet*
Larvae entrained
0
3.1
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.2
0
0
0
Larvae impinged
0
0
0
0.3
0.3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Silversides
. - � • - �
000��0000000
Anchoa spp. (>_13mm)*
Larvae entrained
10
14
11
3.2
134
1,425
38
237
58
50
30
14
Larvae impinged
0.3
7.7
0
0
13
40
0.7
3.3
5.4
1.9
19
1.3
Anchoa s <13mm *
Larvae entrained
0
0
0
3
287
20
3.4
53
0
0
0
0
Larvae impinged
0
0
0
1.9
24
6.7
0.5
0.2
0
0
0
0
Gobiosoma s *
Larvae entrained
0
0
0
0
1,374
348
91
122
16
9.4
0
0
Larvae impinged
0
0
0
0
49
6.0
2.7
1.7
2.4
0.3
0
0
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-13 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.5 (continued) Month
Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Oenogobious/Gobionellus spp.
Larvae entrained
0
6.4
3.1
6.1
19
54
3
3.1
3.3
22
10
19
Larvae impinged
0
1.0
0.9
5.4
5.7
5.4
0.7
0.2
0.4
1.0
18
2.6
Shrimp postlarvae*
Larvae entrained
41
41
78
32
51
102
6.1
56
44
25
72
19
Larvae impinged
1 47
147
48
93
133
208
29
37
34
24
148
25
Hardback Shrimp
Larvae entrained
111
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6.2
0
Larvae impinged
1 0
1 0
0
0
0.3
0
0.1
0.1
4.8
1.0
Portunid crab megalops*
Larvae entrained
0
0
0
21
55
16
6.7
0
6.4
38
10
2.9
Larvae impinged
1.9
0.6
0.2
32
38
49
4.7
0.6
0.3
11
12
7.4
Total all organisms
Larvae entrained
739
5,654
608
1 632
2,853
2,003
184
512
143
309
1,175
128
Larvae im pinged
1 159
1,183
176
1 299
474
302
38
48
41
38
511
1 47
Selected taxa comprised > 1% of the total number sampled in either entrainment or larval impingement sampling
and/or historically representative important taxa (RT) indicated by an asterisk.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-14 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.6 Density (no./million m3) and modal length (mm) for representative important
taxa collected by month with juvenile and adult impingement sampling at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2021.
Month
Taxa Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Atlantic Menhaden
densityl
111
1 89
1 12
1 < 1
I < 1
1 2.4
1 2.6
1 2.8
1 2.1
1 0
1 <1
1 0
modallengtN
80
1 105
1 110
1 IN
I IN
I IN
I IN
I IN
I IN
I -
I IN
I-
Spot
densityl
56
1 5.5
1 6.6
1 11
1 238
1 38
1 8.4
1 20
1 3.8
1 1.5
1 0
0
modal length
1 80
1 75
1 70
140,50
1 40
1 45
1 60
1 55
190,1101
IN
I -
-
Atlantic Croaker
densityl
518
1 70
1 44
1 32
1 5.0
1 72
1 15
1 8.1
1 5.2
1 < 1
1 0
1 0
modal len
110
1 110
1 110
1 55
1 120
1 50
1 80
1 75
1 80
1 IN
I -
I -
Flounder
densityl
<1
I <1
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 <1
I <1
I <1
1 0
1 0
0
modal lengtN
IN
I IN
I -
I -
I -
I -
I IN
I IN
I IN
I -
I -
-
Seatrout
-
�®000®000000
-
m®aaamaaaaaa
White Shrimp
densityl
98
1 0
1 4.6
1 3.1
1 1.0
1 3.6
1 168
1 1,366
1 125
1 707
1 43
1 6.0
modallen
80
1 -
180,1201
155
1 IN
I IN
1 55
1 75
1 75
1 100
1 70
1 90
Brown Shrimp
densityl
0
0
1 0
1 0
1 76
12,754
1 585
1 50
1 33
1 47
1 1.0
< 1
modal lengtN
-
-
I -
I -
1 45
1 70
1 85
1 65-70
1 65
1 50
1 IN
IN
Pink Shrimp
densityl
7.3
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 <1
1 0
1 4.2
1 4.8
1 1.1
1 2.3
1 1.9
< 1
modallen
IN
-
-
-
IN
-
50
40
IN
IN
IN
I IN
Blue crabs 9.7 5.2 44 12 11 77 41 46 1.4 40 16 6.3
Bay anchovya' 821 180 141 43 382 114 2.2 9.3 0 0 2.9 11
Total organisms 2,424 456 297 121 738 3,163 879 1,639 272 815 70 29
Length -frequency analysis was not conducted on blue crab, and Bay Anchovy data.
§IN= insufficient size range collected for determination of modal length.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-15 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.7 Mean percent survival' and percent of total number of larval organisms
collected during larval impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant, 2020-2021.
Taxa
Intake
Screens
Mean percent survival
Adjusted
Intake
Controls Screens¶
Percent total
number
2020 2021
Atlantic Croaker
34
87
39
38.4
37.0
Shrimp postlarvae
90
89
100
27.0
12.8
Spot
29
86
34
10.6
5.4
Portunid megalops
87
86
100
4.4
3.6
Anchoa spp. > 13
0.7
NC
0.7
2.5
2.5
Ctenogobius spp.
15
NC
15
1.1
1.4
Atlantic Menhaden
3.2
39
8.0
1.0
0.8
Flounder spp.
93
97
96
0
0.4
Hardback Shrimp
79
89
89
0.2
0.2
Blue crabs
92
92
100
0.6
0.2
Pinfish§
34
87
39
1.1
0.2
Mullet
70
92
76
< 0.1
0.1
Weakfish
13
54
24
0.3
0.1
Jacks
36
NC
36
< 0.1
< 0.1
Prionotus spp.
