NC0024392_Regional Office Historical File Pre 2018 (8)

0�NVNq
A Michael F. Easley, Governor
} Cki William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
? North Carolina. Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen H. Sullins, Director
R r ^ en n
' uo
C%Worrm I V C U
February 7, 2008
E t�
Mr. Bruce H. Hamilton
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
12710 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, INC28078
Clear Mr. Hamilton:
Staff of the; Environmental Sciences Section of D Q have reviewed the lake Norman Environmental
Monitoring Program; 2006 Summary Report. The report is required by NPDES permit number
NCO024392 for the McGuire Nuclear Station. The water chemistry, phytoplankton, zooplanktcan, and
fisheries data compiled in the report are within the ranges found in prior years of the maintenance
monitoring program, so staff have no major concerns at this time.
Sincerely,
1 �ton
Chief, Environmental Sciences Section
cc: Susan Wilson, Western NPDES Program
Rob Krebs, MRt w/ rpt
JahCarolma
,
Environmental Sciences Section 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1621 Phone [phone] Customer Service
Internet. . sb.enr. tate.nc.us 4401 Reedy Creek Road Raleigh, NC27607 FAX [phone]
An Equal rtunitylAffi tive Action Employer- 50% Recy 10 Post Consumer Paper

mw�"v � M__
Duke Emer y
McGuire Nuclear Station
Energy., 12700 Hagers Ferry Road
Huntersville, NC 28078
January 28, 2008
Mr. Jimmie R.Overton
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Environmental Sciences Section
1621 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Subject: McGuire Nuclear Station
Lake Norman Environmental Monitoring Program: 2006 Summary Report
Certified:7005 0220 0002 591 5504
Dear Mr. Overton:
Enclosed are three copies of the annual Lake Norman Environmental Monitoring Program: 2006
Summary Report, as required by NPDES permit NC0024392.
Results of the 2006 data were comparable with that of previous years. No obvious short-term or
long-term impacts of station operations were observed in water quality, ph toplan ton,
ooplankto , and fish communities. Additionally, 2006 station operation data demonstrates
compliance with permit thermal limits and cool water management requirements.
Fishery studies continue to be coordinated with the Division of Inland Fisheries of the North
Carolina. Wildlife Resource Commission to address Lake Norman's fishery management issues.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact John Williamson by phone at
[phone] or by email at [e-mail]
Sincere
Bruce H. Hamilton
Duke Energy
McGuire Nuclear Station
Site Vice President

cc, Bill Faris
MG03A3
Duane Harrell ell
MG03A3
Sherry Reid
MG03A3
John Derwort
MG03A3
Ron !Lewis
EC 13 K
JohnWilliamson
MGOIEM - o copies (4 for NRC, RGC, EHS);
bcc wfattch: Record No MN-0047 7

LAKE NORMAN
MAINTENANCE MONITORING NG PROG' M.
2006 SUMMARY
McGuire Nuclear Station: NPDES No. NC 024392
Principal Investigators:
RECE[VI
6 IT 1008
Michael A. Abney
John E. Uerort
William J. l oris
DWO-Surface Water Prot,
DUKEENERGY
Corporate EHS Services
McGuire Environmental Center
13339 Hagers berry Road
Hunter ville, NC 28078
December 200

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to a number of individuals who made significant
contributions to this report. First, we are much indebted to the BIAS scientific services field
staff' in carrying out a complex, multiple -discipline spling effort that providesthe
foundation of this report. Kim Baker, lave Coughlan, Bob Doby, Duane Harrell, Bryan
Kalb, Glenn Lang, and Todd Lynn conducted fisheries collections and sample processing.
Jan Williams, Brandy St es, Bill Faris and Glenn Lang performed water quality field
collections. John Williamson assembled the plant operating data, Jan Williams, Brandy
Starnes, Glenn Lang, and Jahn De art conducted; plankton sampling, sorting, and
taxonomic processing,
e would also like to thank the following reviewers for their insightful commentary and
suggestions: Ron Lewis, and John Vlte. Sherry Reid compiled this report.
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ........... ................................................................ ........
LISTOF TABLES .......:........: ................ ........ ............................, .....:......... ..........»
LIST OF FIGURES » . xi
CHAPTER I- MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION............................................................ I
INTRODUCTION...................................................................:...........»............... l -
OPERATIONAL DATA FOR 200..........................................:.......................... I-'
PTER2- WATER CHEMISTRY ........................................................r . ............. 2-
INTRODUCTION.............. :...................................... ............» ..................--........— -
METHODSAND MATERIALS .................... . ....... .................µ ........:.................; 2_,
SULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................... ........ 2-
Precipitation and Air Temperature...............:................:...................... »............... 2
Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen . . 2-
r
INTRODUCTION .
METHODS AND MATERIALS .'...................................... ............................................
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................. ...................... .» . ........ ..............................
Standing Crop ... ...:............................................................................ .........................
.
Chlorophyll a ....................: ».................................. ....... ................. .........
Total .Abundance... ......... ........:................. ..................................a ..................
Seston............................ ................................................. ..., ....... .................................
Secchi Depths.
Community Composition:........:.......................................................................
Species Composition and Seasonal Succession ...............:..................................
FUTURE STUDIES ......................................................................., ................
SUMMARY...............................................,....................................................
CHAPTER - ZOOPL KTON..................................................................................
INTRODUCTION.
METHODS AND MATERIALS ..... ................... ........ ............ ....... »..... , .....................

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... ..................... ............:.......:............................4-
TotalAbundance ...................:........: ................................................................. 4-2
CommunityComposition .............................. .......:....................................... ...... 4-4
Copepoda............................. ........................, ...................., ........................4-4
Claocera...........................:......,.....,..................................., ......................4-
Rotiera...:...............:........::.............................................., ........................-.4-5
FUTURESTUDIES ...................................................................................... 4-
SUMMARY..............................., .......................... ...................................... .............. 4-6
CHAPTER5- FISHERIES ............................................................................................ 5-
INTRODUCTION.................. ...,............................................................................. ...... 5-1
METHODS AND MATERIALS .................. ............. ....... ..............,..,,, ............. 5-1
Spring Electrofishing Surveys.......................................,........:........:,..,............... -1
Fall electrofishing surveys for young -of -year bass „ ............................................. 5-
Sumner striped bass mortality surveys ....................... .......--- ................ ................... 5-
Striped bass netting survey ............................................................................ 5-
Fall hydroacoustics and purse seine ....... ............... ............... ........ ............. ..... .--,.... 5-
Crappie trap -net study .............................. `..................... .................... ............. ..... , 5-3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .................................... ............................... ................... 5-
Spring Electrofishing Surveys .................................................................. .... ........5-3
Fall electro shing surveys for young -of -year bass ..........:.............................. ,,.ar. , 5-5
Summer striped bass mortality surveys...................... .................................. ................ 5-5
Striped bass netting survey .........................................................; .................. 5-5
Fall hydroacoustics and purse seine .......... ........................................ ......................... 5-5
FUTURE STUDIES ......... ........................,.............................................., ........ 5-6
SUMMARY.:................................................................................................. 5-6
LITERATURECITED ............... ................................. .................. ................. — ..........L-I
iv

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
number NCO024392 for McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS), the Lake Norman Maintenance
Monitoring Program continued during 2006. Overall, no obvious long-term impacts of
station operations were observed in water quality, phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish
communities. The 2006 station operation data is summarized and continues to demonstrate
compliance with thermal limits and cool water requirements.
The average monthly capacity factors for MNS during critical summer months in 2006 were
100.7% (July), 101.3% (August), and 77.7% (September). Average monthly discharge
temperatures were below the 99.0 'F (37.2 'C) thermal limit for these critical months. The
volume of cool water in Lake Norman was adequate to comply with both the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Technical Specification requirements and the NPDES discharge
water temperature limits.
Annual precipitation in the vicinity of MNS in 2006 totaled 105 cm or 10.9 cm iess than
observed in 2005 (115.9 cm), and 12.6 cm less than the long-term mean for this area (117.6
cm). Air temperatures in 2006 were warmer than both 2005 and the long-term mean during
seven months of the year, and differences were most pronounced in January and December
when 2006 temperatures averaged 3.1 'C and 3.4 'C warmer, respectively, than recorded in
2005.
Temporal and spatial trends in water temperature and dissolved oxygen (DO) in 2006 were
similar to those observed historically, and all data were within the range of previously
measured values. Winter and spring water temperatures in 2006 were generally warmer than
observed in 2005 in both the mixing and background zones, and paralleled interannual
differences exhibited in air temperatures but with about a one month lag time. Summer water
temperatures in 2006 were generally similar to those observed in 2005, with several
exceptions. Water temperatures in the upper 10 m of the water column in June 2006 were as
much as 3.8 'C warmer in the mixing zone, and up to 2.70C warmer in the background zone,
than measured in 2005. These differences appear to be related primarily to the antecedent
April and May air temperatures which were warmer than both 2005 and the long-term mean.
Similarly, September 2006 metalimnion and hypolimnion temperatures were as great as 4.6 0
C warmer than measured in 2005. Fall and early winter water temperatures were generally
similar to those measured in 2005, and followed the trend exhibited in air temperatures.
v

Some differences were observed betwe
te eratures were as much as 4.0 'C coole
n years, especially in November when 2006
sit
levels in these months were higher than observed in 2005. These between -year differences in
DO corresponded strongly with the degree of thermal stratification and interannual
differences in air temperatures, The seasonal pattern of DO in 2006 at the discharge location
was similar to that measured historically, with the highest values observed during the winter
and lowest observed in the summer and early fall. The minimum DO concentration measured
at the discharge location in 2006 (5.5 mg/L) occurred in August, and was slightly higher than
measured in August, 2005 (4.7 mg/L), but was also 1.4 mg/L higher than the historical
minimum.
Reservoir -wide isotherm and isopleth information for 2006, coupled with heat content and
hypolinmetic oxygen data, illustrate that Lake Norman thermal and oxygen dynamics are
characteristic of historical conditions and similar to other Southeastern reservoirs of
comparable size, depth, flow conditions, and trophic status. Physicochemical habitat
conditions for adult striped bass habitat in 2006 were more severe than both 2005 and 2004,
vi

but similar to conditions observed in 2002 and 2003. Observed striped bass mortalities in
2006 totaled only six fish.
All chemical parameters measured in 2006 were similar to 2005, and within the concentration
ranges previously reported for the lake during both preoperational and operational years of
S. Metal concentrations in 2006 were low or below the analytical reporting limits.
Cadmium, lead, zinc, and copper values did not exceed the State water quality action levels
during 2006. Manganese and iron concentrations in the surface and bottom waters were
generally low in 2006, except during summer and fall when bottom waters became anoxic
releasing forms of these metals into the water column. Iron concentrations did not exceed the
State action level of 1.0 mg/L. Manganese levels, however, exceeded the State action level
(200 gg/L) in the bottom waters throughout the lake in the summer and fall. Manganese
concentrations measured in 2006 are characteristic of historical conditions.
Lake Norman is classified as olio-mesotrophic based on long-term, annual mean
phytoplankton concentrations. Chlorophyll concentrations during 2006 were most often
within historical ranges, however, several record low chlorophyll concentrations were
recorded in February, while a few record high concentrations were recorded in November.
Lake -wide can chlorophyll increased from February through May and August to the annual
maximum in November. Maximum chlorophyll concentrations were most often observed up -
lake at Locations 15.9 and 69.0, while minimum chlorophyll concentrations were most often
recorded fro m down -lake at Location 2.0. The highest chlorophyll value recorded in 2006,
15.05 99/L, was well below the NC State Water Quality standard of 40 gg/L.
Phytoplankton densities and biovolumes during 2006 were generally lower than in 2005.
Phytoplankton densities during 2006 never exceeded the NC guidelines for algae blooms;
however, biovolumes at most locations in November were in excess of the state guideline.
Standing crop values in excess of bloom guidelines have been recorded during six previous
years of the program. As in past years, higher standing crops were usually observed at up -
lake locations, while comparatively low values were noted down -lake.
Seston dry and ash -free weights were more often higher in 2006 than in 2005 and down -lake
to up -lake differences were apparent during most quarters. Maximum dry and ash -free
weights occurred most often at uptake Location 69.0 while minimum values were always
noted do lake at Locations 2.0 through 8.0. The lower proportion of ash -free dry weights
Vil

to dry weights in 2006 compared to 2005 indicates a decrease in organic composition in 2006
samples.
Secchi depths reflected suspended solids, with shallow depths related to high dry weights.
The lake -wide mean sec hi depth in 2006 was slightly higher than in 2005 and was within
historical ranges recorded since 1992.
The taxonomic composition of phytoplankton communities during 2006 was similar to those
of any previous years. Additionally, 2006 had the highest number of individual taxa yet
recorded. Cryptophytes were dominant in February, while diatoms were dominant during
May and November. Green algae dominated phytoplankton assemblages during August,
Blue-green algae were less abundant during 2006 than during 2005 and their contribution to
total densities seldom exceeded 4%.
The most abundant alga, on an annual basis, was the cryptophyte Rhodonionas minuta. The
most abundant diatom in May was Cyclotella stelligera, while the most abundant diatom
during November was Tabellaria fenestrata. The small desmid, Cosmarium
asphear osporum var. strigosum was dominant in August 2006, All of these taxa, have been
common and abundant throughout the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Prograra.
Maximum zooplankton densities most often occurred in the fall of 2006. Minimum
zooplankton densities were noted in the winter and spring. As in past years, epilimnetic
densities were higher than whole -column densities. Mean zooplankton densities were
generally higher at Background locations than at Mixing Zone locations during 2006, Both
seasonal and spatial trends of zooplankton populations were similar to those of the
phytoplankton. From around 1997 through 2005, a year-to-year trend of increasing
zooplankton densities was observed among Mixing Zone locations in the spring. However,
during the spring of 2006, densities at these locations declined sharply. Long-term trends
showed much higher year-to-year variability at Background locations than at Mixing Zone
locations.
Epilimnetic zooplankton densities were generally within ranges of those observed in previous
years. The exceptions were record high densities during the fall at all locations except
Location 15.9.
Vill

I

Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring results from 2006 are consistent with results from
previous years. Other than somewhat lower productivity from induced mixing at
Locations 2.4 and 5.0, no obvious short-term or long-tenn impacts were observed in water
quality or biota of bake Norman.
x

LIST OF TABLES
TableTitle
Page
1-1
Average monthly capacity factors (%) and monthly average discharge water
temperatures for McGuire Nuclear Station during 2006...........'..................:..........1-2
2-1
Water chemistry program for the McGuire Nuclear Station NPDES
Maintenance Monitoring Program on Lake Norman ................................................
:2-1'7
-2
Analytical methods and reporting limits employed in the McGuire Nuclear
Station NPDES Maintenance Monitoring Program for Lake No ..:..................
-18 ;
-3
Heat content calculations for the thermal al regime in Lake Norman for 2005
and2006................................................................................. .....................
-1
2--4
A comparison of areal hypolimnetic oxygen deficits (AHOD), summer
chlorophyll a (Chl a), Se chi depth, and mean depth of Lake Norman and
18 TVA reservoirs.................:........:......................... ........:......, A ..................
2- 0
2-5
Quarterly surface (0.3 ) and bottom (bottom minus 1 m) water chemistry
for the McGuire Nuclear Station discharge, mixing zone, and background
locations on Lake Norman during 2005 and 2006.................... ..........................
2- 1
location anti sampu
during 2006. .
3-3
Total mean sexton d
collected in Lake N
-4
Phytoplankton tax
Norman each year f
3-5
Dominant classes, ti
composition (in par
sampling period o
4-1
Total zooplankton d
taxonomic groups,,,,
in the epilimmon at
Norman in Februar
-2
Zooplankton taxa id
Norman from 1987
4-3
Dominant copepod
composition (in par
densities by locatio7
5-1 Common and scient
d.
rr
fie names of fish' collected in Lake Norman, 2006.................... 5-
xi

LIST F TABLES, Continued
Table
Title
Page
5-2
Numbers and biomass of fish collected from electrofishing ten 0-
transeets each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman from late
March to early April 2006...................................::................................... ........
5-
5-3
Mean total lengths ( t age for spatted bass (S) and largemouth bass
(LMB) collected from electrofishing ten 0-m transects each, at three areas
(MSS, REF,' S) in Lake Norman from late March to early April 2006..............
-9
5-4
Mean total length ( ) at age for largemouth bass collected from
electrofishing ten 0-m transets each, at three areas (MSS, REF, ) in
Lake Nonnan from late March to early April 2006................................... ,.........
5-10
-5
Dead striped bass observed in Lake Norman during weekly surveys in July
dAugust 2006 .:............................................................. ...................................
5-10
5-6
Lake Norman forage fish densities (Number/hectare) and population
estimates from hydroacoustic surveys in September 2006....................................
5-11
-7
Total numbers (N) and percent composition of forage fish, and modal length
class ofthreadfin shad collected in purse seine samples from Lake Norman
during late summer/fall, 1993 - 2006 ....................... .......... : .......................... -11
Xii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Tale
Page
2-1
Water quality sampling locations (numbered) for Lake Norman.
Approximate locations of Marshall Steam Station, and McGuire Nuclear
Stationare also shown .......... ....................... ............................................ ......... ........
-2
-2a
Annual precipitation totals in the vicinity of McGuire Nuclear Station ...................
-2
2-2b
' Monthly precipitation totals in the vicinity of McGuire Nuclear Station in
2005 and 2006................................:............................................................
2-25
2-2c
Mean monthly air temperatures recorded at McGuire Nuclear Station
beginningin 1989:.................................... ............................... .............................,...
2-26
2-3
Monthly mean temperature profiles for the McGuire Nuclear Station
background zone in 2005 and 2006............4 .......................... ..-- ....................
2-27
2-4
Monthly mean temperature profiles for the McGuire Nuclear Station mixing
zone in 2005 and 2006................................................... ...........; ........., ...,..:.,........2-
9
2-5
Monthly surface (0.3 ) temperature and dissolved oxygen data at the
discharge location (loc. 4.0) in 2005 and 2006.........................................................
2- 1
-6
Monthly mean dissolved oxygen profiles for the McGuire Nuclear Station
background zone in 2005 and 2006................................................................
2-32
-7
Monthly mean dissolved oxygen profiles for the McGuire Nuclear Station
mixing zone in 2005 and 2006. ............................. ......:.................. ........:...».....
-34
2-8
Monthly reservoir -wide temperature isoth s for Lake Norman in 2006...............
2- 6
2-9
"Monthly reservoir -wide dissolved oxygen isopleths for Lake Norman in
2006................... ................................................ ... ...................., ...............
2-39
2-10a bleat content of the entire water column and the hypolimnion in Lake
Norman in 2006.........................................................:......., ...........................2-42
2-10b Dissolved oxygen content and percent saturation of the entire water column
and the hypolimnion of Lake Norman in 2006. .............:........, .........., ...............2-42
2-11
Striped bass habitat (shaded areas, temperatures �5 26'C d dissolved
oxygen > 2 mg1L) in Lake Norman in June, July, August, September, and
October 2006 ............................................................ ...................................2-
43
2-12
'Lake Norman lake levels, expressed in meters above mean sea level ( sl)
for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and 2006. Lake level data correspond to the
water quality sampling dates over this time period...........................................2-45
3 1
Phytoplankton chlorophyll a, densities, biovlumes, and seston weights at
locations in Lake Norman, NC in February, May, August, and November
2006................................ ......................................... ................................................
3-24
3-2
Lake Norman phytoplankton chlorophyll a seasonal means for each year
sinceAugust 1987 ...........................; ........«....................................+ ..................
3-25.
-3
Phytopiankton mean chlorophyll a concentrations by location for samples
collected in Lake No an, NC, ftom February and May 1988 — 2006..................3-26
3-4
Phytoplankton mean chlorophyll a concentrations by location for samples
collected in Lake Norman, NC, from August and November 1987 — 2006.............
3-27
xiii