90
97
93
0.1
< 0.1
Planehead Filefish
70
NC
70
< 0.1
< 0.1
Pink and white shrimp
96
93
100
0.3
< 0.1
Percent total number collected 88 65
+Mean present survival values include data collected during 4 years of intake screen survival
studies conducted from 1984-1987. Results are presented in CP&L 1987 and 1988 (fast -screen
rotation).
¶Survival results were adjusted for control mortality when control results were available. An entry
of NC for control data indicates that no control data were collected. Adjusted intake screen
survival was estimated by dividing the treatment survival by the control survival to account for
competing sources of mortality. The adjusted intake screen survival was truncated to 100 in cases
where the calculated value exceeded 100.
§ The survival percentage for pinfish is an estimate based upon data for a similar species, croaker.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-16 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.8 Mean percent survival' and percent total number of organisms collected
during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2020-2021.
Taxa
Intake
Screens
Mean percent survival
Adjusted
Intake
Controls Screens¶
Percent total
number
2020 2021
Brown Shrimp
90
80
100
13
33
Shrimp (pink & white)
94
93
100
53
24
Bay Anchovy
4.9
73
6.7
21
15
Atlantic Croaker
45
93
48
1.2
6.6
Star Drum§
45
93
48
0.2
4.6
Spot
60
98
61
0.7
3.5
Atlantic Menhaden
16
67
24
0.7
2.4
Blue crabs
96
92
100
2.6
1.5
Blackcheek Tonguefish
83
98
85
0.4
0.5
Silver Perch§
60
98
61
0.1
0.2
Mullet
92
92
100
0.1
0.2
Weakfish
35
54
65
0.1
0.2
Portunus spp. §
96
92
100
0.0
< 0.1
Flounder
71
97
73
< 0.1
< 0.1
Percent total number collected 93 92
+ Mean present survival values include data collected during 4 years of intake screen survival
studies conducted from 1984-1987. Results are presented in CP&L 1987 and 1988 (fast -screen
rotation).
¶ Survival results were adjusted for control mortality. Adjusted intake screen survival was
estimated by dividing the treatment survival by the control survival to account for competing
sources of mortality. The adjusted intake screen survival was truncated to 100 in cases where
the calculated value exceeded 100.
§ Survival percentages for Portunus spp., star drum, and silver perch are estimates based upon data
for similar species (blue crabs, croaker, spot, respectively).
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-17 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Table 2.9 Mean annual percent reduction in the number of representative taxa
entrained and reductions in impingement mortality at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant, 1984-2021+.
Entrainment
J/A Impingement
Percent
Percent
reduction
reduction
Anchovies
79
Bay Anchovy
34
Atlantic Menhaden
60
Atlantic Menhaden
99
Spot
61
Spot
96
Atlantic Croaker
60
Atlantic Croaker
92
Seatrout
61
Seatrout
92
Mullet
90
Mullet
98
Flounder
92
Flounder
90
Gobiosoma spp
80
Shrimp postlarvae
82
Shrimp
94
Portunid crab megalops
96
Blue crabs
99
Total organisms
75
'Baseline entrainment and impingement rates for years without reduction controls in place used
data from 1979-1982 for entrainment and 1977-1979, and 1982 for impingement. (Impingement
data from 1980 and 1981 was exclude from the baseline calculations since a temporary fish
diversion structure was in place those years.)
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-18 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
Figure 2.2
2,000
1,600
tn
E
v
1,200
LL-
G1
3 800
s
a�
L
400
0
Figure 2.1
-'0' �Jv pJO 41 OLD �OJ O-'G
2021 2020
Mean daily freshwater flow (cros) to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2020-2021.
500
450
400
£ 350
v
3 300
0
250
L
G1
3 200
s
150
L
LL
100
50
0
ooa ti °p °p oo' °0 oz% °& °'P °'y titi y3 oti° °y5 °ti6 °y1 °yw °ti9 °y0 oyti
ti ti 101 101 1 1 1 1 ti ti tio1°ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti
Annual mean daily freshwater flow to the Cape Fear Estuary, 2000-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-19 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
35
30
_ 25
V
3 20
i
Q 15
E
H
10
5
0
Figure 2.3
40
35
30
Q 25
20
N 15
10
5
0
Figure 2.4
00 'SJN NJv "pP "v Oo '04 'Do-
t 2020 t 2021
Mean monthly intake canal water temperature (IC) 2020-2021.
4p 1 NJN NJ\, PJc� S�Q OLD �Ov O�c.
t 2020 t 2021
Mean monthly intake canal water salinity (ppt) 2020-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-20 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
9,000
N
c 8,000
7,000
E
-- 6,000
5,000
4,000
W 3,000
L
.8 2,000
E
= 1,000
Z
0
MIN
f
�
100
80
60
40 W
20 y
�i 0
►� 47 47 b RI Ri bJ OJ dl df ✓1 O Q C O Q A A A A A
A Number entrained — — Percent reduction
Baseline
,7
Figure 2.5 Annual number of total organisms entrained at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates, 1979-2021.
900
800
0 700
E 600
500
'70 400
W 300
200
E 100
Z 0
1�1 ! N
I 4%� r t 11 rt
� ,� � r
t rt I t l tr � M
Ir t j 11 d
100
80 C
60
0
40
t�
20 a
0
"Oki c� a-i rn rn �' o 0 0 o a n n r'n. w r!
rn a, as rn rn rn as o� o� a Q v v v v Q Q Q v v
—� Number entrained - - Percent reduction
Baseline
Figure 2.6 Annual number of Spot entrained at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and
percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates, 1979-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-21 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
N
0
E
L
W
z
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
100
80
r_
0
60 j
40 W
20
a
0
rn W ar w w ci o� rn W w °f N N N �V N N N N N N N
A A A A A A A A A A A
Figure 2.7 Annual number of Atlantic Menhaden entrained at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment estimates,
1979-2021.
1200
D 1000
E
800
oa
600
L
W 400
L
200
E
2 0
'9 R] Q7 O} g W Q? W 4 O a O d rl rl+ r1. TM n rw
Number entrained — — Percent reduction
Baseline
100
80 0
60
40
t�
L
0
Figure 2.8 Annual number of portunid crab megalops entrained at the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment
estimates, 1979-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-22 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
� 600
r_
500
E
.0 400
a
300
L
w 200
L
100
E
z 0
100
C
80 ❑
60
40
L
20 0-
- �0
—♦ Number entrained Percent reduction
Baseline
Figure 2.9 Annual number of commercial shrimp postlarve entrained at the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline entrainment
estimates, 1979-2021.
12.0
N
0
❑ 10.0
�E 8.0
6.0
Cn
r_
E 4.0
cD 2.0
a
E
:3 0.0
z
R N R N N N N ry N
T T T F T T T T T T T f+
Number impinged — -A — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
100
80 r-
60 :3
a
v
40
v
sa
20
iZ
Figure 2.10 Annual number of Atlantic Menhaden impinged at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates,
1977-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-23 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
•-� 10.0
N
Q 9.0
8.0
E. 7.0
10 6.0
Ch 5.0
a 4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
:1 0.0
z
a
ti ►.°y ci � � � a°io o a', a', � a a o a o a = � � � �' ti
Number impinged — -A — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline —rA Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
100
80 C
0
60
a�
40 w
C
G7
20 L
a
0
Figure 2.11 Annual number of Bay Anchovy impinged at the Brunswick Steam Electric
Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates, 1977-
2021.
C
0
.0
v�
C
Q
E
W
M
E
z
1.6
1.4
1.2
1'0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
190 r
t
! IS
ff
—� Number impinged — $ — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline i Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
100
80 C
0
ca
60
'o
0
40
C
20
iz
0
Figure 2.12 Annual number of Spot impinged at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and
percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates, 1977-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-24 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
0.07
N
c 0.0s
0.05
0.04
= 0.03
a
E 0.02
a`r 0.01
n 00
100
80 c
60
40 c
L
20 d
in
Z h COm w`" w. ao ; c` ci ate, �i' CID -
Number impinged — — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
A� rt
4 r t
r
Figure 2.13 Annual number of flounder, Paralichthys spp., impinged at the Brunswick
Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement
estimates, 1977-2021.
— 4.0
!r
D 3.5
E 3.0
2.5
r 2.0
E 1.5
L 1.0
E 0.5
00
100
80 0
60
40
w
L
20 d
� 0
!� Cs —0 M h r• 4> >+ �, t+ ey V] 6� r+
m w uo w m os a a �- •• ,- •• •• N
m yr rn
A a wr w v� m v� °' N N N nor N N N s�v nqr ry nqi
l+ A t+ A A A ►+ 7+ A A A
—� Humber impinged — — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
i
dr N
M
�
s 11 rs * it
t � rr+ r r +
r r s + + r
Figure 2.14 Annual number of commercial shrimp impinged at the Brunswick Steam
Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline impingement estimates,
1977-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-25 Water Resources Unit

Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 2020-2021 Biological Monitoring Report
1.5
N
0
E 1.0
Cn
i`
0.5
L
E
M 0.0
Z
d
i� 11
� M
Number impinged — -A — — Percent reduction fish diversion structure
Baseline —A Percent reduction fish diversion structure
and return system
100
80 r-
60
40
C
C]
20
a
0
Figure 2.15 Annual number of blue crabs (all Callinectes spp. combined) impinged at the
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant and percent reduction from baseline
impingement estimates, 1977-2021.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 2-26 Water Resources Unit

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. 1980. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Studies Interpretive Report. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
_.1982. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1981. Vol 1.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
.1984. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1983. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
_.1985a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1984. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
. 1985b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant Cape Fear Studies, Interpretive Report. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
. 1986. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1985. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1987. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1986. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1988. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1987. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1989. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 1988. Carolina
Power & Light Company, Southport, NC.
2002. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 2001. Carolina
Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
Copeland, B. J., R. G. Hodson, and R. J. Monroe. 1979. Larvae and postlarvae in the Cape Fear
Estuary, North Carolina, during operation of the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1974-1978.
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
DEP. 2017. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 2013-2015.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC, New Hill, NC.
2019. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 2016. Duke
Energy Progress, LLC, New Hill, NC.
2020. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 2017-2018. Duke
Energy Progress, LLC, New Hill, NC.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 3-1 Water Resources Unit

. 2021. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report, 2019. Duke
Energy Progress, LLC, New Hill, 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 Survey. Water resources investigations 79-46.
Raleigh, NC.
1985. Hydrology of major estuaries and sounds of North Carolina. United States Geological
Survey. Water -supply paper 2221. Alexandria, Va.
Hogarth, W. T. and K. L. Nichols. 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 and T. L. Englert. 1988. Modeling the physical and
behavioral mechanisms influencing the recruitment of spot and Atlantic croaker to the Cape
Fear Estuary. Am. Fish. Soc. Sym. 3: 115-131.
Nelson, W. R., M. C. Ingham, and W. E. Shaaf. 1977. Larval transport and year class strength of
Atlantic menhaden, Brevoortia tyrannus. Fish. Bull. U. S. 75: 23-42.
Norcross B. L., and H. M. Austin. 1981. Climate scale environmental factors affecting year -class
fluctuations of Chesapeake Bay croaker, Micropogonias undulatus. Va. Inst. Mar. Sci. Spec.
Sci. Rep. 110: 87 pp.