FIST OF FIGURES, Continued
Figure "Title
Page
-5
Class composition can density and biovol e phytoplankton. from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 2.0 in Lake Norman, NC
during2006...................................................................... ...........................
3-28
-6
glass composition (mean density and biovol e) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 5.0 in Lake Norman, NC
during2006................................:......................,................................,.--
3-29
3-7
Mass composition (mean density and biovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 9.5 in Lake Norman, NC
during2006.............................................................a,...... .......... .:.....................
3-30
3-8
Class composition (mean density and biovol e) of phytoplankton from
euphoric zone samples collected at Location 11.0 in Lake Norman, NC
during2006..«............. ........ ....... ... - .........« ...................—............. ........... .,......3-31.
3-9
Class composition (mean density and blovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 15.9 in Lake Norman, NC
during2006......................... .................,......:................,....................................
3- 2
4-1
Total zooplankton density by location for samples collected in Lake Norman
in2006, .............. ........ ......... --- ........ .« ..«..,.. ,.......:.«..................................4-1'
4-2
Zoopl nkton community composition by sample period and location for
epili netic samples collected in Lake Norman in 2006..:....................................
4-16
-3
Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epilznmetic samples
collected to Lake Norman, NC, in the winter periods of 1988 — 2006...— .. .....4-17
44
Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epili netic samples
collected in Lake Norman in the spring periods of 1988 -- 2006 ............... .«.............
4-18
4-5
Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epilinmetic samples
collected in Lake Norman in the summer periods of 1987 — 200 . ..........................
4-19
4-6
Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epilinmetic samples
collected in Lake Norman in the fall periodsof 1987 — 2006 ...................................
4-20
-7
Annual percent composition of major zooplankton taxonomic groups from
Mixing Zone Locations (Locations 2.0 and 5.0 combined) during 1988 -
2006 (Note. Toes not include Location 5.0 in the fall o2002 or winter
samples from 2005)................«..................«......«........:..................................... 4-21
4-8 Annual percent composition of major zooplankton taxonomic groups from
Background Locations (Locations 9.5, 11.0 and 1.9 combined) during
1988 - 200 (Note: Does not include winter samples from. 2005)........ «................ 4-22
4-9 Copepod densities during each season of each year among epilimnetic
samples collected in Lake Norman from 190 -- 2006 (fixing Zone - mean
of Locations 2.0 and 5.0, Background. = mean of Locations 9.5, 11.0, and
15.9)«..... ................................................................................ .............................. 4-23
xiv

FIST OF FIGURES, Continued
Figure Title
Page
4-10
Cladoceran densities during each season of each year among epilimnetic
samples collected in Lake Norman from 1990 — 2006 (Mixing Zone = mean
of Locations 2.0 and 5.0; Background'— mean of Locations 9.5, 11.0, and
15.9).........:......::..........................................................................................
4-24
-11
Rotifer densities during each season of each year among epilinmetic samples
collected in Lake Norman from 1990 — 200 (Mixing Zone = mean o
Locations 2.0 and .0; Background = mean of Locations 9.5, 11.0, and
15.9).................................... « ......................... ,.............................................
4-25
-1
Sampling locations and zones in Lake <Norman associated with fisher
assessments..................................a.... ......................,......................................5-12
5-2
Numbers and biomass of fish collected from electrofishing ten 300-
transects each, at three areas SS, REF, ) in Lake Norman, 1993
2006.............. ...... ................. ........... ................. .....................a.a -::,....... --- .....
5-13
5-3
Numbers and biomass of spotted bass collected from electrofishing ten 30-
m transects each, at three areas (MSS; REF, S) in Lake Norman, 2001--
2006 . ........................................ .................. _.... ...... ................................ ...:..........
5-14
5-4
Size distributions of spotted bass and largemouth bass collected from
electrofishing ten 300-m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, , S) in
LakeNorman, 2006.............................................................» ..........................5-15
5-5
Mean relative weights (r) for spotted bass and largemouth bass collected
from electrofishing ten 3 0-m transects each, at three are' (MSS, REF,
S) in Lake Norman, 2006 .....................................a....... -. , ...........................5-16
-6
Numbers and biomass of largemouth bass collected from electrofishing ten
300-m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman,
1993 — 2006.................:............................a....:..........,....,....................n...,..,..
5-1'
5-7
Total number of young -of -year black bass collected from electrofishing five
300-m transacts each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman,
2005 and 2006 ............................... «..............................................................,
5-18
-8
Mean total length and mean relative weight (Wr) for striped bass collected
from Lake Norman, December 2006. Numbers of associated with mean
lengthare inside bars .... ,...a..............:........:.......................................................5-1
5-9
Zonal and lakewide population estimates of pelagic forage fish to Lake
Norman, 19 — 2006...................... ................ .................................................
5-19
5-10
Size distributions ofthreadfin shad (TFS) and alewives (ALE) collected in
purse seine surveys of Lake Norman, 2006 ...............................................................
-19
x V

CHAPTER I
MCGUIRE NUCLEAR STATION
INTRODUCTION
The following annual report was prepared for the McGuire Nuclear Station (MNS) National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit (# NC0024392) issued by North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). This report
summarizes environmental monitoring of Lake Norman conducted during 2006.
OPERATIONAL DATA FOR 2006
Station operational data for 2006 are listed in Table 1-1. The monthly average capacity
factors for MNS were 101.5, 101.4, and 76.2% during July, August, and September,
respectively. These are the months when conservation of cool water is most critical and
compliance with discharge temperatures is most challenging. These three months are also
when the thermal limit for MNS increases from a monthly average of 95.0 'F (35.0 "C) to
99.0 -F (37.2 OC). The average monthly discharge temperature was 98.1 'F (36.7 'C) for
July, 98.7 'F (37.1 'C) for August, and 94.5 'F (34.7 'C) for September 2006. The volume
of cool water in Lake Norman was tracked throughout the year to ensure that an adequate
volume was available to comply with both the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Technical
Specification requirements and the NPDES discharge water temperature limits.

Table 1-1. Average monthly capacity factors (%) and monthly average discharge water
temperatures for McGuire Nuclear Station during 2006.
MONTHLYa •.
■ RtlRb V gi W
!R
t •
i� :
i:y Ir,,
Iiµ i
r: km
r
II
1 I
ll YI *
NI IIIp..

CHAPTER 2
WATER CHEMISTRY
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the water chemistry portion of the MNS NPDES Maintenance Monitoring
Program are to:
1. maintain continuity in the chemical data base of Lake Norman to allow detection of
any significant station -induced and/or natural change in the physicochemical structure
of the lake; and
2. compare, where applicable, these physicochemical data to similar data in other
hydropower reservoirs and cooling impoundments in the Southeast.
This report focuses primarily on 2005 and 2006. Where appropriate, reference to pre-2005
data will be made by citing reports previously submitted to the NCDENR.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
The complete water chemistry monitoring program for 2006, including specific variables,
locations, depths, and frequencies is outlined in Table 2-1. Sampling locations are identified
in Figure 2-1. Measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), DO saturation, pH, and
specific conductance were taken, in situ, at each location with a Hydrolab Data -Sonde
(Hydrolab 1986) starting at the lake surface (0.3 m) and continuing at one -meter intervals to
lake bottom. Pre- and post -calibration procedures associated with operation of the Hydrolab
were strictly followed, and documented in hard -copy format. Hydrolab data were captured
and stored electronically, and following a data validation step, converted to spreadsheet
format for permanent archival.
Water samples for laboratory analysis were collected with a Kemmerer or Van Dom water
bottle at the surface (0.3 m), and from one meter above bottom, where specified (Table -1)•
Samples not requiring filtration were placed directly in single -use polyethylene terephthalate
2-1

which were pre -rinsed in the field with lake water just prior to obtaining a
>les for the analysis of total metals were placed directly in pre -acidified PET
as requiring filtration were processed in the field by filtering through a 0.45 pin
AquaPrep 600 Series Capsule) which was pre -rinsed with 500 mL of sample
)llection, all water samples were immediately preserved and stored in the dark,
ninimize the possibility of physical, chemical, or microbial transformation.
identical to those used in 2005, and are summarized in Table 2-2. All laboratory water
quality analyses were performed by the Duke Energy analyticallaboratory located in
Huntersville, NC. This laboratory is certified to perform analytical assessments for inorganic
and organic parameters in North Carolina (North Carolina DWQ laboratory Certification
program, certificate number 248), South Carolina (South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control, certificate number 9900)New "fork(New 'fork Department o
Health, certificate number 11717).
comprehensive prehensive Quality Assurance/Quality Control Program (QA/QCP) is fundamental to
the collection, reporting, and interpretation of water quality data, ;and most investigators
implement some type of QA/QCP to identify, quantify, and document bias and variability in
data resulting from the collection, processing, shipping, handling and analysis of samples by
field and laboratory personnel. Both the United States Enviroinnental Protection Agency
(USEPA 1998a, b) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS 1998, 002) require that
any agency -funded project have an approved quality assurance program, and that this
program incorporate both a field and laboratory component. USGS also requires that any
agency ftmded study that includes laboratory assessments must also participate in their
Standard Reference Program (S ). This program was originally developed by USGS in the
1960's and ' currently involves analysis by participating laboratories of standards (blind
unknowns) created by the agency on a biannual schedule (CTSG 200.
The QA/QCP employed for this study followed the recommendation of the USEPA and
USGS, and included both a field and laboratory component. Field blanks, i.e. Milli-Q water
placed: in sample bottles, were subjected to the same sample collection and handling
procedures, including filtration; applied to actual samples. Periodically, samples were also
split prior to submitting to the laboratory for analysis with the goal of quantifying intra-
sample analytical variability. The laboratory QA/QCP involved a variety of techniques
commonly used in analytical chemistry and included reagent blanks; spikes, replicates, and
2-2

performance
run on the n
USGS, throz
serve as a "
quantificatio
"thin the sE
analytical uY
analyses asss
Water quali
o describe
iamples. To supplement this program, additional performance samples were
jor ions and nutrients. Beginning in 2005 standards were purchased from the
;h the agency's SRS program, and submitted biannually to Duke's laboratory to
Duble blind" assessment of analytical performance. "These standards allowed
of the uncertainty of the analytical results against known values that were
ie concentration matrix as actual samples. The goal of this effort is to assemble
vrtainty data for chemical analytes which can be incorporated into statistical
sing trends in time or spacer'
data were subjected to various graphical and statistical techniques in an attempt
patial and temporal trends within the lake, and interrelationships among
method reporting limit, these values were set equal to the reporting limit for statistical
purposes. Data were analyzed using two 'approaches, both of which were consistent with
earlier Duke Power Company, Luke Power, and e Energy studies on the lake(Duke
Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke
Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 20 4a, 2005; and Duke Energy 2006).
The first method involved partitioning the reservoir into mixing, background, and discharge
zones; consolidating the data into these sub -sets, and making comparisons among zones and
years. In this report, the discharge includes only Location 4; the mixing zone, Locations 1
and 5 the background zone includes Locations 8, 11, and 15 (Figure -1). The second
approach, applied primarily to the in situ data, emphasized a much broader lake -wide
investigation and encompassed the plotting of monthly isotherms and isopleths, and summer
`striped bass habitat. Several quantitative calculations were also performed on the in situ data;
these included the calculation of the areal hypolinmetic' oxygen deficit ( JIB), maximum
whole -water column and hypolimnion oxygen content, maximum whole -water column and
hypolinmion heat content, mean epilimnion and hypolimnion heating rates over the stratified
period, and the Birgean heat budget.
Heat content (Kcallc 2), oxygen content (mg/em), and mean oxygen concentration ( g1L)
of the reservoir were calculated according to Hutchinson (1957), using the following
equation:
Lt = Ao-1, zM TO o Az• dz
z
where;
2-

Lt = reservoir heat (Kcal/cm) or oxygen (mg/cm2) content
Ao = surface area of reservoir (CM2)
TO mean temperature ('C) or oxygen content (mg/L) of layer z
Az area (ctn�) at depth z
dz depth interval (cm)
surface
z. maximum depth (m)
Precipitation and air temperature data were obtained from a meteorological monitoring site
established near MNS in 1975. These data are employed principally by Duke Energy as input
variables into meteorological modeling studies to address safety issues associated with
potential radiological releases into the atmosphere by MNS (Duke Power 2004b), as required
by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The data also serve to document localized temporal
trends in air temperatures and rainfall patterns. Data on lake level and hydroelectric flows
were obtained fro m Duke Energy -Carolinas Fossil/Hydro Generation, which monitors these
metrics hourly.

Temoerature and Dissolved OxvLyen
Water temperatures measured in 2006 illustrated similar temporal and spatial trends in the
background and mixing zones (Figures 2-3 and 2-4), as they did in 2005. This similarity in
temperature patterns between zones has been a dominant feature of the thermal regime in
Lake Norman since MNS began operations in 1983. When between -zone differences in
temperatures are observed, they occur predominately during the cooling period, and can be
traced to the influence of the thermal discharge at S.
Winter and spring water temperatures in 2006 were generally warmer than those observed in
2005 in both the mixing and background zones, and paralleled interannual differences
exhibited in air temperatures, but with about a one -month lag time (Figures 2-2c, 2-3, and 2-
4). Because lake sampling is generally performed in the first week of each month, the
observed data reflects the cutnulative influences of meteorology and hydrology during the
previous month. Similarly, January 2006 epilimnion temperatures were cooler than observed
in 2005, particularly in the background zone, and undoubtedly were related to the December
2005 air temperatures which were also cooler than the long-term mean. Minimum water
temperatures in 2006 were recorded in early February and ranged from 7.1 'C to 9.6 'C in the
background zone and from 7.8 'C to 16.1 'C in the mixing zone, Minimum water
temperatures measured in 2006 were within the observed historical range (Duke Power
Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006).
Summer water temperatures in 2006 were generally similar to those observed in 2005, with
several exceptions. The greatest between -year variability in summer water temperature was
observed in June in both the mixing and background zones, with the primary differences
occurring in the upper 10 m of the water column (Figures 2-3 and 2-4). Water temperatures
in 2006 in this portion of the water column were up to 3.8 'C warmer in the mixing zone, and
up to .7°C warmer in the background zone than measured in 2005. These differences appear
to be related primarily to the antecedent April and May air temperatures (Figure 2-2c).
Similarly, September 2006 metalimnion and hypolimnion temperatures were as much as 4.6
'C warmer than measured in 2005 (Figures 2-3 and 2-4).
Fall and early winter water temperatures (October, November, and December) in 2006 were
generally similar to those measured in 2005, and followed the trend exhibited in air
2-5

t years, especially
neasured in 2005,
nd 2006.
2005 (Figure 2-5
991, 1992, 1993,
103, 2004 , 2005
.irnum of 2.8
°ature of 2006 at
than measured in
,rus exhibited for
(Figures 2-6 and
;patterns between
since MNS began
lower, in both the
�. The interannual
predominantly to
water would be
of temperature o
tricted convective
Differences in DO
nixing zone, May
the water column
)© concentrations
easured in 2005.
Aumn in both the
waters to loves of
12005 and earlier
1993, 1994, 1995,`
►05; Duke Energy
-6

2006). All dissolved oxygen values recorded in 2006 during this period were within the
historical range.
Considerable differences were observed between 2006 and 2005 late summer and fall DO
values in both the mixing and background zone, especially in the metali nion and
hypolimnion during the months of September and November, and to a lesser extent in
October (Figures 2-6 and 2- ). These interannual differences in DO levels during the coaling
season are common in Catawba River reservoirs and can be explained: by the effects of
variable weather patterns on water column cooling (heat loss) rates and mixing. Warmer air
temperatures delay water column n cooling which, in turn, delays the onset of convective
mixing of the water column and the resultant reaeration of the metalimnion and hypolimnion.
Conversely, cooler air temperatures increase the rate and magnitude of water column heat
loss, thereby promoting convective mixing and resulting in higher DO values earlier in the
year.
The 2006 late summer and autumn DO data indicate that fall convective reaeration proceeded
faster and was more complete throughout the water column than observed in the
corresponding months in 2005. ` Consequently, 2006 DO levels in either a portion or all of the
water column in these months in 2006 were higher than observed in 2005These between -
year differences in DO corresponded strongly with: the degree of thermal stratification which,
s discussed earlier, correlated with interannual differences in air temperatures (Figures 2-2c,
2-3, and 2-). Interannual differences in DO patterns are common not only within the
Catawba River Basin, but throughout Southeastern reservoirs, and can reflect yearly
differences in hydrologic, meteorologic, and limnologic forcing variables (Cole and Hannan
1985; Petts, 184);
e seasonal pattern of DO in 2006 at the discharge location; was similar to that measured
historically, with the highest values observed during the winter and lowest observed in the
summer and early fall (Figure -5). Summer and fall DO levels in 206 at location 4.0 were
slightly higher (range = 0.6 to 1.3 g/L) than observed 2005. The rawest DO concentration
measured at the discharge location in 2006 (5.5 g/L) occurred in August, and was slightly
higher than measured in August, 2005 (4.7 mg/L), but was also 1.4 mg/L higher than the
historical minimum, measured in August 2003 (4.1 g/L).
2-

volume -weighted DO values for the entire water column measured 4.2 mg/L (55%
saturation), whereas the minimum for the hypolimnion was 0.28 mg/L (3.3% saturation).
The mean rate of DO decline in the hypolininion over the stratified period, i.e., the AHOD,
was 0.037 mg/cm�/day (0.059 mg/L/day) (Figure 2-10b), and is similar to that measured in
2005 (Duke Energy 2006).
Hutchinson (1938, 1957) proposed that the decrease of DO in the hypolininion of a
waterbody should be related to the productivity of the trophogenic zone. Mortimer (1941)
adopted a similar perspective and proposed the following criteria for AHODs associated with
various trophic states; oligotrophic �5 0.025 mg/cn�/day, mesotrophic 0.026 mg/cm2/day to
0.054 Mg/CM2 /day, and eutrophic �! 0.055 Mg/CM2 /day. Employing these limits, Lake
Norman should be classified as mesotrophic based on the calculated AHOD value of 0.037
mg/cm2/day for 2006. The oxygen -based mesotrophic classification agrees well with the
mesotrophic classification based on chlorophyll a levels (Chapter 3). The 2006 AHOD value
is also similar to that found in other Southeastern reservoirs of comparable depth, chlorophyll
a status, and Secchi depth (Table 2-4).
Strir)ed Bass Habitat
Suitable pelagic habitat for adult striped bass, defined as that layer of water with temperatures
:!� 26 'C, and DO levels �! 2.0 mg/L, was found lake -wide from mid September 2005 through
early July 2006. Beginning in late June 2006, habitat reduction proceeded rapidly throughout
the reservoir both as a result of deepening of the 26 IC isotherm and metalinmetic and
hypolinmetic deoxygenation (Figure 2-11). Habitat reduction was most severe from mid July
through early September when no suitable habitat was observed in the reservoir, These
conditions were similar to those observed in most previous years except that in 2006 no
habitat existed in the upper portions of the reservoir. Historically, a small, but spatially
variable zone of habitat is typically observed in the summer in the upper, riverine portion of
the reservoir, near and upstream of the confluence of Lyles Creek with Lake Norman.
Habitat measured in the upper reaches of the reservoir appears to be influenced by both
inflow from Lyles Creek and discharges from Lookout Shoals Hydroelectric facility, which
generally are somewhat cooler than ambient conditions in Lake Nonnan. Upon entering Lake
Norman, this water mixes with ambient waters and then proceeds as a subsurface underflow
as it migrates downriver (Ford 1985).
2-9

An additional refuge was also observed in the metalminion and hypolimnion near the dam
during this period, but this lasted only until 26 July when dissolved oxygen was reduced to <
2.0 mg/L by microbial demands, thereby eliminating suitable habitat in the lower portion of
the reservoir. Summer -time habitat conditions for adult striped bass in 2006 were more
severe than in both 2005 and 2004, when the largest striped bass die -off ever was observed in
the reservoir (2610 fish), Conditions in 2006 were most recently similar to those measured in
2002 and 2003 when habitat elimination was observed for a period of about 30-35 days.
Observed striped bass mortalities in 2006 totaled six fish (Chapter 5).
Physicochemical habitat was observed to have expanded appreciably by mid September,
primarily as a result of epilimnion cooling and deepening, and in response to changing
meteorological conditions. The temporal and spatial pattern of striped bass habitat expansion
and reduction observed in 2006 was generally similar to that previously reported in Lake
Norman, and many other Southeastern reservoirs (Coutant 1985; Matthews et al. 1985; Duke
Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke
Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006).
Turbiditv and Svecific Conductance
Surface turbidity values were generally low at the MNS discharge, mixing zone, and mid -lake
background locations during 2006, ranging from 1.0 to 5.3 NTU's (Table 2-5). The lone
exception occurred in August in the lower segment of the lake when surface values ranged
ftom 1.4 to 22 NTU's. Bottom turbidity values were also low over the 2006 study period,
except in August when values ranged from 1.7 to 20 NTU's (Table 2-5). Turbidity values
observed in 2006, as a whole, were higher than measured in 2005 (Table 2-5), but within the
historical range (Duke Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993,
1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005;
Duke Energy 2006).
Specific conductance in Lake Norman in 2006 ranged from 55 to 67 umho/cm, and was
generally similar to that observed in 2005 (Table 2-5), and historically (Duke Power
Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power
1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002� 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006). Specific
conductance values in surface and bottom waters in 2006 were similar throughout the year
except during the period of intense thermal stratification, i.e., August, when an increase in
bottom conductance values was observed in both the mixing and background zones. These
2-10

increases in bottom conductance values appeared to be related primarily to the release of
soluble iron and manganese from the lake bottom under anoxic conditions (Table 2-5). This
phenomenon is common in both natural lakes and reservoirs that exhibit extensive
hypolinmetic oxygen depletion (Hutchinson 1957, Wetzel 1975), and is an annually recurring
phenomenon in Lake Norman.
DH and Alkalinily
During 2006, pH and alkalinity values were similar among MNS discharge, mixing, and
background zones (Table 2-5). Values of pH were also generally similar to values measured
in 2006 (Table 2-5), and historically (Duke Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1,990,
1991, 1992� 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003,
2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006). Values of pH in 2006 ranged from 7.0 to 7.9 in surface
waters, and from 6.2 to 7.5 in bottom waters. Alkalinity values in 2006 ranged from 11 .5 to
15.5 mg/L, expressed as CaCO3, in surface waters and from 12.0 to 17.5 mg/L in bottom
waters.
Maior Cations and Anions
The concentrations of major ionic species in the MNS discharge, mixing, and mid -lake
background zones are provided in Table 2-5. Lake -wide, the major cations were sodium,
calcium, magnesium, and potassium, whereas the major anions were bicarbonate, sulfate, and
chloride. The overall ionic composition of Lake Norman during 2006 was generally similar
to that reported for 2005 (Table 2-5) and previously ((Duke Power Company 1985, 1987,
1988, 198% 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000,
2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006).
Nutrients
Nutrient concentrations in the discharge, mixing, and mid lake background zones of Lake
Norman for 2005 and 2006 are provided in Table 2-5. Overall, nutrient concentrations in
2006 were well within historical ranges (Duke Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989,
1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,
2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006). Nitrogen and phosphorus levels in 2006 were low
and generally similar to those measured in 2005 (Duke Power 2005). Total phosphorus and
ortho-phosphorus concentrations were typically measured at or below the analytical reporting
2-11

limits'( ) for these constituents, i.e., 5 gg/L.(Note that the reporting limit for total
phosphorus was lowered` from 10 g/L to 5 lig/L in 2005). For total phosphorus, all 44
samples analyzed in 2006 exceeded the ARL, but most measurements (42 of 44) were 10
µg/L, and the maximum recorded value was 15 µg/L. For ortho-phosphorus all 44 of the
samples assayed measured c 5 g/L. Nutrients in 2006 were generally somewhat higher in
the upper portions of the reservoir compared to the lower sections, but the differences were
slight and not statistically significant (p < 0.05). Spatial variability in various chemical
constituents, especially nutrient concentrations, is common in long, deep reservoirs (oballe
et al. 1992). Nitrite -nitrate and ammonia nitrogen concentrations were low at all locations
sampled in 2006 (Table -5), and also were generally similar to 205 and historical values
(Duke Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996;
Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005,'Duke Energy 2006).
Metals
Metal concentrations in the discharge, mixing, and mid lake background zones of Lake
Normanfor 2006 were similar to those measured in 200 (Table 2-5) and historically (Duke
Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke
:Power 1997 1998 1999 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006). Iron
concentrations in surface and bottom waters were generally low (:5 0.4 ) during 2006,
the lone exception being a 0.56' g/L value measured in the bottom waters at Location 50 i
August. Nowhere in the reservoir in 2006 did iron concentrations exceed the North Carolina
water duality action level for iron (1.0 g/L; NCDENR 200), which is unusual.
:historically, iron concentrations typically increase in the bottom waters during the late
summer, and early fall, in response to changing redox conditions (see below). It's unclear
why this phenomenon was not as prevalent in 2006 and 2005, as in previous years.
Similarly, manganese concentrations in the surface and bottom waters were generally low
100 µg/L) in 2006, except during the summer and fall when bottom waters were anoxic
(Table 2-5). Manganese concentrations were also higher in 2006 than ZOOS; especially in the
bottom waters, and were similar to values measured in 2004 This phenomenon, i.e.; the
release of manganese (and iron) from bottom sediments in response to low redox conditions
(low oxygen levels), is common in stratified waterbodie (Stumm, and Morgan 1970, Wetzel
1975). Manganese concentrations in the bottom waters rose above the State water quality
action level for this constituent (200:µg/L; NCDENR 2004) at various locations throughout
the lake in summer and fall of 2006, and were characteristic of historical conditions (Duke
2-12

Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke
Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a, 2005; Duke Energy 2006).
Concentrations of other metals in 2006 were typically low, and often below the analytical
reporting limit for the specific constituent (Table 2-5). These findings are similar to those
observed for earlier years (Duke Power Company 1985, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996; Duke Power 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004a,
2005; Duke Energy 2006). All values for cadmium, lead and zinc were reported as either
equal to or below the reporting limit for each constituent, and no State NC water quality
standard or action level was exceeded. All copper concentrations were less than 3 ttg/L, and
the maximum concentration reported was 2.8 �tg/L. All copper values reported were below
the State action level of 7 gg/L (NCDENR 2004).
FUTURE STUDIES
No changes are planned for the water chemistry pertion of the Lake Norman Maintenance -
Monitoring Program.
SUMMARY
Annual precipitation in the vicinity of MNS in 2006 totaled 105 cm or 10.9 em less than
observed in 2005 (115.9 cm), and 12.6 em less than the long-term mean for this area (117.6
em). August 2006 rainfall totaled 16.7 cin which was the 0 wettest August in the last 32
years, and was over double the long-term monthly mean for August. Air temperatures in
2006 were warmer than both 2005 and the long-term mean for the months of January, March,
April, June, July, November, and December, Temporal differences were most pronounced in
January and December when 2006 temperatures averaged 3.1 OC and 3.4 'C wanner,
respectively, than recorded in 2005.
Temporal and spatial trends in water temperature and DO in 2006 were similar to those
observed historically, and all data were within the range of previously measured values.
Winter and spring water temperatures in 2006 were generally wanner than observed in 2005
in both the mixing and background zones, and paralleled interannual differences exhibited in
air temperatures but with about a one month lag time, Summer water temperatures in 2006
2-13

were generally similar to that observed in 2005, with several exceptions. The greatest
between -year variability in summer water temperature was observed in June in both the
fixing and background zones, with the primary differences occurring in the upper 10 m of
the water column. Water temperatures in 2006 in this portion of the water column were up to
. °C warmer in the mixing zone, and up to 2.7 °C warmer in the background zone than
measured in 2005. These differences appear to be related primarily to the antecedent April
d May air temperatures. Similarly, September 2006 metalimnion and hypolimmon
temperatures were as great as 4.6 °C warmer than measured in 2005.
Fall and early winter water temperatures October, November,- and December) in 2006 were
generally similar to those measured in 2005, and followed the trend exhibited in air
temperatures. Some differences were observed between years,;especally in November when
2006 temperatures were as much as 4.0 °C cooler than measured in 2005, but overall coaling
of the water column proceeded at a similar rate in 2005 and 2006.
Temperature data at the discharge location in 2006 were generally similar to 2005 and
historically. Temperatures in 2006 were slightly warmer (by a maximum of 2. °C) in the
summer than observed in 2005. The warmest discharge temperature of 2006 occurred in
August and measured 37.8 °C, or 0.7 OC warmer than measured in August 2005.
Seasonal and spatial patterns of D© in 2006 were reflective of the patterns exhibited for
temperature, i.e., generally similar in both the mixing and background zones. Winter and
spring DO 'values in 2006 were generally equal to or slightly lower, in both the background
and mixing zones, than measured in 2005. The interannual differences in DO values
measured during this period appear to be related predominantly to the warmer water column
temperatures in 206 versus 2005. The greatest differences in D© between 2006 and 2005
during this period were observed in May. In the mixing zone, May 2006 DO concentrations
ranged from about 0.5 to 1.6mg/L less throughout the water column than in 2005. A similar
trend was observed in the background zone where DO concentrations ranged from about 0.5
to 2.3 mg/L less throughout the water column than measured in 2005.
Summer DO values in 2006 were highly variable throughout the water column in both the
mixing and background zones ranging from highs of 6 to 8 mg/L in surface waters to lows of
0 to 2 mg/L in bottom. waters. All dissolved oxygen values recorded in 2006 during this
period were within the historical range Considerable differences were observed between
een
2006 and 2005 late summer and fall DO values in both the mixing and background zone,

especially in the metalimmon and hypolimmon during the months of September and
November, and to a lesser extent in October. The 2006 late summer and autumn D® data
indicated that fall convective reaeration proceeded faster and was more complete throughout
the water column than observed in the corresponding months in 2005. Consequently, 2006
DO levels in a portion or all of the water column in these months in 2006 were higher than
observed in 2005. , These between -year differences in DO corresponded strongly with the
degree of thermal stratification and inters al differences in air temperatures
The seasonal pattern of DO in 2006 at the discharge location was similar to that measured
historically, with the highest values observed during the winter and lowest observed in the
summer and early fall. Summer and fall DO levels in 2006 at location 4.0 were slightly
higher (range = 0.6 to 1 .3 ) than observed in 2005. The lowest DO concentration
measured at the discharge location in 2006 (5.5 ) occurred in August, and was slightly
higher than measured in August, 2005 (4.7 gfL), but was also 1.4 gtL higher than the
historical minimum, measured in August 203 (4.1 g/L).
Reservoir -wide isotherm and iopleth information for 2006, coupled with heat content and
hypolimnetic oxygen data, illustrated that Lake Norman exhibited thermal and oxygen
dynamics characteristic of historical conditions and similar to other Southeastern reservoirs
f comparable size, depth, flow conditions, and trohic status. Summer -time habitat
conditions for adult striped bass in 2006 were more severe than in both 2005 and 2004, when
the largest striped bass die -oft' ever was observed in the reservoir (2610 fish). Conditions in
2006 were most recently similar to those measured in 2002 and 2003 when habitat
elimination was observed for a period of about 30-35 days. Observed striped bass mortalities
in 2006 totaled six fish.
All chemical parameters measured in 2006 were similar to 2005, and within the concentration
ranges previously reported for the lake during both preoperational and operational years of
S. Specific conductance values, and all concentrations of cation and anion species
measured, were low. Nutrient concentrations were also low with most values reported close
to or below the analytical reporting limit for that test. Concentrations of metals in 2006 were
low, and often below the analytical reporting limits. All values for `cadmium, lead and zinc
were reported as either equal to or below the reporting limit for each constituent, and no Mate
water quality standard or action level was exceeded. All copper concentrations were less
than 3- µgtL, and the maximum concentration reported in 2006 was 2.8 gglL:
2-1

Iron concentrations in surface and bottom waters were generally low (�= 0.4 mg1L) during
2006, the lone exception being a 0.56 g/L value measured in the bottom waters at Location
.0 in August. Nowhere in the reservoir in 2006 did iron concentrations exceed Mate water
quality action levels for this constituent (1. mg/L). Similarly, manganese concentrations in
the surface and bottom waters were generally low (� 100 µg/L) in 2006, except during the
summer and fall when bottom waters were anoxic. Manganese concentrations were also
higher in 2006 than 2005, especially in the bottom waters, and were similar to values
measured in'2004. Manganese concentrations in the bottom waters rose above the North
Carolina action level for this constituent, i.e., 200 g/L, at various locations throughout the
lake in summer and fall of 2006 and were characteristic of historical conditions.
2-16

Table 2-1. Water chemistry program for the McGuire Nuclear Station NPDES Maintenance Monitoring Program on Lake Norman.
2006 McGUM NPDES SAMPLING PROGRAM
PARAMETERS
LOCATIONS
1
2
4
5
8
9�5
11
13
14
15
15�9 62
69 72 so
16
DEPTH (in)
33
�13
5
20
32
23
27
21
10
23
23 is
7 5 4
3
IN -SITU ANALYSIS
U0,de
Temperature
--Trym; =a
Dissolved OiLygen,
Hydrolab
In -situ measurements
are collected monthly at the above locations at lin intervals train 0,3m to I or above bottom,
PH
Hydrolab
Measurements are taken weekly
ftom July -August for
striped bass habitat�
Conductivity
Hydrolab
NLTTRIENTANALYSES
Amateurs,
AA -Nut
Q/TIB
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/T'B
Q/TIB
Q/TIB
Q/TB
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/TB
QIT�a
Q/T�B
S/T
Nitratc+Nittire
AA -Nut
Qfr,B
QtrB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T�B
Q/T,B
QfLB
Q/T
Q/TJ3
Q/TB
Q/TB
S/T
Orthophosphate
AA -Nut
QJTIB
Q/T�B
Q/T
Q/lr,B
Q/T'B
Q/TIB
Q/T;lJ
Q/TA
Q/T
Q/T,13
Q/T,B
Q/TB
S/T
Total Phosphorus
AA-TPDO-P
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/TIB
Q/TIB
Q/TIB
Q/"
Q/T
Q/T'B
Q/T'B
Q/TJ3
S/T
Silica
AA -Nut
Q/T'B
Q/T'B
Q/T
Q/Tj3
Q/TB
Q/TJ3
Q/TB
Q/TB
W
Q1T,B
Q/TD
Q/T'B
S/T
C1
AA -Nut
Q/T'B
Q/T'B
Q/T
QITIB
Q/TM
Q/T.B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T.13
Q/TB
Q/TB
S/T
TKN
AA-TKN
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T
Q/17,13
Q/T�B
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T�B
Q/TB
WIB
S/T
Total Organic Carbon
TOC
Q/TB
Q/T'B
Q/T
WILD
QITIB
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/TJ3
Q/T
Q/TM
Q/TIB
Q/TB
SIT
Dissolved organic carbon
DOC
Q/TB
QITB
Q/T
Q/r,B
Q/T�B
Q/T�B
Q/TB
Q/T,13
Q/T
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/TB
S/T
ELEMENTAL ES
Aluminum
ICP-MS-D
Q/TA
S/T1B
QIT
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T,B
QYT,B
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/TB
S/T
Calcium
ICP-24
Q/TM
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/T�13
Q�TB
QIT�B
Q/T,B
Q/17,11
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/T,B
W'D
S/T
hon
ICP-MS-D
Q/TB
Q/T;B
Q/T
Q/T�B
Q/T,B
Q/T,B
Q/T�B
QITB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/T,13
Q/T'B
S/T
Magnesium
ICP-24
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T�B
Q/T,B
Q/T�B
Q/T
Q/T1B
Q/TIB
Q/*rB
S/T
Manganese
ICP-MS-D
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T,B
Q/T�B
Q/TIB
S/T
Potassium
306-K
Q/TM
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/TB
QIT�13
Q/rB
Q/T�B
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T'B
Q/77,13
WILD
S/T
Sodium
ICP-24
Q/T'R
Q(T1B
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T�B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Qrr
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T'D
S/T
Zinc (TR)
ICP-MS-D
Q/T'B
Q/TM
Q/T
Q/T,B
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q)TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TM
Q/T,B
Q/TB
S/T
Arsenic (TR)
ICP-MS-D
QITB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TJ3
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T
Q/T'B
Q/T'R
Q/T's
S/T
Cadminurn (TR)
ICP-MS-D
Q/T1U
Q/T,B
Q/T
Q/T'B
QITIB
Q/TA
Q/TB
Q/T'B
Q/T
Q/T'B
Q/TIB
Q/T,B
S/T
Copper (TR)
ICP-MS-D
Q/T,1J
W;B
Q/T
Q/TB
WB
Q/T,8
Q/17,13
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T's
Q/T1B
Q/T,B
S/T
Copper (Dissolved)
ICP-MS
Q/TIB
Q/TB
QtT
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/TIB
QILB
Q/TIIJ
W
Q(T�s
Q/TIB
Q/,r,B
S/T
Lead (TR)
ICP`-MS-D
Q/TD
Q/TB
Q/r
Q/*r,B
Q/T�B
Q/rB
Q/T,13
Q/'rB
Q/T
Q/T18
Q/T'8
Q/TB
S/Ir
Selenium (TR)
ICP-MS-D
Q/T'B
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/T;R
Q/rB
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T�Il
Q/T'R
Q/T'D
S/T
ADDITIONAL ANALYSES
-Hardness
Q/T'B
Q/T'B
Q/T
Q/rB
Q/T�B
Q/T,B
Q/TM
Q/TB
Q111'
Q/T'B
WX
Q/T'B
S/T
Alkalinity
'r-ALKT
WB
Q/T'a
Q/T
Q/rB
QIT�13
Q/T�B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T
Q/T�R
Q/T,B
Q/TB
S/T
Turbidity
F-TURB
WID
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/T,B
Q/r,B
Q/rB
QITB
Q/17,11
Q/T
Q/TA
Q/1"It
Qfr,B
S/T
Sulfate
UV SO4
Q/TB
Q/TM
Q/T
Q/TB
Q/T,13
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T�B
Q/T
WILD
Q/T18
Q/,rB
S/T
Total Solids
S-TSE
Q/TB
Q/TIB
Q/T
Q/T,B
Q/TB
Q/TB
Q/T,B
Q/T,B
0fr
Q/T B
Q/T 13
Q/TB
SIT
Total Suspended Solids
S-TSSE
Q/T'B
Q/T;8
Q/T
QIT,13
Q1TB
Q/TB
Q/TB
QIT�B
Q/T
Q/TIB
Q/T'a
QITIB
S/T
CODE& Frequency Q Quarterly (Feb, May, Aug, Nov)
S — Serni-annually (FebAug)
T = Top (0.3mi 8 — Bottom (Int above bottom)
TR— Total recoverable

Table -,. Analytical methods and reporting limits eml
Program for Lake Norman.
McGuire Nuclear Station NPDES Maintenance Monitoring
EEO
NOW
re:
$ ! .. $ a i • :..
if t ° a#
3 ■ •
[ ♦
biw TOM
References; USEPA 1983, d APHA 199
00
r
w•

2005
200E
Maximum Areal Heat Content (°cal/cm2)
29,764
28,880
Minimum Areal Heat Content (g' 1/cm2)
9,74
10,846
Birgean Heat Budget (g'cal/ cm2)
20,190
18,034
Epilimnion (above 11.5 m) Heating Rate (°C /day)
0.123
0.091
Hypoli pion (below 11.5 m) Heating Rate (°C /day)
0.076
0.068
-19