Norcross B. L., and R. F. Shaw. 1984. Oceanic and estuarine transport of fish eggs and larvae: a
review. Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 153-165.
Rogers S. E., T. E. Targett, and S. B. Van Sant. 1984. Fish nursery use in Georgia salt -marsh
estuaries: The influence of springtime freshwater conditions. Tran. Am. Fish. Soc. 113: 595-606.
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 Inlet, and adjacent Atlantic Ocean, 1973-1977. BSEP
Cape Fear Studies, Volume XIV. Report to Carolina Power & Light Co., Institute of Marine
Sciences, University of North Carolina, Morehead City, NC.
Thompson, T. E. 1989. Factors limiting the movement of spot, Leiostomus xanthurus, into a
freshwater-oligohaline tidal marsh. Master's thesis. Department of Biological Sciences,
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, Wilmington, N.C.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2014. National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System -Final regulations to establish requirements for cooling water intake
structures at existing facilities and amend requirements at phase I facilities; Final rule, 79
Federal Register, pp 48,300 - 48,439.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 3-2 Water Resources Unit

Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Shallow marsh habitats as primary nurseries for fishes and shellfishes,
Cape fear River, North Carolina. Fish. Bull. 77:339-357.
Weinstein, M. P. 1979. Larval retention study, Cape Fear River, 1978. BSEP Cape Fear
studies, Volume X. Report to Carolina Power & Light Company. Lawler, Matusky & Skelly
Engineers, Pearl River, NY.
Weinstein, M. P., S. L. Weiss, R. G. Hodson, and L. R. Gerry. 1979. Retention of three taxa of
postlarval fishes in an intensively flushed tidal estuary, Cape Fear River, North Carolina.
Fish. Bull. 78(2):419-436.
Weinstein, M. P., S. L. Weiss, and M. E. Walters. 1980. Multiple determinants of community
structure in shallow marsh habitats, Cape Fear River estuary, North Carolina. Mar. Biol.
58:226-243.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC 3-3 Water Resources Unit

APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Summary of historical environmental studies conducted in association with
the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 1968-2021.
As part of the initial nuclear licensing efforts Carolina Power & Light Company (CP&L,
predecessor to Progress Energy Carolinas, Inc and subsequently Duke Energy Progress, LLC)
commenced environmental impact studies in 1968. Physical/chemical studies included dye and
flow studies, water chemistry, and thermal studies. Biological studies included phytoplankton,
zooplankton, benthos 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 were 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 performance studies
and marsh productivity 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 Service, United States Fish and
Wildlife Service, North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries, North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management (predecessor to NC DENR), and CP&L. Exhaustive dye tracer,
hydrographic, tidal, temperature, and salinity studies were conducted to model estuarine flow
dynamics relative to plant intake flows. Various gear efficiency and sampling methodology
studies were conducted to ensure that statistically valid data were collected. The biological
studies were modified to provide adequate data concerning the larval, juvenile, and adult fish and
shellfish populations having the greatest potential to be adversely affected by plant operation. In
addition 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
below Southport, NC upstream to the vicinity of Wilmington, NC. Specific criteria studied
included species composition plus spatial, seasonal, and inter -annual abundance as well as age,
growth, dietary, and tagging studies. The principal investigators from CP&L, NCSU, Institute of
Marine Science and Lawler, Matusky and Skelly consultants used results of these studies to
determine the mechanisms by which larvae enter and are retained in this intensively flushed
estuary and to provide insight regarding 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 through 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 emphasis was placed on marine fisheries. With
some modification, these Biological Monitoring Studies were a continuation of the studies
conducted since 1976, thus, allowing for long-term trending of results. Certain studies were also
expanded or added to address the effectiveness of the circa 1983 intake modifications in reducing
the number of organisms entrained and impinged. Beginning in 1984, a larval impingement
study was conducted in addition to the standard entrainment and impingement studies as
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-1 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 1. continued.
another means to assess the success of fine -mesh screens in reducing entrainment of larvae.
Larval fish sampling was conducted in the ship channel and the mouths of two major tidal creek
nursery areas. A larval fish discrete depth sampling study was conducted to better understand the
distribution of larvae during recruitment to the estuary and to validate 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 several nursery areas upstream of the intake canal.
Sampling stations also included a location in the fish return basin. This station along with a
special tagging study demonstrated that juvenile fish and shellfish 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 potentially 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 diversion 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 alive to the estuary. A weekly temperature and
salinity study was conducted along the main stem of the estuary because historic results indicated
that freshwater flow, salinity, and temperature were the main determinants of fish and shellfish
distribution and abundance in the estuary.
Beginning in 1994 and continuing through the current permit cycle, the biological
monitoring program was significantly reduced with the concurrence 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 concentrate on entrainment and impingement only. This
allowance was based on the fact that if the impingement mortality and entrainment performance
remains relatively consistent then the environment remains protected. Sampling frequency was
reduced to monthly sampling and results demonstrated the continuing effectiveness of the intake
modifications in reducing entrainment and impingement of fish and shellfish. 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.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC believes over three decades of biological and environmental
monitoring has resulted in one of the most extensive and informative data bases concerning our
nation's estuaries. These data can provide valuable insight regarding the ecology of our nation's
estuaries and facilitate compliance with the 2014 existing facility 316(b) regulation.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-2 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 2. Total number+ of larval organisms collected during entrainment (BE) and
larval impingement (LI) sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
2020.
Scientific name
Common name
2020
BE
LI
Anguillidae
Freshwater eels
Anguilla rostrate
American Eel
0
0
Elopidae
Tarpons
Elops saurus
Ladyfish (lepto.)
6
89
Megalops atlanticus
Tarpon (lepto.)
1
3
Ophichthidae
Snake eels
Myrophis punctatus
Speckled Worm Eel
9
254
Myrophis punctatus (lepto.)