Table 2-4. A comparison of areal hypolinmetic oxygen deficits (AHOD), summer
chlorophyll a (Chl a), Secchi depth, and mean depth of Lake Norman and 18
TVA reservoirs.
AHOD
Summer Chl a
Secchi Depth
Mean Depth
Reservoir
(mg/cm2/day)
(119/0
(m)
(in)
Lake Norman (2006)
0.037
4.3
2.2
10.3
TVA a
Mainstem
Kentucky
0.012
9.1
1.0
5.0
Pickwick
0.010
3.9
0.9
6.5
Wilson
0.028
5.9
1.4
12.3
Wheelee
0.012
4.4
5.3
Guntersville
0.007
4.8
1.1
5.3
Nickajack
0.016
2.8
1.1
6.8
Chickamauga
0.008
3.0
1.1
5.0
Watts Bar
0.012
6.2
1.0
7.3
FortLondon
0.023
5.9
0.9
7.3
Tributary
Chatuge
0.041
5.5
2.7
9.5
Cherokee
0.078
10.9
1.7
13.9
Douglas
0.046
6.3
1.6
10.7
Fontana
0.113
4.1
2.6
37.8
Hiwassee
OA1
5.0
2.4
20.2
Norris
0.058
2.1
3.9
16.3
South Holston
0.070
6.5
2.6
23.4
Tims Ford
0.059
6.1
2.4
14.9
Watauga
0.066
2.9
2.7
24.5
a Data ftom Higgins et al.
(1980), and Higgins and Kim (198 1)
2-20

Table 2-5. Quarterly surface (0.3 in) and bottom (bottom in
mixing zone, and background locations on Lake N
to be equal to the detection limit for calculating a r
.er chemistry for the McGuire Nuclear Station discharge,
2005 and 2006. Values less than detection were assumed
Mixing Zen
Mixing Zone
MNS Discharge
Mixing Zone
Background
Background
LOCA71W
1.0
2
4�O
&0
8.0
11.0
DEPTH'
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
PARAMETERS YEAR:
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2006
2006
2005
2006
2006
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
Turbidity INTU)
Feb
NA
6
NA
1.90
NA
1 - 80
NA
2 ' 10
NA
I - 50
NA
I � 90
NA
2�00
1.6
2 , 10
2.3
1 � 70
212
220
2.8
3100
May
1,10
1A
0 ' 98
1,20
1,2
1.80
1
1130
12
1�30
13
120
1�2
140
114
lAO
1.1
120
i'l
1.50
115
1.80
Aug
lUO
1.7
20.00
1,30
9�8
110
18
1,70
22
110
9A
1,60
9
4�00
1A
IAO
1.7
1 �60
1,9
1,80
1A
2,50
Nov
2.00
ill
3.3
3
40
0
70
70
70
20
30
90
0
30
20
50
00
60
Annual Mean
-
4.37
-
145
- __130
8A9
1�9
__L_
4.47
_.L3
IJ
__I_
7,23
1Y
_j_
8S7
__I_
IA
_.L_ __Ln
5,47
1�6
__±_ __L6
5e3
23
_j_
1 A8
_2__
2,0
--112
2,90
IA
_Ej _L20
223
11
__L_
3,28
-.L-
2Y
Specific Conductance (umho/cm)
Feb
53.0
51
52,9
49
513
51
53.1
49
53.7
52
53.4
52
SZ6
49
52.6
so
531
49
53.1
51
53,2
49
May
63,9
56
53.5
52
53,9
53
512
so
54A
55
64,2
54
53A
51
512
37
533
44
53.5
46
53A
46
Aug
57Y
56
62,6
58
5&2
66
67.4
61
58.4
56
5&2
56
65,9
61
68,0
56
69S
66
SU
67
64A
59
Nov
57Y
55
57.8
55
55
57Y
S
85
58,0
55
W3
5
0
55
57,8
2
66
67
0
Annual Mean
55�6
54,5
561
53.5
__E7�8
55S
53A
__L
ST9
58a
__L_
56,3
___�6
54.8
$6.0
54,3
57,6
__L
54.0
_18
555
_
49�5
_ __L
WO
503
_j_ ___a
55A
52o
__L_
56S
__It
61,3
pH (units)
Feb
T2
7A
TO
710
73
73
TO
7.1
T3
73
7.4
T3
7A
TO
71
7.4
6a
7.2
7o
7A
6.8
TO
May
7A
73
6�5
6�6
7A
7.4
6,6
63
73
7A
7A
7A
7�O
6,7
7�8
T4
6Y
615
7.5
TO
6,5
6A
Aug
7,6
6,9
62
6�O
7,6
7,0
6A
6.1
7A
U
7.3
7�O
6A
62
7.7
7,6
62
61
7.9
7,5
63
6.2
Nov
7.3
TO
7.0
6�9
7,3
7,0
72
6�6
7�5
7.0
7,5
7A
7.4
6.8
7.5
7A
T5
6.6
T3
7A
7,3
6.6
Annual Mean
7,37
666
666
6SO
7.37
7,18
6SO
6.63
7.29
TIOl
739
T20
6.96
&68
762
738
6,79
6,60
7,42
7.25
6,73
6,55
Alkalinity prig CaCO31L)
Feb
12.5
11�5
12.0
11�5
11�6
11�5
12S
11.5
IZ5
lU
1 ZO
11 ' 5
12 ' 0
1 1 ' 6
12 ' 5
13,6
IZ5
11-6
IZO
12,0
12�5
l2e
May
12.0
12,5
l2a
12�5
12,5
12.5
12,6
IZ5
13.0
IZ5
125
IZ5
1215
12.5
l2o
12.5
12,5
12,5
12,5
1U
lZ6
l3o
Aug
14.0
13S
IS'S
14�O
ICO
14�O
16c
14.0
l4o
13. 51
144
l4e
19,5
17.5
14.0
14.5
15�5
14.5
14�5
14.5
IT5
1&0
Nov
14�5
US
15,0
l6o
16.0
115
15D
FQC
5
0
So
FOC
l3o
16�0
105
FOC
1 &0
1310
ICS
FOC
145
12�5
Annual Mean
133
130
136
135
133
IZ6
l4a
121
__L4
115
_14
12A
13A
121
14.3
14.1
13.3
13,5
1319
12,9
114
13.2
14,3
13.1
Chloride (nigill.)
Feb
C5
C3
4,6
4.4
4A
4,6
4A
4,3
4.6
4A
4.3
4S
4�5
4�3
4A
4,5
4,6
4A
4S
4.4
41
4.4
May
4,8
4A
4�8
4�3
4Y
4A
4,9
4A
4.8
44
4.8
4�5
4�8
4A
4�9
45
43
4A
4,8
4.5
4.6
4.5
Aug
4S
4,1
4A
4.3
4�6
4A
41
4,2
C6
42
4Z
4,2
4A
4,2
4.6
43
4S
43
4,7
43
4.2
42
Nov
5.0
4A
&0
4A
4.9
4.4
4.9
4,5
510
43
5.0
4,3
5�0
4.4
So
4.5
SA
43
S,i
4A
5A
4.3
Annual Mean
4J
43
47
44
47
45
46
44
47
43
47
44
47
43
47
45
48
44
48
43
47
4.4
Sulfate (mg/L)
-
----- ---
Feb
4,3
4.2
4�3
4,5
4.4
4,3
C2
43
4,3
4A
43
4�3
5�1
4,2
43
41
4,2
U
4A
4.3
42
42
May
4.7
44
41
4A
4.7
4A
41
4.4
43
4A
41
4�6
43
4,7
4,7
4.5
4S
4A
4.6
4.4
4.4
43
Aug
42
4.2
4.0
4.5
4.2
4.2
4�O
4�6
4.2
4.2
42
43
318
4.5
42
4.4
3,7
4.5
4.1
43
3.9
4�5
Nov
4A
19
CO
4o
42'
6,0
4,2
19
41
4,0
4A
41
5,0
4.0
4,2
4.0
4A
4.0
4,0
4.0
4,0
CO
AnnualMean
-(mg/L)
4.3
42
43
44
43
47
43
43
43
43
43
4.3
4e
4A
4A
44
41
4,6
42
4.3
-6.7
4,3
Ea"Iclum
Feb
Z96
Z96
2.96
107
2,95
2,96
Z94
109
2,97
2.99
2.96
2,95
2,97
2S7
2,97
3,15
3.02
129
107
3.20
3.15
3.11
May
3.02
3,35
105
165
3,02
3,31
104
3,63
3,01
144
3,00
135
102
3,33
3,00
3,33
3.09
3,81
Ice
3.47
117
3.51
Aug
3.08
3,46
143
3,54
110
119
151
111
112
151
3.11
115
3,64
3A4
111
329
3.49
3,69
3.18
3.52
354
3.71
Nov
3,17
3,06
3,11
109
3.17
105
3,17
115
3,16
104
315
3,16
314
3,07
3,15
3.06
3.08
2.44
102
2�94
106
2A6
Annuallvierm
3.06
121
3.14
3,34
3,06
3,13
117
3,37
107
125
3,06
3,15
3.19
3,30
3,06
3.21
3.17
3.31
3,09
3,28
3.23
120
Magnesium (mg/L)
Feb
1.61
1,33
1.51
1,33
1.51
1,32
IA9
1.37
1�52
133
1.52
1 �32
1.52
132
1,52
1,35
1�51
1 �31
1�51
1,35
1 �60
132
May
IA8
140
1 A8
IA2
1,47
1,40
IA8
1 A2
C48
1,41
1,47
1,41
1,48
IAI
1.47
1 AO
1.48
1.41
IA7
1,42
1.49
1,45
Aug
1.58
1,41
1 Al
IA4
1,59
1,39
IA4
IAS
1�59
IAO
1,58
1,39
1 S9
1.53
1.58
1,40
1.64
1,47
1,59
1.44
1,615
1 A9
Nov
1171
1�52
1.70
1.62
1,71
1,62
1 �71
1,53
1,70
1 �52
1,71
1.52
1,70
1 IT
1 IT
1,52
1 J1
IA7
1.69
1.51
1,71
1 A7
Annual Mean
1W
142
168
143
167
1 �41
i�58
1,44
1,67
1 A2
1 97
A A4
1,57
1,42
1 �59
1 A2
1V
1.43
1,59
1 A3
NS = Not Sampled: NA= Not Applicable, FQC = Failed Quality Control

ZZ-Z
:
CF
W
80
f}.
0
Z�b r=
"Z s'nc
'"•'
•o ' rn
a Leo
oc�ro.3
o 3'31''z
3.m
Kl
C1C CCi K p'
O'
C
¢ KY 4"
m
Ica
r£?.
3
C
pp
A
5
pp
.ry
j
dop
4OCOq
Nf}?
NGhTqN
hOS1aN Nq Nq
q7qCCf
q?N �
!0O
W
w
C5+
ggqqq
GlggqG?
a
N N ha N
N�NNNN
50,1"p4gi
NCw �-V* V
qq6�� qW :ppq+ :ppqa•
CN5 �0CCqa�tt �6
a��Wyy :
#u�#N i� A W
q��V� trn� .8.iI V#
OClAY
�
q�NO
4q
fiq
tt••a3 tli
C-q't
+trJ.�ye
32
1
g q q q q
�VNi
O g q q q.
IV P8 N
crocsa
N�iaN N N N
PIP P P O
pp -.iWtn
#q8?^J#
tirie�fean+�ti
me�Qow +o
p �
s`i.�w�rn
9 C?00
%J a th
An 00fA
Cn
014mWtl
pp CP9Kri
99
gtfi gxx�n gC0geti Ogtal sqsC
�af .
w##:#h-#4 #:P8#
G-JN^J CQ7w -V
N
PPPPp
bbg Qtl.
F[
F}
NNNNN
NNh?NN
gjgOC?O
!-,- Oq-
§8,q Oq
"c�oc�'l"lb"o
# W P,
i.,rmra�rn
-�.[..: ..a �. .x
:aiu�.amco :om
qN
oaaaa
oo=.:oo
+nirfsrfinin
wwwma
rn_^>rn"�".'Nm
qy
w
CY q P q q
.
Cx q q q qto
'eNaCN�
'Nn.
rg
iaovgr Yqn iqn
N� ua i+. in�rn
go o
0
C�"ao cu`.ls
m� a o
w ,
N
m
N h3 iU N
6}
N9
dN
{S a N
O9g0
il! to fSf ttt t}l
WV
A w-w
..•pp'�yyWOC}CT
tL q # V
((('�rr
q:
W-
NBNi GAS #W O
-VrI V CVd tB
tWlit
NN#
g P P P-2W:pt
Popp
opp
606bbt#
#
NfpRChFy
M1
N QN6
8A
FOo1,
W
#
appq
q q
V W8SV�8
P Oa
NN t}
O a 0 Q
iq q q O
0000
N# #
ioWWVRT
'q((((C
Pqq
ON q q q
8W�»E
Cb6�C.yl]y�
#fi # k�V#�
Ixnr>j
b,V8)P
W-
...
#
gg
ggqq'
o O W .
qqq
RtiC
WW WN
WC
O W Wµh
C
'PGGq
0.IRs s q
8 hN8Atw
r
NGN�Nx
�Z
n
PIPPPP
PIPPPP
NNN
NNNN
q q q q tJ
>3Y
41
C3 a Cf K? CT
P? L"? N i7 tAa
fJf: {lf Ui. Cn
f]f tT
OC PPP
�A
PPP Pa
# #
GY CJ C% C'k Cfi
6 0 0 a -+
m o.( o
O� W V tAl
O O q
6�0 Q W W
WV N NOW
CWS A W tqh 0
0 K
X
L3 N
I.
�y
C}�fJ C? CY :a
P
P(ly
Q .
P
PP,?PP
P P
##
d
N N N PJ
6....
NNNNN
t9 Gk C% CS :+
PIP CS q Q
Cri 'tri 4ii CSi Cn
t,� W
#
O} CQ W tti �S
IV N C? W
W
N N N
a
o g g
W 4,C?
W Y
V
im V th -x. Cb
{95
Cl 53 qC} q
PpPP qq
Np
1!�!4 N
jt4![u N
pSJ t7-i
O P g 4 P
(n t}t tlx {l�N
W 83 W w W
tro V 8f N
g Ut 88)g
ggqqq
LR 5h +Ji
q Cngm..
## # ##
zg .4s w ig fit
Y,}ry W tp iC?8>
mJ fA mob4Ct
V W.W #f8
Ch
g q p 0 q
CJ q q q q.
N h?NNN
Cs�a C5
NhYN N N
o�a a
qCY G+Ct CS
LSD tT ffi tl6 fTi
�> O 4
CS gi+f,J-r.
N am.* N
{{Cg�S� gf�l?f�i� a7,afPCl�
41
N w
W N Q
W
q O
b q
M
1
G��q q G3 q
GN}
W Yq8
Lam'!
m
gocooq
ocagggqq
N NN N N
a�a C} as
NNNNN
W�q CS w V
q q O
inYli COOUf Ctt :GF
tfi
W BYff!
qV qq
a M
Cri# C} q
Uqr gCgli Gn t9i
41�W q q N:
#? # ds,A
iWvN 8W5 W 8S##
# N A
O �
W #'S
co
O�
oP�a
q
NNNNN
i�ooaa
N N N 1+lN
ooga-�*
O K'.T G}qq
`0CnufO o
N 8J
xrmi�'n#i
N gpq.
9N
mm !'
igq qrt� spa a v
am iai °V'
m
rn` =: v`tli
o
3
ggc+crc,
gcagc+o
oCMPNCPNNWN
aN
O0ql.q iq
N � N LCk #
W t9 O W O
iN 9 � tWfl O
Gh N A A W
tq8 .WP � O
iglY
q
OA
NN N N k-
o0000
NN IJ N t,
-410w00
g tl q q O
w
PC# gCtiJi 8O
NN
q
18o88
w 8 fli W8i�9
2OA g#
4_
v
b
asp
00000
ma0
018888
n
NNNNN
5- fpr
m wo
dPPPq
.000
dt 88
�V qq�
as s
T109 qq
Z. W w
.1w 8
_,•��.�aOaOao
1#0.
p+% ®"r '
KY
Y.1
q gCS®q
pggq C]
# A
(p
N N N N N
�.
a g o o a
NNNNN
�.
"Woo—
O P P 51 P
�.
n w r v n
,p Cif
�q 8f
i V
�j{fW IJ
jAS # V
## q N m
4 q C7 CS i.S
{T fh
q c q
th
k 0l +�
# w V u
__ ..> a m
-�t�ti# V 1 OJ
# v W V
q G9 t? Ck q
C5 q 4q�jj q:
NNNNN
!A- T# N N
PIP q q q :
NW p 41'A 4t. W
u ^N•M CS tNlf ,a
W t § 8 qN:
U A W A -+.
ifl tks Q? to ih
4
aaaoL7
..a:pGk
o omi to
W -sew#:q
g5Oga
Cfs W q(lt...:
Nq W W N
6A Gti..+Ut#
Ut
I

Table -S (Continued)
und
Background
5.0
8.0
110
Mixing Zone
Mixing Zone
MNS Discharge
Mixing Zone
M'
Backgro
LOGATIOW
1.0
2.0
4.0
DEPTH:
Surface
Bottum
Surface
Botom
Surface
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
Surface
Bottom
PARAMETERS YEAR:
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
2006 -
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005 2006
2005
2006
2005
2006
2005
Zinc (ug{L)
Feb
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.0
1.0
14
1.0'
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1,0
4A
1.0
1:1
1.0
1;1
1:0
May
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.4
1,0
1.1
1.0
1.5
10
8.0
1.0
1,2
1.0
5A
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.1
56
1.0
U
1.5
Aug
1.8
1.0
1:1
1.0
1.4
1.0
1.0
1,0
U
1.0
1.0
1.0
1,0
1.0
1.2
1.0
1.0
1.0
2.7
1.0
1.0
1.0
Nov
43
34
1.1
1.7
2.0
1.5
1.0
1.6
1:0
5.3
1.0 '
1.0
1.0
1.8
1A
1.5
1.0
1,7
10
3,3
1.
1,6
Annual Mean
2.1
1.6
1.1
1,3
1.4
1.2
1.0
1.3
1.10
1.1
1.0
2,4
1.0
1.1
1.8
1,5
26
1.6
1.1 38
Nitrite -Nitrate (uglL)
Feb
200
270
230
270
210
260
220
270
200
270'
200
280
210
270
210
270
240
310
260
330;
310
160
May
200
240
290
290
210
240
280
290
210
240
210
250
210
290
190
230
290
290
190
230
290
300
Aug
50
130
530
320
60
130
240
350
110
160
90 :
150
120
210
50
80
220
310
40
70
200
300
Nov
150
130
300
570
90
120
140
80
180
100
120
130
110
120
130
130
140
230
160
260
390
290
Annual Mean
150.0
192.5
337.5
362.5
142.5
187.5
220.0
247,5
175.0
192.5
155.0
o2.5
162.5
222.5
' 145.0
177.5 222,5
285.0
1625
222,5
2975
267.5
Ammonia (ugfL)
Feb
120
60
140
100
84
30
110
60
87
40
86
30
120
70
110
20
98
70
85
30
100
40
May
35
20
40
70
30
20
38
60
35
30
31
20
28
60
24
20
45
70
35
30
56
90
Aug
90
90
150
120
80
90
170
80
92
90
90
60
200
130
84
40
120
100
100
230
140
100
Nov
65
130
65 -
120
65
80
63
140
63
80
69
75
69
110
60
77
56
340
56
82
73
130
Annual Mean
77.5
75.0
98.8
102.5
64.8
55.0
95,3
85.0
69;3
60.0'
69.0 -
46.3
104.3
92.5
69.5
39.3
79.8
145.0
690
93.0
923
90.0
Total Phosphorous (ug1L)
Feb
7
10
9
10
8
10
9
10
8
10
8
10
10
10
9
10
9
10
10
10
14
10
May
a
10
8
10
8
10
7
9
7
10
7
11
7
11
7
11
8
10
7
15
9
14
Aug
7
9
8
11
7
11
10
9
7
11'
7
11
8
11
7
11
7
10
8
12
8
12
Nov
8
8
11
89
10
9
8
9
7
8
7
9
8
8
7
12
16
10
9
15
16
Annual Mean
7.5
9:3
9:0
9.8
8.0
10.3
8.8
9.0
7.8
9.5
7,5
9,8
8.5
10.0
7,8
9a
9.0
11.5
8.8
11.5'
11,5
13.0
Orthophosphate (ug1L)
Feb
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5=
5
5
May
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
9
5
5'
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5`
6
5'
Aug
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5-
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Nov
5
5
5
5
5
5
13
5
5
5
5
5
6
5
5
5
5
5
�5
5-
5
Annual Mean
5.0
5.0
5.0
50
5.0
5.0
7.0
5
80
5
5.0
5
5.3
5
5.0
5
5.0
5
50
5.0
53
5
Silicon (mg/L)
Feb
4.0
4,7
4;6
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.6
4.8
4,5
4.7
4�5
4.8
4A
41
4.5
4.8
4.6
4.7
4.4
4.9-
4.6
4:0
May
4.5
4.2
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.2
4S
4,6
43
4.3
4A
4,3
4.5
4.7
4A
4,1
4.9
4.6
4.2
4.1
4.8
4.7
Aug
4,0
3,7
5.5
4.9
4.1
3.8
5,5
4.9
4:1
3.9'
4,1
3.8
6.4
4.7
4.1
3:6
5.4
4.8
4.1
3:9
5.3
4.9
Nov
4.6
4.6
4.4
4.7
4.4
4,7
4.4
4.8
4A
4,7
4.4 '
4.7
4.5 -
4.7
4.4
4,7
4.3
5.3
4 6
4.8
4.5
5.3
Annual Mean
4.4
4.3
4.8
4,8
4.4
4.4
4.8
4.8
4.4
4.4
4.4
4,4
4.8
4.7
4.4
4.3
4.8
4.9
43
4.4
48
5.0
NS = Not Sampled: NA= Not Applicable; Ft C = Failed Qudity Control