Speckled Worm Eel (lepto.)
0
40
Ophichthus gomesii
Shrimp Eel
1
14
Clupeidae
Herrings
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic Menhaden
43
448
Engraulidae
Anchovies
Anchoa < 13mm
Anchoa < 13mm
117
417
Anchoa> 13mm
Anchoa> 13mm
628
1.150
Anchoa mitchilli
Bay Anchovy
90
0
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped Anchovy
1
0
Belonidae
Needlefishes
Strongylura manna
Atlantic Needlefish
1
0
Exocoetidae
Flying fishes
Hemiramphus spp.
Halfbeaks
1
0
Syngnathidae
Pipefishes
Syngnathus fuscus
Northern Pipefish
2
85
Syngnathus lomsumae
Chain Pipefish
0
23
Syngnathus. spp.
Pipefish
0
0
Triglidae
Searobins
Prionotus spp.
Searobin
1
32
Prionotustrihulus
Bighead Searobin
0
0
Atherinidae
Silversides
Menidia menidia
Atlantic Silverside
0
0
Atherinidae
Silversides
30
72
Gerridae
Mojarras
Gerridae
Mor arras
8
36
Eucinostomus argenteus
Spotfm Mojarra
0
0
Haemulidae
Grunts
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Piglish
14
176
Sciaenidae
Drums
Bairdiella chrysoura
Silver Perch
238
3,190
Cynoscion nehulosus
Spotted Seatrout
6
22
Cynoscion regalis
Weakfish
17
132
Menticirrhus spp.
Kingfish spp.
1
28
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spot
610
4,766
Menticirrhus americanus
Southern Kingfish
0
36
Pogonias cromis
Black Drum
5
52
Micropogomas undulates
Atlantic Croaker
1,939
17,354
Sciaenops ocellatus
Red Drum
7
2
Stellifer lanceolatus
Star Drum
1
25
Pomatomidae
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluefish
0
0
Cyprinodontidae
Killifishes
Fundulus majahs
Striped Killifish
1
0
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-3 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 2. continued
Scientific name
Common name
2020
BE
LI
Fundulus heteroclitus
Mummichog
0
6
Fundulus spp.
0
4
Gobiesocidae
Clingfishes
Gohiesox strumosus
Skilletfish
1
48
Sparidae
Porgies
Archosargus prohactocephalus
Sheepshead
0
4
Lagodon rhomboids
Pinfish
36
499
Carangidae
Jacks
Caranx hippos
Crevalle Jack
0
8
Selene vomer
Lookdown
0
0
Mugilidae
Mullets
Mugil cephalus
Striped Mullet
1
4
Mugil curema
White Mullet
1
4
Blenniidae
Combtooth blennies
Blennidae
Combtooth blennies
6
32
Eleotridae
Sleepers
Dormitator maculatus
Fat Sleeper
0
4
Eleotridae
Sleepers
I
Gobiidae
Gobies
Gohiosoma spp.
621
777
Microgohius spp.
1
0
Ctenogohius/Gohionellus spp.
47
514
Bothidae
Lefteye flounders
Citharichthys spp.
3
13
Paralichthys spp.
0
12
Soleidae
Soles
Trinectes maculatus
Hogchoker
1
58
Cyprinidae
Minnows
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Golden Shiner
1
0
Cynoglossidae
Tongueflshes
Symphurus plagiusa
Blackcheek Tonguefish
1
0
Symphurus spp.
5
21
Monacanthidae
Fileflsh
Stephanolepis hispidus
Planehead Filefish
0
5
Poecilliidae
Live bearers
Gamhusia holihrooki
Eastern Mosquitofish
0
12
Diodontidae
Porcupine fishes
Chilomycterus schoepft
Striped Burrfish
0
1
Invertebrates
Loliginidae
Pencil squids
Lilliguncula hrevis
Atlantic Brief Squid
0
0
Penaeidae
Prawns
Commercial shrimp" (postlarve)
Shrimp larvae
180
12,305
Trachypenaeus constrictus
Hardback Shrimp
3
83
Portunidae
Swimming crabs
Portunid crab megalops
49
1,983
Portunid crab > l Omm
4
263
Callinectes spp.
Blue Crab (> 10mm <20mm)
0
15
Limulidae
Horseshoe crabs
Limulus polyphemus
Atlantic Horseshoe Crab
0
16
'Numbers represent total number collected (per 2-minute LI sample / per 5-minute BE sample) summed over all samples.
"Commercial shrimp refer to White, Brown, and Pink Shrimp of genus Farfantepenaeus and Litopenaeus.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-4 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 3. Total number+ of larval organisms collected during entrainment (BE) and
larval impingement (LI) sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant,
2021.
Scientific name
Common name
2021
BE
LI
Anguillidae
Freshwater eels
Anguilla rostrate
American Eel
4
16
Elopidae
Tarpons
Elops saurus
Ladyfish (lepto.)
2
18
Megalops atlanticus
Tarpon (lepto.)
0
0
Ophichthidae
Snake eels
Myrophis punctatus
Speckled Worm Eel
0
27
Myrophis punctatus (lepto.)
Speckled Worm Eel (lepto.)
2
1
Ophichthus gomesii
Shrimp Eel
0
4
Clupeidae
Herrings
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic Menhaden
26
316
Alosa spp.
Engraulidae
Anchovies
Anchoa < 13mm
Anchoa < 13mm
623
10,752
Anchoa> 13mm
Anchoa> 13mm
438
1,024
Anchoa mitchilli
Bay Anchovy
0
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped Anchovy
0
Belonidae
Needlefishes
Strongylura manna
Atlantic Needlefish
0
0
Syngnathidae
Pipefishes
Syngnathus fuscus
Northern Pipefish
0
8
Syngnathus lomsumae
Chain Pipefish
1
44
Syngnathus. spp.