160
70
160
140
60
120
ai 100
-
40
80
0
0
40
10
20
0
0
Figure 2-2a.
Annual precipitation totals in
the vicinity of McGuire Nuclear Station.
20
Q 2005 ■ 2006
18
\'
16
1
12
10
8
0
8
-
��{}
4
-
\
JAN FEB MAR APR MAY
JUN
JUL AUG
SEP OCT NOV
DEC
Figure 2-2b. Monthly precipitation totals in the vicinity of McGuire Nuclear Station in 2005
and 2006:
2-2

$ CL
4
22
r +
0
1`g
16
1 ' - .--
rr
1
10
6
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
•lrf-ter vrae-' C1�
Figure 2-2c. Mean monthly air temperatures regarded at McGuire Nuclear Station beginning in 1989. Data were complied from
average daily temperatures which, in turn, were created from hourly measurements.

L-
tv=
w
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Qbi
8 tR 8
is
c'D
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
aN
9 N 8a
y
.Y.................�.»�
.
CL
C�3
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
tp,
N
Q
cy
r>
Q�
D;
8
Eg
tM

-'
0
cD
[Depth (m(
Depth (m(
Z,
V
�X
X
EA
E�3i
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
K:e
{ p
C? KAY iR
CMi
(,�y �y
bi 8 EA .:ZA b VA
�
Z3
L?
^�
Mk4MMY . ,ft............. Yf........
e
tD..
�..
Gi
%
N
GAA
Q
Gh
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
bi
N ZA :8
KYr GR
WW
¢,�y N iA O Cri
�w'4—M.t^wmw
Ci
N#MMl6N MMMtd eO..
^i
e�
%X%MFMX
r�
M"%
C
ci
zg
<J
N X'bk kt%NYE N

Z-Z
r�
Depth (m) �y Depth (m)
ca' : 8 6" o tip— & O :c�''ie o 6" 8ti; p
CR
w
o
/It
3FM#M#5l Wl6 kt#}QM##iaM#}tk#k#p.�
�
ZA
#'�u+i
"�
:gyp ✓Lr
W
Depth (m) Depth (m)
�3 sn. o tx+ ca , 8 8 ix; o ssa cx
CD
t9
x c
t
Depth (m) Depth (m)
cz
n
o
0
K„
0
tT
'�
r
M1Y
Cn
4}
O
tTY
rti
ca"x,
w

0
Depth (m) Depth (m►
ZA
�M
0
Depth (m) Depth (m(
N EA 8 8 ZA
n
c
to :
p�} Depth (m( Depth:(m)
CIs Cr � ifl CJ KTb C} i�Jt Cx 4�T! � Cff
:ire 3C
M
cai ca
0
-a
nm coo
cs
to
K
Cil
4.
tag
4
GY
Cb
C
.p
CT

4
}"
3Q
a �„-
25
.
-0
.
E
1
tU
h
1
o
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec -
Month
11
10
. .._ ......
0
8
7
6-
., 0.....
0
0
5
2-
1-
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure -5.
Monthly surface (0 3m) temperature and dissolved oxygen data at the discharge
location (Location 4.0) in.:2005 () and 2006 (0).
-1

Z-
cro
Depth (m) Depth (m)
C
---------------
c
De th (m) Depth (m)
C7
a
e-
04.
t
CL
P
CO
r
Depth (m) Depth (m)
CD
f �
cn ,�
N
G1

01
0 Depth (m) Depth (m)
�g N 8 ZA 8 8 ZA 8
K
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
�X
•
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
XX
m
x
co
x
x

,(x) gooz Puu gooZ err ouoz SinxituuoqujS nolonN omn()oW oiql joj
solljoid uoBXxo p nlossrp urotu xlgluOw `L'-Z OMSTA
x
X
X
X
oe
xx
X
°£
sZ
-
sZ
9z
X
o
X
o
X�
of
x
5t
9t
'
%
*
Ot
.%
of
Xll
x.
X
9
0
0
0
Zt Ot
8 9 6 z
0
Zt of
9 9 t Z
0
Zt M 8 9 D Z
0
(716ua) ua6Aatp paalnssl
ltt w9 u96dxp paAloss.a
hi6wj usuxo peAlassl6
snr
AVw
aaV
�
�
X
O+
g
*
..oc
k
OZ Cos
X
CZ 0
X
QZ m
X
m
ot.
$.
t
x
0
0
0
Zt U
9 9 v Z
0
Zt M
9 9, V Z
0
Zt of 9 9 v Z
0
(i ) u06ho paAlasslo
NOW) UOUX0 paAlass16
(116w( ua8AX® paA{asss
ww
gal
NVr "

Depth (m) Depth (m)
b',r & N o Z;n o cn o
CD
ro
x et
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
bi Eg f°"sr. a 8; c+ cn
c>
%
on
Z9
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
%
O

240- 240:
Sampling Locations - Sampling Locations
235: ic 810 11�0 13,0 Iso 15,9 62.0 69.0 72,0 soo 23&: 1,0 &0 1110 13o 15,0 15.9 62.0 69�0 72�O 80.0
230: 230:
225� 221�
220: 220: 10
E
21
215�
21 21 O�
205~ 205:
200- Temperature (deg C) 200: Temperature (deg C)
Feb 7, 2006
Jan 4, 2006 -
195- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . . . . 3'0' VW . . . 4.0 . . . . 195
0 5 10 15 20 50 0 6 .... 110 .... IS .... 2`0 .... A... VO... * SV '4' ',�5' .5,1'
Distance from Cowans, Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
240: 240-:
Sampling Locations Sampling Locations
235 1�0 Ko 11.0 13,0 15.0 1519 62.0 60,0 7210 SMO 235: j,() &0 11�0 13�O 15�0 1519 62,0 69.0 72.0 80.0
Zw�
225- 2254
14
2201: io 220: - -- - -------
E
21 &: 21,5:
216 210:
205 20&:
Temperature (deg C) Temperature (deg C)
20 200:
Mar 8, 2006 : Apr5,2006
... 0, V f -""T 7 -7 195:
I r 37�3T" 0' 45 60 56
0 5
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Figure 2-8. Monthly reservoir -wide temperature isotherms for Lake Norman in 2006.

240-
24
- Sampling Locations
Sampling Locations
235-
1�0 8,0 11.0 13,0 1510 15.9 6ZO 69.0 72,0 80�0
235:
1�0 8,0 11.0 13-0 15.0 15.9 62.0 69�0 72.0 8010
230-
22—
..... 21
230
25 --24-
23
n 5-
_2.0�
226:
25
...... 25
— --------------
22":
17,
le
220.:
21 -5:
Is
21 &:
As -
17
210_
210:
205:
205:
14
200:
Temperature (deg C)
200
Temperature (deg C)
May 3, 2006
Jun 7, 2006
19 &:
................. ..... -r-tJ
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
195-
0 '1'0 .... 1'5 .... A A .... k .... A' '4'0 .... 4!5 .... 40 .... 45
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
240t
-- -- -----
240:
Sampling Locations
- Sampling Locations
23&:
1�0 ac lic 13.0 15.0 15�9 62c 69.0 72c SOM
23&:
110 8,0 11.0 13,0 15.0 15.9 62�O 6910 72,0 80,0
230�
225-
SO rk
'IV, 11; 26—
230:
2215
19� 41
220:
28
27
A&
220_:
E
21 &:
9
21 5-
21 C).:
210:
205:
20&:
200-
Temperature (deg C)
200:
Temperature (deg C)
Jul 5, 2006
Aug 7, 2006
19 &:
.... 110 .... I'S .... 2'0 .... A t
0 30 35
19s:
0' .... 1`0 .... IS A .... k� '95. '40 45 0 65
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cowans, Ford Dam (km)
(!0 Figure 2-8. (Continued),
3

24C� 240-
Sampling Locations - Sampling Locations
235- 1�0 8,0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15�q 62.0 69�O 7ZO 8010 23&: 1'0 8.0 liz 13,0 15.0 15�9 62.0 69.0 72,0 80.0
1 1
230� 230; ....... —
28,/ - _26 SA, S
225,: 226-
220�
220,Z
21 5� 21
21
210- 0:
- —22
is)
Z:':� . . . . . . . . . . . . .
205: 20s:
is,
200: Temperature (deg C) 200- Temperature (deg C)
Sep 11, 2006 Oct 3, 2006
igs: ..... 0, '0' VS� �15' �40� ... 45 1 9&:i ........... 10* ... A .... 3'0 .... 95 '410 .... 0 .... 5'
0 to is 20 26 3 5 10 15 r, d S
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
240�: 240-
- Sampling Locations - Sampling Locations
23&: 1�0 8.0 11 n 13,0 Isn 1&9 62'0 69�0 720 80.0 235:1.0 8,0 11'a 13.0 15,0 46.9 62�O 69.0 72�O 80,0
230-: A: 230-
22r— ------
225�
220:
220:
215�- 21
210: 210:
20&: 205:
200: Temperature (deg C) 2001: Temperature (deg C)
Nov 6, 2006 Dec 5, 2006
.......... . �0, .... 4,0 .... 4s, v
1 ss:
0 6 10 Is 20 is .... 90 .... A' ' 40 45 60 55 0 10 ji�v 20 25 go 55
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Figure 2-8. (Continued).
00

240- 240-
- Sampling Locations - Sampling Locations
235- i-o 8.0 lio 13.0 15c 1&9 62,0 69'a 72�O Mo 23,5� 1�0 8.0 Mo 13.0 15,0 15�9 62,0 Mo 72.0 80.0
230� 23C�-
22.5- 225-
220-: 220:
_E - S _E
21,5� 215:
210: 210:
205�: 205:
20- Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 200: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Jan 4, 2006 - Feb 7, 2006
191— ..... —''WililliflWill ... ....... 195 1
............. I
0 6 to is 20 25 30 35 40 45 A .... 110 .... A .... A .... A .... 3'0 .... A .... 410' 'A.... 0'
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
24C� 240-
Sampling Locations Sampling Locations
23&: 1,0 8.0 11.0 13�O 1610 16�9 6ZO 6WO 7ZO Sao 235- &0 11.0 13�O 15.0 15.9 6ZO 69,0 72.0 $0.0
230; 230:--
225 225- 10
220-: 220
21 &: 21,
C3 21 G� 210-
206: �o 20&:
200-: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 200 Dissolved Oxygen (Mg/L)
Apr 5, 2006
Mar 8, 2006
lgr,: .... ......... _r1r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-1, 19
10 '16 .... )0 TS .... 3V '95' ' 40 46 1 7pl �62 O�2 6 �3 0 �31 �11�4110 55
Distance from Cowans, Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Figure 2-9. Monthly reservoir -wide dissolved oxygen isopleths for Lake Norman in 2006.

240-
240-
Sampling Locations
Sampling Locations
235- 1 �c &0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15.9 62,0 69,0 72,0 80,0 235- 1�0 &0 11,0 13�O 15,0 15�9 e2.0 69,0 72.0 80.0
23C),- 230:-
226- .6- 225:
CP
22CI: 2211: :::=:= — — — — — —
NO
E
21 r": 21
U3 210: M 21 G:
20&: 20&: >
200: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 20c; Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
May 3, 2006 Jun 7, 2006
I qs�
A .... �O .... A .... k .... A .... 4'0 .... 4!6... 60 65 0, .... lb .... i's .... 2,C)''I 176 0' 'T51 'k .... 4V -90 —A
Distance Vom Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
240- — 240-
Sampling Locations Sampling Locations
235 1�0 810 lin 13,0 1510 15,9 6ZO 6910 72.0 80M 235 1�0 8.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15,9 62,0 Mo MO 60.0
230:
230-
225-
22,55:
220: 22G:
0
F5 215- 215:
2107 C> 210
20' 205
200�7 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 200 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Jul 5, 2006 Aug 7, 2006
j 19
26 30 35 4rO---46 --SrO---,'S
Distance from Cowan. Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Ue
44� Figure 2-9. (Contin d),
C>

240- 240-
Sampling Locations Sampling Locations
23-5; 1�0 810 11.0 13,0 15�0 15s 62�O 69.0 72,0 8010 23-&: 1,0 &0 11�0 13�O 15.0 16.9 62.0 6910 7210 80.0
230: 230-
22&: 225:
220 220: a-
215: r,
F3 21 &:
210: M 21
20S: 201
20o: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 2004 Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
L�� Oct 3, 2006
Sep 11, 2006
0 5 10 1 S 20 2155 30 4 5T 66 0 5 10 Is 20 2r.' ;rO' A * ... 4t) .... 4'5 .... 40� 56
Distance Irom Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
240- 240�-
- Sampling Locations Sampling Locations
2364 1�0 8.0 11.0 13'0 15'0 15.9 62.0 69*0 72.0 solo 2315:1,0 810 11 '0 13'0 15'0 15'9 62,0 69'0 72.0 80.0
236- CP 230- co
225 226
221>:
22G:
E
216: 21 S:
21c; 21 G:
205: I:P 20&:
20C� Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L) 200: Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)
Nov 6, 2006 Doc 5, 2006
196-
A .... 10 .... I'S .... A .... A .... 3`0' 'Ar' �40 ' WS .... 40 .... 6,
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km) Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (krn)
Figure 2-9. (Continued),

35
30--
25---
E
20--
-
15--
00* 0'0'0�OO�0,0-00,
'00
00*
10
- -
01* 0..
.01 0
0 ........
5--
0
------
0
50 100 150 200 250 300
350
Julian Date
Figure 2-1
Oa.
Heat content of the entire water column and the hypolimnion
(o) in Lake
Norman in 2006.
12
100
10
.8
90
80
% 14
70
UR goo
--60
6
50
--40
4--
30
CL
6
2
---20
10
0-
. . . . . . .
0
1 31 61 91 121 151 181 211 241 271 301 331 361
Julian Date
Figure 2-1
Ob.
Dissolved oxygen content (—) and percent saturation of the entire water
column (a) and the hypolimnion (o) of Lake Norman in 2006.
2-42

2
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
24'
24
LAKE NORMAN STRIPED BASS HABITAT
LAKE NORMAN STRIPED BASS HABITAT
23 1-0
l
8o 11.0 13.0 15.0 15.9 62.0 69.0 72.0 80.0
1 1 1
23 1.G1
8.0 11.0 130 1&0 15.9 62.0 69.0 72.0 '. 80,O
23
23
22
2'2
f
#t 22
22
26 deg C
E
26 deg C
21
2 mg/L
21
2 mgiL
21
m 21
20
Jul 5, 2006
20
Jul 19, 2006
.19
10 1. 26.... 25 TO35 40 4 tl
19
10 1a 20 25 30 35 4ti +FS 50 55
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cawans Ford Dam (km)
Figure -11.
Striped bass habitat (shaded areas; temperature 2 'C
and dissolved Oxygen �: 2 mg/L) in Lake Norman in June, July,
August, September, and October 2006.

24
24
:LAKE. NORMAN STRIPED BASS HABITAT
LAKE NORMAN STRIPED BASS HABITAT
23 1.0
S.O 11:0 13.0 15.0 15.9 62.0 69 0 72.0 80.0
23 1.0
8:0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15;9 62.0 69.0 72.0 80.0
23
23
22
22
St 2.2
22
E
26 deg C
9
26 deg
21
2 g/L
21
2 mg/L
21
21
20
Aug 1, 2006
20
Aug 15, 2006
20
:.
20
19
1Ci 15. 20 nc5.. 30 35 40 45 5(I 55
rl
1p ;15 20 5 30 go 5
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
24
24
LAKE NOR STRIPED BASS HABITAT
LAKE NORMAN STRIPED BASS HABITAT
23' 1.0
8.0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15.9 62.0 69.0 `i2.0 80,0
2'3 1.{7 .
8�0 11.0 13.0 15.0 15.9 62 0 69.0 72.0 80.0
23
23
22
22
22
22
26 deg G
E-
26 deg G
21
2 mg/L
21
2 mg/L
21
-
21
20
Sep 11, 2006
20,,
Oct 3, 2006
20
20
1
10 15 20 : 25 30 35 40 45.... 0 S..
15
1fI ,-1 20 25 3ik 3 4K5 45 O 5
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Distance from Cowans Ford Dam (km)
Figure 2-11.
(Continued).