Pipefish
0
0
Triglidae
Searobins
Prionotus spp.
Searobin
0
0
Prionotustrihulus
Bighead Searobin
0
1
Atherinidae
Silversides
Menidia menidia
Atlantic Silverside
0
0
Atherinidae
Silversides
208
36
Gerridae
Mojarras
Gerridae
Mor arras
5
5
Eucinostomus argenteus
Spotfm Mojarra
0
0
Haemulidae
Grunts
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Piglish
16
83
Sciaenidae
Drums
Bairdiella chrysoura
Silver Perch
47
1,007
Cynoscion nehulosus
Spotted Seatrout
24
8
Cynoscion regalis
Weakfish
18
27
Menticirrhus spp.
Kingfish spp.
0
1
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spot
207
2,164
Menticirrhus americanus
Southern Kingfish
0
0
Pogonias cromis
Black Drum
4
11
Micropogomas undulates
Atlantic Croaker
408
14,903
Sciaenops ocellatus
Red Drum
2
5
Stellifer lanceolatus
Star Drum
9
5
Pomatomidae
Bluefish
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluefish
0
0
Cyprinodontidae
Killifishes
Fundulus majahs
Striped Killifish
0
0
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-5 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 3. continued
Scientific name
Common name
2021
BE
LI
Ephippidae
Spadefishes
Chaetodipterus faker
Atlantic Spadefish
0
0
Gobiesocidae
Clingfishes
Gohiesox strumosus
Skilletfish
13
29
Sparidae
Porgies
Archosargus prohactocephalus
Sheepshead
1
32
Lagodon rhomboids
Pinfish
13
79
Carangidae
Jacks
Caranx hippos
Crevalle Jack
1
0
Selene vomer
Lookdown
0
0
Carangidae
Jacks
0
1
Mugilidae
Mullets
Mugil cephalus
Striped Mullet
1
0
Blenniidae
Combtooth blennies
Blennidae
Combtooth blennies
17
62
Eleotridae
Sleepers
Dormitator maculatus
Fat Sleeper
1
5
Gobiidae
Gobies
Gohiosoma spp.
817
2,004
Microgohius spp.
10
4
Ctenogohius/Gohionellus spp.
77
560
Bothidae
Lefteye flounders
Citharichthys spp.
3
34
Paralichthys spp.
3
161
Soleidae
Soles
Trinectes maculatus
Hogchoker
6
12
Cynoglossidae
Tonguefishes
Symphurus plagiusa
Blackcheek Tonguefish
0
12
Monacanthidae
Filefish
Stephanolepis hispidus
Planehead Filefish
1
5
Stromateidae
Butterfish
Perprilus spp.
0
1
Synodontidae
Lizardfish
Synodus foetens
Inshore Lizardfish
0
5
Tetraodontidae
Pufferfish
Sphoeroides maculatus
Northern Puffer
0
13
Invertebrates
Penaeidae
Prawns
Commercial shrimp" (postlarve)
Shrimp larvae
201
5,151
Farfantepenaeus duorarum
Pink Shrimp
0
14
Trachypenaeus constrictus
Hardback Shrimp
4
74
Portunidae
Swimming crabs
Portunid crab megalops
30
1,465
Portunid crab > l Omm
2
95
Callinectes spp.
Blue Crab (> 10mm <20mm)
0
3
Limulidae
Horseshoe crabs
Limulus polyphemus
Atlantic Horseshoe Crab
0
26
'Numbers represent total number collected (per 2-minute LI sample / per 5-minute BE sample) summed over all samples.
"Commercial shrimp refer to White, Brown, and Pink Shrimp of genus Farfantepenaeus and Litopenaeus.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-6 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 4. Total number+ and biomass (g) of juvenile and adult organisms collected
during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2022.
2020
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Dasyatidae
Skates
Dasyatis Sabina
Atlantic Stingray
4
1,091
Dasyatis say
Bluntnose Stingray
0
0
Gymnura micrura
Smooth Butterfly Ray
3
326
Anguillidae
Freshwater eels
Anguilla rostrata
American Eel
3
78
Elopidae
Tarpons
Elops saurus
Ladyfish
1
112
Ophichthidae
Snake eels
Myrophis punctatus
Speckled Worm Eel
1
21
Ophichthus gomesii
Shrimp Eel
1
210
Clupeidae
Herrings
Alosa aestivalis
Blueback Herring
196
901
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic Menhaden
845
13,644
Dorosoma cepedianum
Gizzard Shad
312
902
Dorosomapetenense
Threadfm Shad
841
1,956
Opisthonema oglinum
Atlantic Thread Herring
741
4,352
Rachycentridae
Cobia
Rachycentron canadum
Cobia
Engraulidae
Anchovies
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped Anchovy
1,804
10,178
Anchoa mitchilli
Bay Anchovy
25,514
31,123
Synodontidae
Lizardfishes
Synodus foetens
Inshore Lizardfishes
12
1,325
Gadidae
Codfishes
Urophycis jloridana
Southern Hake
2
25
Urophycis regia
Spotted Hake
265
1,140
Ophidiidae
Cusk-eels
Ophidion welshi
Crested Cusk-Eel
25
166
Ophidion marginatum
Striped Cusk-Eel
10
92
Batrachoididae
Toadfishes
Opsanus tau
Oyster Toadfish
14
143
Gobiesocidae
Clingfishes
Gohiesox strumosus
Skilletfish
2
16
Exocoetidae
Flying fishes
Hemiramphus spp.
33
40
Cyprinodontidae
Killifishes
Fundulus heteroclitus
Mummichog
0
0
Fundulus majahs
Striped Killifish
51
161
Atherinidae
Silversides
Memhras martinica
Rough Silverside
191
404
Menidia menidia
Atlantic Silverside
9
16
Menidia heryllina
Inland Silverside
0
0
Syngnathidae
Pipefishes
Syngnathus fuscus
Northern Pipefish
24
33
Syngnathus louisianae
Chain Pipefish
23
38
Gerridae
Mojarras
Diapterus auratus
Irish Pompano
126
1,056
Eucinostomus argenteus
Spotfin Mojarra
21
182
Eucinostomus gula
Silver Jenny
134
1,357
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-7 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 4. continued
2020
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Trighade
Searobins
Prionotus spp.
0
0
Prionotus evolans
Striped Searobin
0
0
Prionotus scitulus
Leopard Searobin
5
15
Prionotus trihulus
Bighead Searobin
148
626
Prionotus carolinus
Northern Searobin
0
0
Pomatomidae
Bluefishes
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluefish
20
57
Carangidae
Jacks
Caranx hippos
Crevalle Jack
12
452
Caranx latus
Horse -Eye Jack
0
0
Selene vomer
Lookdown
24
525
Trachinotus carolimrs
Florida Pompano
1
21
Belonidae
Needlefishes
Strongylura manna
Atlantic Needlefish
9
18
Lutjanidae
Snappers
Lutjanus griseur
Gray Snapper
45
253
Centrachidae
Sunfishes
Lepomis macrochirus
Bluegill
0
0
Centrarchus macropterus
Flier
48
131
Lepomis gulosus
Warmouth
67
180
Haemulidae
Grunts
Orthopristis chrysoptera
Pigliish
0
0
Sparidae
Porgies
Archosargusprohactocephalus
Sheepshead
20
418
Lagodon rhomhodies
Pinfish
449
5,469
Sciaenidae
Drums
Baridiella chrysoura
Silver Perch
78
300
Cynoscion nehulosus
Spotted Seatrout
14
21
Cynoscion regalis
Weakfish
237
1,088
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spot
874
5,871
Menticirrhus americanus
Southern Kingfish
0
0
Menticirrhus littoralis
Gulf Kingfish
40
278
Micropogomas undulates
Atlantic Croaker
1,494
16,853
Pogonias cromis
Black Drum
0
0
Sciaenops ocellatus
Red Drum
0
0
Stellifer lanceolatus
Star Drum
221
900
Ephippidae
Spadefishes
Chaetodipterus faker
Atlantic Spadefish
4
710
Mugilidae
Mullets
Mugil cephalus
Striped Mullet
11
37
Mugil curema
White Mullet
56
93
Blenniidae
Combtooth blennies
Hypsohlennius hentz
Feather Blenny
5
21
Hypsohlennius ionthas
Freckled Blenny
31
82
Chasmodes hosquianus
Striped Blenny
9
18
Gobiidae
Gobies
Ctenogohius oceanicus
Highfin Goby
47
258
Ctenogohius holesoma
Darter Goby
20
60
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-8 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 4. continued
2020
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Trichiuridae
Snake mackerels
Trichiurus lepturus
Atlantic Cutlassfish
90
1,195
Stromateidae
Butterfishes
Pepnlus alepidotus
Harvestfish
1
30
Pepnlus tri acanthus
Butterfish
109
464
Bothidae
Lefleye flounders
Ancylopsetta quadrocellata
Ocellated flounder
17
143
Citharichthys spilopterus
Bay Whiff
47
427
Etropus crossotus
Fringed flounder
477
3,056
Paralichthys lethostigma
Southern flounder
33
2,035
Scophthalmidae
Turbots
Scophthalmus aquosus
Windowpane Flounder
1
6
Soleidae
Soles
Trinectes maculatus
Hogchoker
33
176
Cynoglossidae
Toungeflshes
Symphurus plagiusa
Blackcheek Toungefish
499
2,446
Balistidae
Triggerfishes/Filesfishes
Monacanthus hispidus
Planehead Filefish
9
36
Tetraodontidae
Puffers
Chdomycterus schoepfi
Striped Burrfish
5
942
Sphoeroides maculates
Northern Puffer
6
133
Lagocephalus laevigatus
Smooth Puffer
3
21
Scombridae
Mackerels
Scomheromorus maculatus
Spanish Mackerel
0
0
Poecilliidae
Live bearers
Gamhusia holihrooki
Eastern Mosquitofish
16
45
Serranidae
Groupers
Epinephlus itajara
Goliath Grouper
20
119
Invertebrates
Loliginidae
Pencil squids
Lilliguncula hrevis
Atlantic Brief Squid
14
41
Limulidae
Horseshoes Crabs
Limulus polyphenmus
Atlantic Horseshoe Crab
0
0
Squillidae
Mantis shrimps
Squilla empusa
Mantis Shrimp
90
1,847
Alpheidae
Snapping shrimps
Alpheus sp.
Snapping Shrimp
0
0
Penaeidae
Prawns
Farfantepenaeus aztecus
Brown Shrimp
15,727
33,885
Farfantepenaeus duorarum
Pink Shrimp
2,590
4,734
Luopenaeus setiferus
White Shrimp
61,089
328,025
Xiphopeneus sp.
Atlantic Seabob
0
0
Trachypeneus constrictus
Hardback Shrimp
0
0
Palaemonidae
Macrohrachium sp.
Portunidae
Swimming crabs
Callinectes sapidus
Blue Crab
3,111
81,245
Callinectes similis
Lesser Blue Crab
406
875
Callinectes spp.
Swimming crabs
2
7
Portunidae
'Numbers and biomass represent total number and weight collected per 24-hour sample summed over all sample dates.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-9 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 5. Total number+ and biomass (g) of juvenile and adult organisms collected
during impingement sampling at the Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, 2021.