232.0-
Full Pond 231.65 mmsl
231.5--
Ag-
231.0--
AL
230.5--
230.0--
229.5-
229.0
04 CIS! N M
LO
Figure
2-12.
Lake Norman lake levels, expressed in meters above mean sea level (mmsl) for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and
2006. Lake
level data correspond to the water quality sampling dates over this time period.
(JI

CHAPTER 3
PHYTOPLANKTON
INTRODUCTION
Phytoplankton standing crop parameters were monitored in 2006 in accordance with the
DES permit for McGuire Nuclear Station S). The objectives of the phytoplankton
study of the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program are to;
1. Describe quarterly patterns o, phytoplankton standing crop and species composition
throughout Lake Norman; and
2. Compare phytoplankton data collected during this current study with data collected in
prior study years:
In previous studies on Lake` Norman considerable spatial and temporal variability in
phytoplankton standing crops and taxonomic composition have been reported (Duke Power
Company 1976, 1985; Menhinick and Jensen 1974; Rodriguez 1982). Rodriguez (1982
classified the lake as oligo-mesotrophic (low to intermediate productivity) based on
phytoplankton abundance, distribution, and taxonomic composition. Past maintenance
monitoring program studies have confirmed`this classification.
METHODS`AND MATERIALS
Quarterly sampling was conducted at Locations 2.0, 5.0 (Mixing Zone), 8.0, 9.5, ` 11.0, 13.0,
15.9, and 69.0 in Lake Norman (Figure 2-1). Duplicate grabs from 0. , 4.0, and 8.0 m (i.e.,
the estimated euphotic zone) were taken and then composited at all locations except Location
69.0, where, grabs were taken at 0.3, 3.0, and 6.0 m due to the depth. Grab samples were
co posited for each location:. Sampling was conducted in February, May, August, and
November 2006. " Secchi depths were recorded from all: sampling locations. As in previous
years and based on the original design study (Duke Power Company 198), phytoplankton
density, biovolue, and taxonomic composition were determined for samples collected at
Locations 2.0, 5.0, 9.5, 11.0, and 15.9; chlorophyll a concentrations and seston dry and ash -
free dry weights were determined for samples from all locations. Chlorophyll a and total
3-1

phytoplankton densities and biovolumes were used in determining phytoplankton standing
crop. Field sampling and laboratory methods used for chlorophyll a seston dry weights, and
population identification and enumeration were identical to those used by Rodriguez (1982).
Data collected in 2006 were compared with corresponding data from quarterly monitoring
beginning in August 1987.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Standin Crotg
Chlorophyll cz
Chlorophyll a concentrations (mean of two ;replicate composites) ranged from a low of 1 A3
µg/L at Location 2.0 in February, to a high of 15.05 gg/L at Location 8.0 in November (Table
-1, Figure -1). All values were below the North Carolina water quality standard of40 g/L
(NCDENR 1991). Lake -wide mean chlorophyll concentrations during all but February were
within ranges of those reported in previous years, while the lake -wide mean in February was
the lowest yet recorded for this month (Figure 3-). Based can quarterly mean chlorophyll
concentrations, the trophic level of Lake Norman was in the oligotrophic (low) range during
February and May and in the 'mesotrophic (intermediate) range in August and November
2006 About 56 of the mean chlorophyll a values were less than 4 µg1L (oligotrohic),
while just over % of the remaining chlorophyll a values were between 4 and 12 gg/L
(mesotrophi). The chlorophyll concentration from Location 8.0 in November was the only
one greater than 12 gg/L (eutrophic, or high range). Historically, quarterly mean
concentrations of below 4 µg/L have been recorded on twelve previous occasions, while lake -
'de mean concentrations of greater than 12 gglL were only recorded during May of 1997
and 2000 (Duke Power 1998, 2001).
During 2006 chlorophyll a concentrations showed a certain degree of spatial variability.
Maximum concentrations among sampling locations were observed at Location 15 in
February, Location 69.0 during May and August, and at Location 8.0 in November (Table 3-
1). Minimum concentrations occurred at Location 2.0 in all months but November, when
Location 69.0 had the lowest chlorophyll concentration (Table 3-1). The trend of increasing
chlorophyll concentrations from down -lake to up -lake, which had been observed during many
previous years, was apparent during all but November (Table 3 -1, Figure 3-1).
3-2

Flaw in the riverine zone of a reservoir is subject to wide fluctuations depending, ultimately,
on meteorological conditions (Thornton, et al. 1990), although influences may be moderated
due to upstream dams. During periods of high flow, algal production and standing crop
would be depressed due in great part to washout. Conversely, production and standing crop
would increase during periods of low flow and high retention time. However, over long
periods of low flow, production and standing crop would gradually decline once more. These
conditions result in the comparatively high variability in chlorophyll concentrations observed
between Locations` 15.9 and 69.0 throughout many previous years, as opposed to Locations
2.0 and 5.0 which have usually shown similar concentrations during sampling periods.
Mean quarterly chlorophyll concentrations during the period of record (August 198 -
November 2006) have varied considerably, resulting in`moderate to wide historical ranges
(Figure 3-2). During February 2006, chlorophyll values at all but Locations 13.0 and 69.0
were the lowest yet recorded for February (Figure 3-). Chlorophyll concentrations at
Locations 1.0 and 69.0 were in the low and mid historical ranges, respectively. Long-term
February peaks at Locations 2.0 through 9.5 occurred in 1996, while the long-term February
peak at Locations 11.0 and 15.9 were observed in 1991 and 2003, respectively. The highest
February value at location 6.0 occurred in 2001. All but Location 69.0 had louver
chlorophyll concentrations in February 2006 than in February 2005 (Duke Energy 2006).
During May, mean chlorophyll concentrations at all locations were in the low historical range
(Figure 3-3).. Long-term May peaks at Locations 2.0 and 9.5 occurred in 1992; at Location
5.0 in 1991 at Locations 8.0, 11.0, and 13.0 in 1997 at Location 15.9 in 2000; and at
Location 6.0 in 2001. May 2006, meanchlorophyll concentrations at all locations were
lower than those of 2005 (Duke Energy 2006).
August 2006 mean chlorophyll concentrations at Locations 2.0, 8.0, and 130 were the lowest
August concentrations yet recorded for these locations. Locations 9. , 11.0, and 15.9 were in
the low historical range, while Locations 5.0 and 69.0 were in the mid range (Figure -).
Long- term August peaks at Locations 2.0 and 5.0 were observed in 1998, while August ,
peaks at Locations 8.0 and 9.5 occurred in 1993. Long-term August peaks at Locations 11.0
and 13.0 were observed in 1991 and 1993, respectively. The highest August chlorophyll
concentration from Location 15.9 was observed in 1998, while Location 69.0 experienced its
long-term August peak in 2001. At Locations 5.0 and 6.0, August 2006 chlorophyll
3-3

concentrations were higher than in August 2005, while August concentrations at all other
locations were lower than those of the previous year (Duke Energy 2006).
During November 2006, the highest chlorophyll concentrations ever observed for a
November period were recorded from Locations 5.0 and 8.0 (Figure 3-4). At Locations 2.0,
9.5, 11.0, and 13.0, chlorophyll concentrations were in the high historical range, while values
from Locations 15.9 and 69.0 were in the intermediate and low ranges, respectively. Long-
term November peaks at Locations 5.0 and 8.0 occurred in 2006, while November maxima at
Locations 11.0 through 15.9 occurred in 1996. The November maximum at Locations 2.0
and 9.5 were observed in 1997. The highest November chlorophyll concentration at Location
69,0 occurred in 1991. November 2006 chlorophyll concentrations at all but Location 69.0
were higher than during November 2005 (Duke Energy 2006).
Total Abundance
Density and biovolume are measurements of phytoplankton standing crops. During 2006, the
lowest density (511 units/mL) and biovolume (143 mm 3/M3) occurred at Location 2.0 in
February (Table 3-2, Figure 3-1). The maximum density (4,345 units/mL) and biovolume
(6,939 rnm�/M) were observed at Location 5.0 in November. Standing crop values during
February, May, and August 2006 were lower than those of 2005, while values from
November 2006 were much higher than in November of the previous year (Duke Energy
2006). Phytoplankton densities during 2006 never exceeded the NC guideline for algae
blooms of 10,000 units/mL; however, biovolumes at all but Location 11.0 in November
exceeded the guideline of 5,000 mm 3/M3 for biovolumes (NCDEHNR 1991). Densities and
biovolumes in excess of NC guidelines were recorded in 1987, 1989, 1997, 1998, 2000, and
2003 (Duke Power Company 1988, 1990; Duke Power 1998, 1999, 2001, 2004). During
most sampling periods phytoplankton densities and biovolumes demonstrated a spatial trend
similar to that of chlorophyll; that is, lower values at down -lake locations verses up -lake
locations (Table 3-2, Figure 3-1).
Seston
Seston dry weights represent a combination of algal matter and other organic and inorganic
material. Dry weights during 2006 were generally higher than those of 2005. As was
observed in algal standing crops, a general pattern of increasing values from down -lake to up -
lake was observed during most quarters to varying extents (Table 3-3 and Figure 3-1). From
3-4

1995 through 197 sestan dry weights had been increasing (Duke Power 1998). Values from
1998 through 201 represented a reversal of this trend, and were in the low range at most
locations during 199 through 2001 (Duke Power 2002). Low dry weights during these years
were likely a result of prolonged drought conditions (Figure 2-2a). Since 2002, dry weights
have gradually increased throughout the lake.
Seston ash -free dry weights represent organic material and may reflect trends of chlorophyll
. This relationship held true during all but November 2006 (Tables 3-2 and 3-3). Even in
November the relationship was valid at most locations, but was completely opposite at
Location 69.0. This would indicate that the principle component of ash -free dry weights
from Location 69.0 in November were non -algal organic materials.
The proportions of organic material among solids during 2006 were most often lower than in
2005. From 1996 through 2001 there was a trend of decreasing ash -free dry weight to dry
weight ratios, followed by a trend of increasing ratios through 2005, indicating higher organic
contributions to total solids over the last four years (Duke Power Company 1997; Duke
Power 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004,2005 Duke Energy 2006). That trend: was
reversed in 2006.
Secchi Depths
Secchi depth is a measure of light penetration. Secchi depths were often the inverse of
suspended sediment (sestan dry weight), with the shallowest depths at Locations 13.0
through 69.0 and deepest from Locations 9.5 through 2.0 down -lake. Depths ranged from
1.15 in at Location 69.0 in August, to 2.65 in at Location 2.0, also in August (Table 3-1).
The lake -wide mean Secchi depth during 2006 was slightly higher than in 2005 and was
within historical ranges for the years since measurements were first reported in 1992. The
deepest lake -wide mean Secchi depth was recorded for 199 (Duke Energy 2006).
Community Composition
One indication of "balanced indigenous populations" in a reservoir is the diversity, or number
of taxa observed over time. Lake Norman typically supports a rich community of
hytoplankton species. This was certainly true in 2006. Ten classes comprising 91 genera
and 243 species, varieties, and forms of phytoplankton were identified in samples collected
during 2006, as compared to 100 genera and 242 lower taxa identified in 2005 (Table 3-4).
3-5

The 2006 total represented the highest number of species, varieties, and forms recorded in
any year since monitoring began in 1987 (Duke Energy 2006). Seventeen taxa previously
unrecorded during historical monitoring of Lake Norman were identified during 2006.
Snecies Corunosition and Seasonal Succession
Not#* I I
During February 2006, cryptophytes (Cryptophyceae) dominated densities at all locations
(Table 3-5, Figures 3-5 through 3-9). During most previous years, cryptophytes and
occasionally diatoms dominated February phytoplankton samples in Lake Norman. The most
abundant cryptophyte during February 2006 was the small flagellate Rhodomonas minuta. R.
minuta has been one of the most common and abundant forms observed in Lake Norman
samples since monitoring began in 1987. Cryptophytes are characterized as light limited,
often found deeper in the water column or near surface under low light conditions, which are
common during winter (Lee 1989).
In May, diatoms (Bacillariophyceae) were dominant at all locations (Table 3-5, Figures 3-5
through 3-9). The most abundant diatom at all but Location 15.9 was the centrate, Cyclotella
stelligera. At Location 15.9, the pinnate, Fragillaria crotonensis was the most important
diatom, Diatoms have typically been the predominant forras in May samples of previous
years; however, cryptophytes dominated May samples in 1988, and were co -dominants with
diatoms in May 1990, 1992, 1993, and 1994 (Duke Power Company 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992,
1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997; Duke Power 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005,
Duke Energy 2006).
During August 2006 green algae (Chlorophyceae) dominated densities at all locations
(Figures 3-5 through 3-9). The most abundant green alga was the small desmid, Cosmarium
asphearosporum var. strigosum (Table 3-7). During August periods of the Lake Norman
study prior to 1999, green algae, with blue-green algae (Myxophyceae) as occasional
dominants or co-dominams, were the primary constituents of summer phytoplankton
assemblages, and the predominant green alga was also C asphearosporum var. strigosum
(Duke Power Company 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997; Duke Power
1998, 1999). During August periods of 1999 through 2001, Lake Norman phytoplankton
assemblages were dominated by diatoms, primarily the small pinnate, Anomoeoneis vitrea
3-6

(Duke Power 2000, 2001, 2002). A. vitrea has been described as typically periphytic and
widely distributed in freshwater habitats and was identified as a major contributor to
periphyton communities on natural substrates during studies conducted from 1974 through
1977 (Derwort 1982). The possible causes of this significant shift in summer taxonomic
composition were discussed in earlier reports and included deeper light penetration (the three
deepest lake -wide secchi depths were recorded from 1999 through 201), extended periods of
low water due to drawdown, and shifts in nutrient inputs and concentrations (Duke Power
2000, 2001, 2002)Whatever the cause, the phenomenon was lake -wide and not localized
near MNS or MarshallSteam Station (MSS); ; therefore, it was most likely due to a
combination of environmental factors, and not station operations. Since 2002, taxonomic
composition has shifted back to green algae predominance (Duke Power 2003, 2004, 2005,
Energy 2006)
During November 2006, densities at all locations were again dominated by diatoms and the
most abundant species at all locations was the pinnate diatom, Tabellariafenestrata (Table 3-
, Figures 3-5 through 3-). This diatom has been one of the most common and abundant
forms found in Lake Norman throughout the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring
program.
Blue-green algae, which" are often implicated in nuisance blooms, were never abundant in
2006 samples. Their overall contribution to phytoplankton densities was lower than in 2005,
and densities of blue -greens never exceeded % of totals (Duke Energy 2006). Prior to 1991,
blue-green algae were often dominant at up -lake locations during the summer (Duke Power
Company 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 19).
FUTURE STUDIES
No changes are planned for the phytoplankton portion of the Lake Norman Maintenance
Monitoring Program.
SUMMARY
Lake Norman continues to be classified as oligo-mesotrophic based on long-term, annual
mean chlorophyll concentrations, Chlorophyll concentrations during 2006 were most often
3-7

within historical ranges, however, 'several record low chlorophyll concentrations were
recorded in February, while a few record high concentrations were recorded in November.
Lake -wide mean chlorophyll increased from February through May and August to the annual
maximum in November. Some spatial variability was observed in 2006, however, maximum
chlorophyll concentrations were most often observed -lake at Locations 15.9 and 69.0,
while minimum chlorophyll concentrations were most often recorded from down -lake at
Location 2.0. The highest chlorophyll value recorded in 2006, 15.05 glL, was well below
the NC State Water Quality standard of 40 µg1L.
Phytoplankton densities and biovolumes during 2006 were generally lower than in 2005
Phytoplankton densities during 2006 never exceeded the NC guidelines for algae blooms;
however, biovolumes at most locations in November were in excess of the state guideline,
Standing crop values in excessof bloom guidelines have been recorded during six previous
years of the program. As in past years, higher standing crops were usually observed at up -
lake locations, while comparatively law values were noted down -lake.
Seston dry and ash -free weights were more often higher in 2006 than in 205 and down -lake
to up -lake differences were apparent during most quarters. Maximum dry and ash -free
weights were most often observed at Location 690. Minimum values were always noted at
Locations 2.0 through 8.0. The proportions of ash -free dry weights to dry weights in 2006
were lower than those of 2005, indicating a decrease in organic composition among 2006
samples.
Secchi depths reflected suspended solids, with shallow depths related to high dry weights.
The lake -wide mean sechi depth in 2006 was slightly higher than in 2005 and was within
historical ranges recorded: since 1992.
Diversity or number of taxa, of phytoplankton was similar to 2005 and had the highest
number of individual taa yet recorded. The taxononic composition of phytoplankton
communities during 2006 was similar to those of.many previous years. Cryptophytes were
dominant in February, while diatoms were dominant during May and November. Green
algae dominated phytoplankton assemblages during August. Blue-green algae were less
abundant during 2006 than during 2005, and their contribution to total densities never
exceeded 4 %.
3-8

The most abundant alga,- on an annual basis, was the cryptophyte Rhvdomonas minuta. The
most abundant diatom in May was C"yelotella stelligera, while the most abundant diatom
during November was Tabellar a fenestrate, The small desmid, Cosrnariam
asphearosporum var. strigosum was dominant in August 2006. All of these taxa have been
common and abundant throughout the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program.
Lake Norman continues to support highly variable and diverse phytoplankton communities.
No obvious short-term or long-term impacts of station operations were observed.
3-9

to r
c�
a�
:
c�
i
td� an 19 ? v N N N P`b CD M
r V- e-
C37 Ln (C3 cY r- CCa h-
Ct3
c- h+ C3) N LC) M
d" d N N h» -
Q
Nd`C NC E4N0
N NN N Nr-tea-
N
crs
d' 'Ct7 d" N M C?k M
M N M M
CC7
t!"�
Q
qCif
M 'd' * 0) C7 C9 r-
G[
d Nf r d C37 C')
�
N NNc)U-)Lo
M
NNNCVN e-NN
9
C?
00
MCC? C) h•, h- d
m
Ca N CJ
oq
Et5
tT5
W
4:IP*lLoetCCoM -O
W
e-r-CNO0LC!
LL
v-� v- v-5 v-° <-= N M CO
U-
N N N C\l r=
E;EE
�r
Cii
C{i
C?C
CC07C
N t 40
6 Cti-MC
ujQaj� t ?
r--"-Cfl
.2
C
r
U-0
`
`
-1
H

p
k
•
•
v �
# •
Y�I i.
t
eh •
�
• ♦ iR
1! 1F
p
i • RP
M •
�a
a
CD0
(��'>
n
0
CD
�tr g�y
9 id
�iy� p
1 V
�
�♦
p�
(� M w
wCD
p,vy V
44 ) 'Y (n
°
its
CD
^�I pW�
{Q 4 w NCol-
p
.41 -4 4
w
�
p
h ywpvp°
IN fy Mi h.
tn
/50
#ews+
`
ply }y
M® 6Ji
/q
0
CV
w w
0�)y
g
UQ
CY
iwli 6��y"
W' 9�V
f
gV�.wy+
pn
p` y"
}� F q+Vy 5 w
�y
1t�}
w
y
jytty��+�,
n"
0 o
®M
v®
"...

Table 3-4. (Continued).
TAXON 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
CLASS: CHL OR©MONA OPHYCEAE
Goy ostomum depresseum Lauterbo me x x x x X x x X
G. semen (Ehrenberg) Diesin
G. s - . Diesiia X
r = to a found during 1987- 9 only
-22

Table 3-5. Dominant classes, their most abundant species, and their percent composition (in
parenthesis) at Lake Norman locations during each sampling period of 2006.
2.6
5.0
9.5
15.9
P �s�r
# •
# # r ,•
�� �I �, �
IYI ,MN � �i� ��, ��� a �N!'I• �Ilh�i;, �� �
9.5
11.0
-23

CHLOROPHYLL a (pg/L)
DENSITY (unitsftl-)
16
- -------------------------------------
5000 -------------------------------------
14
. ........ .. .........................
12
- ------ ------- ----------------------
4000 -
... ...
10
... ............. ............... .
- --- -------------- ---------------- -
3000 - -------------------------------
----
8.1
............ ....... ...........
6
--------------------------------- - --
2000 --------
............. ........ ...
4
.... .. ........... . ...... ..... .
2
A . ... ............... . .........
1000 --
---------------- ...............
0
0-
q q tq q q q 9
N IX) W M M U') M
C14
q LQ
0')
cc
SESTON DRY WEIGHT (mg/L)
BIOVOLUME (mm"Im)
8000 .
....................................
18
. ......................................
7000 .........
;P—z� ..................
16
- -- .................................
14
. .................................... .
--------------- ---
6000
..................
12
............ ..........................
5000
10
4000 .
....................................
8
- ..................................
3000 ---------------------------------
6
4
.................................. . ...
2000 -----------------
L::;2
2
........
1000
0
------
0
1
- - -----
q q q Ui q q Cq q
q
q LQ 0i
04 V) 00 0) M U) 0)
to
C14
M 0) U)
LOCATIONS
FEB MAY AUG
NOV
Figure 3-1.
Phytoplankton chlorophyll
a, densities, biovolumes, and seston weights at
locations in Lake Norman, NC in February, May, August, and November 2006.
3-24

-- 1991
17
- 1988
1989
x 1990
. _ . 199
1993
1994
o 1995
— 1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
- - - 2001
2 2
... o- - - 2003
- - -A - - 2004
2 0
2006
14
----------------------------'-------------
---- ------
12
---------------------
- ...
------4_..._---
----------.
.-.
10
...............
..®.....
.----
J8
_... ......:......:::..
R
CL
....
....
..
,r
4
....
2----_-: -----
...............................
...............
0
FEBY
AUG
NOV
Figure 3- .
Lake Norman phytoplankton chlorophyll a
seasonal means for each year since
August 1987.
3-25

MEAN CHLOROPHYLL. a (pg/L.)
FEB MAY
-- 2.0 - •- 5.0� �-«- 2.0 5.
30 ..................... 30 ..................
n�r�uNo zrt�NE Mt�NG C71V
25......:.:.................:...... 25..................................
20................................ 20 ........................ _..... .
15......... .....:........:.::...... 15...................................
10 .. ...: ... 10
5 5
0 0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 0
0 9.5 .0-9.51
30 ......... .....:.........._...... 30--------------- ...:....<........:.:
5.::...........::................ 25...................................
1 :....... m.... .................. 15-----------------------------------
10 ...... ..... .................. 10 ...............
... .... .. . `.... 5
0 0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 ' 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 0
30 ......: ®.. 30 .
25 .................................... 25
20 _ 20 _
15 ......................... 15
10 .................. 10
5 ....... 5
0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 "89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
C 4 15.9 MO 1
30.....................
.::....:.__....._
25
0
15
10
5
0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
Figure 3-3. Phytoplankton mean chlorophyll a concentrations by location for samples
collected in Lake Norman, NC, ftom February and May 19 - 2006
3-26 "

MEAN CHLOROPHYLL a PJIL)
AUG NOV
—+— .0 —■— 5.0I w- 2.0 ---■— 5.Q
-------------
35 'MIANGZONE ....
.......
.:. 35 -MIXING ONE -------------------
30................................ 30 ......:-....................... -
25 ....._ ................... ....... 25 ..................................
20 _...........:. ..._.------ 20 -----------------------------------
15 -.:--- ------------------------ 15-..-.:::.-_-..........:--:.:_..
10 .---- ----. ........ 10 ....
5 ...... . 5
0 0 �-4w. , . "—�' *: : -
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
8.0 9.5 —.-8.0 9.55
35 .......................... 5 ......
30 -------------------------_. 30 .............. ..... .... ... :...
25................................ 25 -----.:._.-----------
20 -------------------------- 20-♦:---------._.-----..-.-...._.---
15 :<.... 15 --------------
10 -- -- --- -- ---- 10
5 ........: ... 5
0 0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
11 0 13:0 11.0 13
35 _-----.:-------------- -- 3 .................................
30-------------------------:::.-- 30—................. m.........
25 -:-------.._m...........:..... 25....................................
`20 ------------------------- 20.................................
15 ......................... .------- 15-----.-:..-..-.,.__..a._.,.-----
10 ....... ... . ...... .. .......... 10 - -. - _ _..._-----.
-----
0 0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
—•--- 69.O
5 ----------------------------- 35 ..................................
30----------------------- --------- 30 -----------------------------------
25 =------------------ -------- 25-----------------------------------
20 ........ ...................... 20 ----------------------------------
15 . ...... .... 15
10 10
5 ------- 5
0 0
87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05
Figure 3-4. Phytoplankton mean chlorophyll a concentrations by location for samples
collected in Lake Norman, NC, from August andNovember 1987 — 2006.
-7

6000 -
t9BACILLARibPHYctAE
-----
OCHLOROPHYCEAE
5500 -------
DICHRYSOPHYCEAE
MCRYPTOPHYCEAE
.......
5000 -------
02MYXOPHYCEAE
0 DINOPHYCEAE
........
-j 4500 -------
MOTHERS
E
4000 -------------------------------------------------------------------
3500 -------------------------------------------------------
....
3000 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
2500 -------------------------------------------------------
-----
Z2000 .......................................................
I
Uj 1500
-------------------------------------
........
.....
1000 ---------------------------------------
---------
.....
500 -
.........
M -----
-----
---------
-----
0
999 1
------
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
7000 .
.................................................................
6000 ...................................................................
E
5000 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
,�-
E
E4000 .......................................................
.....
3000
-----------------------------------------------------
I--
0
> 2000 -------------------------------------------------------
0
.....
1000 .......................................................
0-
-
!r , '"', ,
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
Figure 3-5. Class
composition (mean density
and biovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at
Location 2.0 in Lake Norman, NC, during
2006.
3-28

6000-
-- ------------
OCHLOROPHYCEAE 93BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
5500 --
DCHRYSOPHYCEAE SGRYPTOPHYCEAE
............
5000 --
f2MYXOPHYCEAE 0 DINOPHYCEAE
...........
4500 - -
MOTHERS
............
4000 --------------
----------------------------------------
.....
3500 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
3000 -------------------------------------------------------
....
2500 -------------------------------------------------------
-----
Z2000 .......................................
MOM
.........
1
.....
w
1500 ---------------------------------------
---------
-----
1000 .......................................
.........
.....
500 ------
I= --------- .....
.........
.....
0-
FEB MAY AUG NOV
7000 . .....................................................
.....
6000 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
E
5000 .......................................................
.....
,;�-
E
S4000 -------------------------------------------------------
....
w
3000 -------------------------------------------------------
...
0
> 2000 -------------------------------------------------------
0
.....
to
1000 ..................
.............
.........
0
FEB MAY AUG NOV
Figure 3-6. Class
composition (mean density and biovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 5.0 in Lake Norman, NC during
2006.
3-29

6000 . ......
ISBACILLARIOPHYCEAE
DCHLOROPHYCEAE
5500 --------
IDCHRYSOPHYCEAE
MCRYPTOPHYCEAE
........
5000 --------
0 MYXOPHYCEAE
0 DINOPHYCEAE
........
4500 --------
0 OTHERS
........
4000-
................ * .................
3500 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
3000 .......................................................
.....
2500 . .....................................................
.....
Z2000 -------------------------------------------------------
I
-----
w
a1500 .......................................
.........
1000 ---------------------------------------
---------
-----
500 L�
.........
-----
0
ILE
-------
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
7000 . .................................................................
6000 .......................................................
.....
M E
5000 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
,;-
E
E4000 -----------------------------------------------------
w
2
3000 ------------------------------------
------------------
0
> 2000 -----------------------------------------------------
0
-----
co
1000 .......................................
...... .
.....
0
fv!!� A
I -
I
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
Figure 3-7. Class
composition (mean density
and biovolume) of phytoplanktan ftom,
euphotic zone samples collected at
Location 9.5 in Lake Norman, NC during
2006.
3-30

6000 - ----- OCHLOROPHYCEAE M BACILLARIOPHYCEAE ......
5500 ------- ai CHRYSOPHYCEAE SCRYPTOPHYCEAE ......
5000 ------- f2MYXOPHYCEAE M DINOPHYCEAE ......
4500 ------- MOTHERS ......
E
4000 -------------------------------------------------------
3500 .................................................... ....
3000 ------------------------------------------------------- .....
2500 ------------------------------------------------------- .....
Z2000 --------------------------------------- --------- -----
w
C11500 --------------------------------------- --------- .....
1000 ---------------------- ........ --------- .....
500
0
FEB MAY AUG NOV
7000 - -----------------------------------------------------------------
6000 -------------------------------------------------------------------
oow�
0 E
,;- 5000 ...................................................................
E
E4000 ------------------------------------------------------- -----
Uj
2
M3000 ------------------------------------------------------- ....
-i
0
> 2000 ....................................................... ....
0
1000 --------------------------------------- .........
0- GM= M I
FEB MAY AUG NOV
Figure 3-8. Class composition (mean density and biovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic zone samples collected at Location 11.0 in Lake Norman, NC during
2006.
3-31

8000
......
0 BACILLARIOPHYCEAE
OCHLOROPHYCEAE
7000 -
IM CHRYSOPHYCEAE
91 CRYPTOPHYCEAE
......
0 MYXOPHYCEAE
M DINOPHYCEAE
6000 -
11 OTHERS
......
5000 -------------------------------------------------------------------
4000 -------------------------------------------------------
.....
3000 ---------------------------------------
.........
....
Z
UJ2000 ----------------------
........
.........
....
1000 -
................
........
...... .
0
J
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
7000 --------------------------------------------------------------------
6000 ....................................................................
E
5000 --------------------------------------------------------
.....
,;-
E
E4000 ........................................................
.....
w
2
M3000 .......................................
..........
....
.j
0
> 2000 -----------------------
0
---------
..........
....
ca
1000 .......................
.........
.........
.....
0-
FEB MAY
AUG NOV
Figure 3-9. Class
composition (mean density
and biovolume) of phytoplankton from
euphotic
zone samples collected at
Location 15.9 in Lake Nonnan, NC during
2006.
3-32

CHAPTER
ZOOPLANKTON
INTRODUCTION
The objectives of the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program for zooplankton are to:
1. Describe and characterize quarterly patterns of zooplankton standing crops at selected
locations on Lake Norman and
2.compare and evaluate, where possible, zooplankton data collected during 2006-with
historical data collected during the period 1987 — 2005.
Previous studies of Lake Norman zooplankton populations, using monthly data, demonstrated
bimodal seasonal distribution with highest values generally occurring in the spring, and a
less pronounced fall peak. Considerable spatial and year-to-year variability has been
observed in zooplankton abundance in Lake No an (Duke 'Power Company 1976, 198 ;
Hamra e 1982; M nhinick and Jensen 1974). Since quarterly sampling was initiated in
August 1987, distinct bimodal seasonal distribution has been less apparent due to the lack of
transitional data between quarters.
METHODS AND MATERIAL
Duplicate 10 m to surface, and bottom to surface net tows, were taken at Locations 2.0 . ,
9�5, 11.0, and 15.9 in Lake Norman (Figure -1) during each season: winter (February),
spring (May), summer (August), and fall (October) 2006. For discussion purposes the 10 in
to surface tow samples are called "epilimnetic" samples and the bottom to surface net tow
samples are called "whole -column" samples. Locations 2.0 and 5.0 are defined as the
"Mixing .Zone" and Locations 9.5, 11.0 and 15.9 are defined as "Background locations".
Field and laboratory methods for zooplankton standing crop analysis were the same as those
reported in Ha (198). Zooplankton standing crop data from 2006 were compared' with
corresponding data from quarterly monitoring begun in August 1987.
4-1

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I W 41MINVATIMM"
Highest epilinmetic zooplankton densities at Lake Norman locations have predominantly
been observed in the spring, with winter peaks observed about 25% of the time, and peaks
observed only occasionally in the summer and fall (Duke Power 2006). Contrary to this
trend, maximum epilimnetic densities were observed in the fall at all but Locations 11.0 and
2.0, which demonstrated yearly maxima in the spring (Table 4-1, Figures 4-1 and 4-2). The
lowest epilinmetic densities occurred in the summer at Locations 2.0, 11.0 and 15.9, and in
the winter at Locations 5.0 and 9.5. Epilimnetic zooplankton densities ranged from a low of
21,666/M3 at Location 5.0 in the winter, to a high of 328,755/M3 at Location 15.9 in the falL
Maximum densities in all whole -column samples were observed in the fall (Table 4-1 and
Figure 4-1). Minimum whole -column densities were observed in the winter at Locations 5.0,
and 9.5, in the spring at Location 2.0, and in the summer at Locations 11.0 and 15.9. Whole -
column densities ranged fro m a low of 17,418/m3 at Location 5.0 in the winter, to
244,209/m� at Location 15.9 in the fall. This trend was somewhat similar to that observed for
phytoplankton, particularly with annual fall peaks (Chapter 3).
Consistent with historical data, total zooplankton densities were most often higher in
epilimnetic samples than in whole -column samples during 2006 (Duke Energy 2006). This is
related to the ability of zooplankton to orient vertically in the water column in response to
physical and chemical gradients and the distribution of food sources, primarily
phytoplankton, which are generally most abundant in the euphotic zone (Hutchinson 1967).
Since epilinmetic zooplankton communities are far more representative of overall seasonal
and temporal trends, most of the following discussion will focus primarily on zooplankton
communities in this area of the water column.
Although spatial distribution varied among locations from season to season, a general pattern
of lower average densities from the Mixing Zone as compared to Background locations was
observed during 2006 (Table 4-1, Figures 4-1 and 4-2). Location 15.9, the uppermost
Background location, had higher epilinmetic densities than Mixing Zone locations during all
sampling periods (Table 4-1). This spatial trend was similar to that of the phytoplankton
(Chapter 3). In most previous years of the program, Background locations had higher mean
densities than Mixing Zone locations (Figure 4-3 and Duke Energy 2006).

Historically,both seasonal and spatial variability of epilinmetic zooplankton densities have
been much higher among Background locations than among Mixing Zone locations. ' The
uppermost location, 1., showed the greatest range of densities during 2006 (Table -1,
Figures 4-3 through 4- ). Apparently, epilinmetic zooplankton communities are more greatly
influenced by environmental conditions at the -lake locations than at the down -lake
locations. Location 1.9 represents the transition zone between river and reservoir where
populations would be expected to fluctuate due to the dynamic nature of this region of Lake
Norman. At the locations nearest the dam (Locations 2.0 and 5.), seasonal variations are
dampened and the overall production would be lower due to the relative stability of this area
(Thornton, et al. 1990). Additionally, the effects of MNS once -through cooling could cause
somewhat lower production at these locations. A similar trend was observed in the
phytoplankton communities (Chapter 3).
Epilinmetic zooplankton densities during 2006 were most often within historical ranges
(Figures 4-3 through 4-6. The exceptions were rioted during the fail, when all but Location
15.9 demonstrated long-term historical maxima for this time of year (Figure 4-6).
The highest winter densities recorded from Locations 20 and 11.0 occurred in 1996, while
winter maxima at Locations 9.5 and 15.9 were recorded for 1995 and 1992, respectively
(Figure 4-3). The winter maximum from Location 5.0 occurred in 2004. Long-term
maximum densities for spring were observed at Locations 2.0 and 5.0 in 2005, while the
highest spring values from Locations 11.0 and 1.9 occurred in 2002. The highest spring
peak at Location 9.5 was observed. in 2005 (Figure 4-4). Long-term summer maxima
occurred in 1988 at all but Location 15., which had its highest summer value in 2003
(Figure -5). Long-term maxima for the fall occurred at all but Location 15.9 in 2006, while
the long-term. maximum at Location 15.9 was recorded in 1999 (Figure 4-6),
From>1990 - 2003, the densities at Mixing Zone locations in the spring, summer, and fall
demonstrated moderate degrees of year-to-year variability, and the long-term trend at Mixing
Zone locations in the spring had been a gradual increase over the last 15 years with long-term
peaks recorded in 2005. During the spring of 2006, zooplankton densities in the Mixing
Zone declined sharply as compared to 2005, and were well within earlier historical ranges.
Year-to-year fluctuations of densities in the Mixing Zone during the winter have occasionally
been quite striking, particularly between 1991 and 1997. ` The Background locations continue
to exhibit considerable year-to-year variability in all seasons (Figures 4-3 through 4-6).
4-3

Co `unity Comnosition
One hundred and twenty-one zooplankton taxa have been identified since the Lake Norman
Maintenance Monitoring Program began in August 1987 (Table 4-2). Forty-four taxa were
identified during both 2006 and 2005 (Duke Energy 2006). One previously unreported taxon,,
the rotifer Monommata, was identified in 2006.
During 2005, copepods were the least abundant forms, and were dominant in only two
samples (Duke Energy 2006). In 2006, copepods were dominant in eight samples; one in the
winter and seven in the summer (Table 4-1). Cladocerans, most often the least abundant
forms in Lake Norman, were dominant in three epilimnetic samples (Locations 2.0, 9.5, and
11.0) and two whole -column samples (Locations 9.5 and 11.0) in the winter (Table 4-1).
Rotifers were dominant in nearly 68% of all zooplankton samples collected during 2006.
During most years, microcrustaceans (copepods and cladocerans) dominated Mixing :one
samples, but were less important among Background locations (Figures 4-7 and 4-8).
Compared to 2005 microcrustaceans decreased slightly in relative abundance in the
epilimnion of the Mixing Zone, while they showed a slight increase among whole -column
samples at these locations (Figure 4-7). At Background locations microcrustacean relative
abundances were lower than in 2005 (Figure 4-8).
Copepoda
Copepod populations were consistently dominated by immature forms (primarily nauplii)
during 2006, as has always been the case. Adult copepods rarely comprised more than 7% of
the total zooplankton density at any location. Tropocyclops was the most important genus in
adult populations in both epilinmetic and whole column samples, particularly during summer
and fall (Table 4-3). This was also the case in previous years (Duke Energy 2006).
Copepods tended to be somewhat more abundant at Background locations than at Mixing
Zone locations during 2006, and their densities peaked at Background locations in the spring
and at Mixing Zone locations in the fall (Table 4-1). Historically, maximum copepod
densities were most often observed during the spring (Figure 4-9).
4-4

Cladocera
Bosmina was the most abundant cladoceran observed in 2006 samples, as has been the case
in most previous studies (Duke Energy 2006, Hamme 192. Bvsmina often comprised
greater than 5% of the total zooplankton densities in both epilimnetic and whole -column
samples, and was the dominant taxon in sixsamples in the winter (Table -3). Bosmin psis
was also important among cladocerans in the ' summer when it dominated cladoceran
populations in three samples. Similar patterns of Bosmina-Bosminops s dominance have
been observed in past years (Duke Power 2006).
Long-term seasonal trends of cladoceran densities were variable. During 2006,maximum
densities in the Mixing Zone occurred in the summer, while peaks at Background locations
were observed in the winter. From 190 to 1993, peak densities occurred in the winter, while
in 1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2004, and 2005 maxima were recorded in the spring (Figure 4-
10). During 1996, 1999 and 2002, peak cladoceran densities occurred in the spring in the
Mixing Zone, and in the summer among Background. locations. Maximum cladoceran
densities in 1998 occurred in the summer, In 2001, maximum cladoceran densities in the
Mixing Zone occurred in the winter, "while Background locations showed peaks in the fall'.
During 2003, maximum densities at Background locations occurred in the summer, while
peaks in the Mixing Zone were observed in the fall. Spatially, cladocerans were well
distributed among'most locations (Table 4-1, Figure 4-2).
Rot era
Polyarthra was the most abundant rotifer in 2006 samples (Table 4- ). This taxon dominated
rotifer populations in all samples during the fall, it was also the dominant rotifer at Locations
2.0 and 5.0 during the spring, and was the dominant rotifer in the epilimnion at Locations 2.0
and 5.0, and in the whole -column at Locations 5.0 and 11.0 in the summer. Conochil s
dominated rotifer populations at Location 15.9 in the spring and summer, and Locations 2.0
(whole- column) and 11 (epili ion) in the summer. Keratella was the dominant rotifer in
whole- column samples at Locations 11.0 and 15.9 in the winter and Locations 5.0 and 9.5 i
the spring. Synchaeta was the dominant rotifer in epilimnetic samples at all but Location
15.9 in the winter, and was dominant in whole -column samples at Location 11.0 that same
season. All of these taxa have been identified as important constituents of rotifer
populations, as well as zooplankton communities, in previous studies (Duke Power 2006
Hamme 1982).
-5