2021
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Dasyatidae
Skates
Dasyahs Sabina
Atlantic Stingray
14
4,323
Gymnura micrura
Smooth Butterfly Ray
2
287
Carcharhinidae
Requiem Sharks
Rhizoprionodon terraenovae
Atlantic Sharpnose Shark
1
182
Ophichthidae
Snake eels
Myrophis punctatus
Speckled Worm Eel
22
344
Ophichthus gomesii
Shrimp Eel
10
445
Clupeidae
Herrings
Alosa aestivalis
Blueback Herring
149
743
Alosa pseudoharengus
Alewife
1
7
Brevoortia tyrannus
Atlantic Menhaden
1,407
37,274
Dorosoma cepedianum
Gizzard Shad
9
129
Alosa sapidissima
American Shad
68
686
Dorosomapetenense
Threadfm Shad
1,505
6,902
Opisthonema oglinum
Atlantic Thread Herring
217
2,193
Engraulidae
Anchovies
Anchoa hepsetus
Striped Anchovy
198
699
Anchoa mitchilli
Bay Anchovy
9,031
11,840
Synodontidae
Lizardfishes
Synodus foetens
Inshore Lizardfishes
5
379
Gadidae
Codfishes
Urophycis jloridana
Southern Hake
12
44
Urophycis repa
Spotted Hake
110
607
Ophidiidae
Cusk-eels
Ophidion welshi
Crested Cusk-Eel
6
42
Batrachoididae
Toadfishes
Opsanus tau
Oyster Toadfish
7
34
Gobiesocidae
Clingfishes
Gohiesox strumosus
Skilletfish
26
96
Umbridae
Mudminnows
Umbra pygmaea
Eastern Mudminnow
5
24
Cyprinodontidae
Killifishes
Fundulus heteroclitus
Mummichog
10
39
Fundulus majahs
Striped Killifish
8
10
Atherinidae
Silversides
Memhras martinica
Rough Silverside
252
883
Menidia menidia
Atlantic Silverside
8
35
Syngnathidae
Pipefishes
Syngnathus fuscus
Northern Pipefish
18
37
Syngnathus louisianae
Chain Pipefish
18
46
Gerridae
Mojarras
Eucinostomus argenteus
Spotfin Mojarra
15
71
Eucinostomus gula
Silver Jenny
40
230
Trigliade
Searobins
Prionotus trihulus
Bighead Searobin
30
100
Pomatomidae
Bluefishes
15
4,511
Pomatomus saltatrix
Bluefish
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-10 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 5. continued
2021
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Carangidae
Jacks
Caranx hippos
Crevalle Jack
7
409
Belonidae
Needlefishes
Strongylura manna
Atlantic Needlefish
1
98
Lutjanidae
Snappers
Lutjanus griseur
Gray Snapper
4
14
Centrachidae
Sunfishes
Centrarchus macropterus
Flier
11
34
Sparidae
Porgies
Archosargus prohactocephalus
Sheepshead
7
46
Lagodon rhomhodies
Pinfish
104
1,100
Sciaenidae
Drums
Bandiella chrysoura
Silver Perch
139
2,574
Cynoscion nehulosus
Spotted Seatrout
7
40
Cynoscion regalis
Weakfish
49
3,253
Leiostomus xanthurus
Spot
2,089
11,371
Menticirrhus americanus
Southern Kingfish
12
43
Menticirrhus saxatilis
Northern Kingfish
7
21
Micropogomas undulates
Atlantic Croaker
3,893
89,046
Pogonias cromis
Black Drum
12
689
Stellifer lanceolatus
Star Drum
2,719
7,799
Mugilidae
Mullets
Mugil cephalus
Striped Mullet
18
89
Mugil curema
White Mullet
30
82
Blenniidae
Combtooth blennies
Hypsohlennius hentz
Feather Blenny
7
35
Hypsohlenniusionthas
Freckled Blenny
8
28
Gobffdae
Gobies
Ctenogohis oceanicus
Highfin Goby
20
80
Trichiuridae
Snake mackerels
Trichiurus lepturus
Atlantic Cutlassfish
24
297
Stromateidae
Butterfishes
Peprilus alepidotus
Harvestfish
2
82
Peprilus triacanthus
Butterfish
76
953
Bothidae
Lefleye flounders
Ancylopsetta quadrocellata
Ocellated flounder
18
37
Citharichthys spilopterus
Bay Whiff
372
3,131
Etropus crossotus
Fringed flounder
92
271
Paralichthys lethostigma
Southern flounder
17
3,068
Soleidae
Soles
Trinectes maculatus
Hogchoker
33
114
Cynoglossidae
Toungefishes
Symphurus plagmsa
Blackcheek Toungefish
276
868
Tetraodontidae
Puffers
Chilomycterus schoepfi
Striped Burrfish
17
285
Scombridae
Mackerels
Scomheromorus maculatus
Spanish Mackerel
10
10
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-11 Water Resources Unit

Appendix 5. continued
2021
Total number
Total weight (g)
Scientific name
Common name
Invertebrates
Loliginidae
Pencil squids
Lilliguncula brevis
Atlantic Brief Squid
448
2,314
Squillidae
Mantis shrimps
Squilla empusa
Mantis Shrimp
27
191
Penaeidae
Prawns
Farfantepenaeus aztecus
Brown Shrimp
19,371
69,795
Farfantepenaeus duorarum
Pink Shrimp
121
166
Litopenaeus setiferus
White Shrimp
14,053
61,277
Trachypeneus constrictus
Hardback Shrimp
39
39
Portunidae
Swimming crabs
Callinectes sapidus
Blue Crab
900
21,709
Callinectes similis
Lesser Blue Crab
727
1,859
Callinectes spp.
Swimming crabs
7
35
'Numbers and biomass represent total number and weight collected per 24-hour sample summed over all sample dates.
Duke Energy Progress, LLC A-12 Water Resources Unit