Long-terrn tracking of rotifer populations indicated high year-to-year seasonal variability.
Peak densities have most often occurred in the winter and spring, with occasional peaks in
the summer and fall (Figure 4-11). During 2006, peak rotifer densities were observed in the
fall.
FUTURE STUDIES
No changes are planned for the zooplankton portion of the Lake Norman Maintenance
Monitoring Program.
SUMMARY
Maximum zooplankton densities most often occurred in the fall of 2006, while minimum
zooplankton densities were noted in the winter and spring. As in past years, epilimnetic
densities were higher than whole -column densities. Mean zooplankton densities tended to be
higher among Background locations than among Mixing Zone locations during 2006. Both
seasonal and spatial trends of zooplankton populations were similar to those of the
phytoplankton. From around 1997 through 2005, a year-to-year trend of increasing
zooplankton densities was observed among Mixing Zone locations in the spring. However,
during the spring of 2006, densities at these locations declined sharply. Long-term trends
showed much higher year-to-year variability at Background locations than at Mixing Zone
locations.
Epilinmetic zooplankton densities were generally within ranges of those observed in previous
years. The exceptions were record high densities during the fall at all locations except
Location 15.9.
One hundred and twenty-one zooplankton taxa have been recorded from Lake Norman since
the Program began in 1987 (44 were identified during 2006). One previously unreported
taxon, a rotifer, Monommata, was identified during 2006.
Overall relative abundance of copepods in 2006 increased over 2005, and they were dominant
in eight samples, most in the summer. Cladocerans were dominant in five samples during the
4-6

winter, while rotifers were dominant in nearly 68% of all samples. The relative abundance of
microcrustaceans decreased slightly in the epilimnion of the Mixing Zone and at Background
locations since 2005, but had increased among whole -column samples in the epilimnion since
the previous year. Historically, copepods and rotifers have most often shown annual peaks in
the spring, while cladocerans continued to demonstrate year-to-year variability.
Copepods were dominated by immature forms with adults rarely accounting for more than
% of zooplankton densities. The most important adult copepod was Tro oc yclops, as was
the case in previous years. Bosmina was the predominant cladoceran, as has also been the
case in most previous years of the Program. Bosminopsis dominated several cladoceran
populations during the summer. The most abundant rotifers observed in 00 , as in ` any
previous years, were Polyarthra, C"onochilus, Keratella, and Syncheata.
Lake Norman continues to support a highly diverse and viable zooplankton community.
Other than somewhat lower productivity from MNS induced mixing at Locations 2.0 and: 5.0,
no impacts of plant operations were observed,
-

OWN
K$•i
tl
$
a
.ice
Yi
M
Y
ti
i
s
e
a
s
a.
�.
Ml.
1
�...:
d9•
4:
•
i
f
i
fY
a[e
.tl
ar
.4
a
affi
Y
$
�
� ICI'
O:ffi
$
iffi
III
$
•
i ,
®
affix
e$
•
tlY
ffi.
iffi
i
affi
•$
ffi
Y
•
�
4
♦
i
IA
4
•
*.
f
•
i
tl
$
Y
A
i

Table 4-2. Zooplankton taxa identil
from 1987 — 2006.
f -d . from samples collected quarterly on Lake Norman
SPP.
(Fischer)
hd BaW
04
1
D. catawba Coker
A zaleata Sars
A •
irem& Sars
D. lumholzi Sars
A parvula
A pulex @e Geer)
D. py��a �ars
D. retrocurva Forbes
D. schodleri Sars
Di e�q� brachyurum (Lievin)
D. spp. Fischer
EuboLmj!!q�".
HoLoeedium amazonicum Stin.
4-10

Table 4-2. (Continued).
•
MINE!
Bair•
d
�s Tal
SMIUM
Conochiloides dossuarius Hud.
C mawi
ws
WNWA961
r-1-
Ikiarthra mira Hudson
ELMUSUMAIMM
low4ma Kellicu
K. o
K. Tp. Rousselet
�Ilq coch.learis
de St. Vincent

Table -2. (Continued).
� s #
ti #"
a
#
#
-
ii
i
4-1

Table -3. Dominant copepod (adults), cladoceran, and rotifer taxa, and their percent
composition (in parentheses) of the copepod, claduceran and rotifer densities by
location and sample period in Lake Norman in 2006.
Locations
FEBRUARY
MAY
AUGUST
OCTOBER
COPEPODA EPILIMNION
2.0
Tropocyclops (1.5)
Mesocyclops (7.6)*
Tropocyclops (9.7)*
Tropocyclops (4.5)*
5.0
No adults
Mesocyclops (3.5)*
Tropocyclops (91)*
Tropocyclops (1.7)*
9.5
Tropocyclops (1.2)
Tropocyclops (5.1)
Tropocyclops (5.7)
Tropocyclops (2.9)*
11.0
Mesocyclops:(1.9)
Tropocyclops (8.0)
Tropocyclops (97)*
Tropocyclops (.)
15.9
Mesocyclops (3.7)
Tropocyclops (1.)
Tropocyclops (6.5)*
Tropocyclops (3.9)*
COPEPODA WHOLE COLUMN
2.0
,Tropocyclops (2.5)
Tropocyclops (7.6)
Tropocyclops (16.0)
-Tropocyclops
5.0
Tropocyclops (3.4) ,
Tropocyclops (7.1)
Tropocyclops (78)
No adults
9,5
Tropocyclops (4.1)
Tropocyclops (5.1)
Tropocyclops (7.)
Tropocyclops (8.2)
11.0
Tropocyclops (5.8) "
Tropocyclops (7.)
Tropocyclpps (9.8)
Tropocyclops (3.8)
15.9
Cyclops (5.1)
Tropocyclops (12.)
Mesocyclops (3.8)
Tropocyclops (9.3)
CLADOCERA E ILIMNION
2.0
Bosmina (93.) Bosmina (54.4)
Bosmina (0.) Bosmina (100.0)
5.0
Bosmina (97.4) Bosmina (50.6)
Bosminopsis (54`.3) Bosmina (100.0)
9.5
Bosmina (94.8) Bosmina (32.1)
Bosmina (56.8) Bosmina (100.0)
11.0
Bosmina (99.0) Bosmina (51.6)
Bosmina (48.) Bosmina (6.2)
15.9
Bosmina (99.0) Bosmina (69.4)
Bosminopsis (32.9) Bosmina (75.0
CLADOCERA WHOLE COLUMN
2.0
Bosmina (94.1)
Bosmina ( 5.1)
Bosmina (79.8)
Bosmina (92.3)
5.0
Bosmina (89.0)
Bosmina (7.)
Bosminopsis (.0)
Bosmina (97.1)
9.5
Bosmina (94.)
Diaphanosoma (52.5)
Bosmina (61.5)
Bosmina (100.0)
11.0
Bosmina (95.4)
Bosmina (30.8)
Bosmina (44.8)
Bosmina (65.0)
15,9
Bosmina (84.)
Bosmina (80.3)
Bosmina (37.8)
Bosmina (60.0)
Only adults present in samples.
-13

Table 4-3. (Continued).
Locations
FEBRUARY
MAY
AUGUST
OCTOBER
ROTIFERA
EPILIMNION
2.0
Synchaeta (43.0)
Polyarthra (69.9)
Polyarthra (44.0)
Polyarthra (52.0)
5.0
Synchaeta (57.2)
Polyarthra (18.5)
Polyarthra (83.0)
Polyarthra (84.1)
9.5,
Synchaeta (28.1)
Keratella (4.3)
Trichoc rca (41.8)
Polyarthra (60.4)
11.0
Synchaeta (40.3)
Keratella ( 2.7)
Conochilus (36.7)
Polyarthra (59.6)
15.9
Asplonchna (61,0),
Conochilus (46.4)
Conochilus (37.)
Polyarthra (50.0)
ROTIFERA
WHOLE COLUMN
2.0
Conochilus (45.6)
Conochilus (40.9)
Polyarthra (55.9)
Polyarthra (30.8)
.0 '
Keratella (31.)
Polyarthra (26.0)
Polyarthra (61.6)
Polyarthra (70.8)
9.5
Keratella (3 .9)
Keratella ( 6.4)
Trichoc rca (30.3)
Polyarthra (48.2)
11.0
Synchaeta (41.1)
Keratella (5.8)
Polyarthra (34.5)
Polyarthra (57.0)
15.9
Asplanchna (76.6) ;
Conochilus (46.6)
C cochilus (66.5)
Polyarthra (48.3)
4-14

EPILI IC
E MAY x-- OCT
400
........:..............................................................
co350
...::.....
:..m._------........------------ __.-.----------------------:
S300
--------------------------
------- -------------- ---------------- ---
v' 250
-------------
............................................:......_._....
200
--------.a..
m...... ..... .................
150
----
------- ---------------®_a_-.----- ........- ---
100
..
50
............... .... ................. ._a._ ..........
0
2.0
5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
Location
HOLE COLUMN
FEB MAY--*—AUGOCT
300
.._...._..ee
........................................I............._....._
E250
........................................................................
200
........
............... ........................... ........................
,�.
150
..............
....... .......................... ...:............. ......
100
-------
........................................ ................
vs
50
..
.. .............. ....... ............ .........
2.0
5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
Location
Figure 4-1. Total zooplankton density by location for samples collected in Lake Norman in
2006.
4-1

FEBRUARY
MAY
250
-1-6 COPEPODS a CLADOCERAN-S]....
250 -1:0
cc
0.n
R07IFERS
�
................ ...........
.....
x 150
-- .........................
....
..
x 150 ---
......... ......
.....
6
100
- ------------------- ........
....
..
100 ---
----- .... ....
.....
P
50
.........
50-
....
....
.....
0
0-
2.0 5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
2.0 5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
Location
Location
350-
AUGUST
310
OCTOBER
❑
oa COPEPODs—CLADOCERANS
a ROTFERS
V—)300
ROTIFERS
300
aCAOCRS
E
n COPEPODS
2 50
. ...........................................
a 250 -
------------------------------------
x 200
. ............................
x 200 -
--------------:....
.............
6
150
150
. ...........................................
0
150 -
----------
....
....
100
. ............................
100 -
---------- ....
.....
....
50-
50
0-
0
2.0 5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
2.0 5.0 9.5 11.0 15.9
Location
Location
Figure 4-2. Zooplankton community composition by
sample period and location for
epilinmetic samples collected in Lake Norman in 2006.
4-16

MIXING ZONE LOCATIONS
WINTER
.....................:............ ................a...
-. 0 50
200 ............................ ._...... ............_...,.._.
1-------------------------_---------------.:-.....:.®------ - .- ---
Q150 ............... ...................... ................:: _....................
r
x125 ......... ......................................:......................•
°c 100............................ ............. .... ...................................... ..........
7 .:.... ............... .... ........:...............- ..........
° 50........ ..... . . .....::..... .. ..................... . ....... +
m
93 25 -. -----:----.._.._......... ............................ ...:....... ....-.........
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Year
BACKGROUND LOCATIONS
600 .° E- .-------------- .................. .......... - ..... ........ ...
9. —110 15.9
500 .-•--------------------------•.....--------.-----..: ...------------ _.--.._...--:.d.__
�s
400............................................................--------_::: ------ -----
300 -------------------- --==----------=--------- ----- -------------- -------------------
200 ........ ....... ..:....:.... _._._.aW.._ _.::.........._...,:.......:..._._..®.:. _...__.
100 ....... ........... ............ ... ................... .... .....;....
0
88 89 90 91 '92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 0
Figure 4-.
Year
Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epilimnetic samples
collected in Lake Norman, NC, in the winter periods of 1 -- 20W
4-17

SPRING
225
200
15
150
..................................
........... .
X125
.................................................................................
.c
75
-------- ... ........ ....... . .... .........................
...............
50
........................................................................`......
at
93
25
.-.:mm.a..................................------ .........:.-------_------------------._._.
0
88
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
03 04 05 06
Year
BACKGROUND LOCATIONS
600
........ ..........:::.............................
500
........................................::................................................
400
V-
CC;
0
.................................................................. ....
................
.w.
200 "
... ................... '... ...................... .........
...m..
H
G
100'
.. ' .... .«.... ....... ...... . ...........:....
.............
0
88
89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
03 04 05 06
Year
Figure - .
Total
zooplankton densities by location and year for
epilimnetic samples
collected
in Lake Norman in the spring periods of 198 —
2006.
4-18

MIXING ZONE LOCATIONS
SUMMER
— 2- 5 0
-..
200
.........................................................................................
175 '
---------------------------•---------......-.-------------------....------------------:.-.
150
..........................................................e .--...........................
X125-
-------------------------------------------------------------- --_-...-----------.--------
c
100
........................................................::.......................
........
....... .......... e.........
... .
50
..... ................... ............... ........................
...
a',
25
.....75
........................... .. ..
.... ...
0
87
88 89 90:1 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
03 04 05 06
Year
BACKGROUND LOCATIONS
300
............................... ..............................
9.5 11 0 -- -15.9
250
..............::.................................::.....am:.............-.
..............
ca
ca200
............:............................................. ............................
150
..........................................................................
.......... A..
c
100
...... ......................... ...........................
---.:..........
c
50
.. ...................... ....... ..... .. .......... ........
...... ...
0
87
88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02
0304 05 06
Year
Figure 4-5.
Taal
zooplankton densities by location and year for
ep limnetic samples
collected in Labe Norman in the summer periods of 1987
— 2006.
-19

MIXING ZONE LOCATIONS
FALL
225....... .............. ............... ........:......
,..
2.0 -
--� 200.......................:.........................::........................._.......:
175 ....................................................... ....... ......................
c+ 150-_w------------------------------------------- .-..-----.------------. ---
1------------- -............................................................................... .
° 100 -- ._.................................................................................... .................. ........`.................... ........._........_......
7 ...... _ ----------------------------- ------ ------:.:._..-
e50 ..... ........:.................... ..... .. ... ...
25 ------ .... ..............:
0
87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 0
Year
BACKGROUND LOCATIONS
500 ................ .....................
400 .........................................
300:.......::.......;:....................... ..:..................
......., 4:.....:.m:.
C;
E. 200 ........:....... .......... ........ .._......_........_ ... ..........
100 .......... ..:....r:.. ... ........ ..... ......... ... ....
87 88 89 90 91 92 98 94 95 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06
Year
Figure 4-6. Total zooplankton densities by location and year for epilinmetic samples
collected in Lake Norman in the fall periods of 197 — 2006:
4-0

MIXING ZONE: EPILIMNION
❑ COPEPODS 93 CLADOCERANS a ROTIFERS
100%
90%
80°l0
70%
60%
-
-
- -
50%
40%
20%
0%
%
Co00
0) 0) rn 0) 0 o
-
0 0 0 M c
I - Ir- s- Q- c
MIXINGL -C LU
100°le
0°l0
80%
.
.....
..
.......'.
...
70%
.
. ..
.
. .
.
. .
..
.
..
.
.
.
0°l0
50%
40°l0
_.
.
..
.
..
.
. . .
i..
30°l0
. ...............
20°l0
. .
..
....
.
1°0
..
.
............
..
%
0) 0') 0') 0) M 0 t
YEARS
Figure 4-7. Annual percent
composition of major zooplankton taxonomic groups from
Mixing Zone Locations (Locations 2.0 and 5.0 combined) during 1988 — 2006
(Note: Does not include Location 5.0 in the fall of 2002 or winter samples
from 2005).
-21

Figure 4-8.
100%
90%
80% -
v to
50%
40%
30% -
20%
1 %
0% -
.�w
. .
40°l0,'
30% -
20%
10% k
0
t
° • t.'' t t• i' t e t t t i s t a i i' * t i t
t
AC
BACKGROUND: L -C L

120.......... ......... ...:.:.......... „ .............. .,..a..:... .......... ... ....._
-•- MIXING Z©N(- A G LO AfiPNS
100 ._...... ....., ....
80
: r ♦ ' ♦ r • .. r. r ♦ + r • e v a �
40
r . r r t r • r r r r
a 60 ...
x e t 0 7
;i r "•. r a . . r • .. _e: r .
40 • . ....
. IY O.° 'c Kac..�i T.e.. Oe` >_l
C7- +; "" C3. <L �" tl.. d "_ a- � .d '�" a- � S "` 6_ � *S il. � d 0. � aC ."" iL.. � d 4 "`• L'I» � �C 0. ;� d ` Ci � +Y ii. � Q " il. � Q ` CL � ^g '"` Ck. � d
su>cFsU ?va u rra0LL w�yu sw LL 0)0)U- U-3:CO �w 3w 0 u 3:w vn�� *C/5 U- c+a�u. va�wsen��,.�0)WLL
1990 1991 1992 19931994 1995 1996 1997 1996 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Seasons and Year
Figure 4-9. Copepod densities during each season of each year among epilimnetic samples collected in Lake Norman from 1990 -
2006 (Mixing Zone = mean of Locations 2.0 and 5.0; Background - mean of Locations 9. , 11.0, and 15.9).

60 ...... . ....:.: .............. ::.. .......: ..... ... ... .. ... ... .... ......
-+- hbI ( G ZONE -■- BA KGRO Np LO AT ONS F
50 ........................... ::: .................... ... ..... .. ...... .. .. .... ...... ....... ............
40 .....,. ._...:............ ................ .....: .........a.. ., ..
. . . .
30
. . . . . .
0 20 .......
cl
10 .. .... .
,
0
a —ate — < < el.=-
cnucnmuau suarn�snyu crlv}u 5✓su senu u)u- vau s; cncr>wscosin
CO U-
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 ' 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Seasons and Year
Figure -10. Cladoceran densities
2006 (Mixing .Zane
N
-P'
a -• - -r a • s•'

350 ....:.: _m ........ .I ......... ,m........ . .. .. ...
�- �- hb(Nd Z6NE - - BACKGROUND Lt?Ckf l6N
300 :,...: ......:........ ...... ..........:.... ..........
50 .:. ......:: ....,.......:::. ,....:..................
. .
. .
. ,
200 ......I ......:.....:::......,
150 .....:.. ....... ....:::. ...........r..----- >....:._m .,...... ...... .. ..... ... ...
. .
. . . .
100 ...... .......: ......: .. ...
0 - .
0 'z LC J 2 J 2 tL Q z a' J 6 W' r tL CL CL J c � Y cL J eZ 0 Z M 2 Z W 2 ;
._ate a.�¢—ri mod— ate¢ —aa..x—a."¢— d�—cr:—�. ��L—.a�a—ate¢—n.a—e..—a<c
t, U. vy ui u. rta LL s u� to u. us u. S cry U. 5 rr� u. s ua � 'S. crs u. . crl rn u.
1990 1991 1992 9993 1904 1995 1998 1997 9998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Seasons and Years
Figure 4-11. Rotifer densities during each season of each year among epilimnetic samples collected in Lake Norman from 1 —
2006 (Mixing Zone = mean of Locations 2.0 and 5.0; Background = meanof Locations 9.5, 11. , and 15.9)a

INTRODUCTION
In accordance with the NPDES permit for McGuire Nuclear Station ( ) and associated
requirements from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NC C),
monitoring of specific fish population parameters in Lake Norman continued during 2006.
e components of this program were.
1. spring electrofishing; of littoral fish populations with emphasis on age, growth, size
distribution, and condition of spatted bass and largemouth bass;
2. fall electrofishing surveys to assess largemouth and spotted bass young -of -year
abundance,
3, summer striped bass mortality surveys;
. winter striped bass gill net study with the NCWRC with emphasis on age, growth, and
condition
5. fall hydrocostic and purse seine surveys of pelagic fish abundance and species
composition;
. fall trap -net surveys with the NCWRC for crappies with emphasis on age and growth.
METHODS AND MATERIALS
Spring Electrofishing Surveys
Spring electrofishng surveys were conducted in late March to early April at three locations.
(1) near Marshall Steam Station (MSS) in Zone 4, (2) a reference (REF) area located between
S and MSS in Zone 3, and (3) near MNS in Zane I (Figure 5-1. The locations sampled
in 2006 were identical to historical locations sampled since 1993 and consisted of ten 3-m
shoreline transects at each location. Transects included habitats representative of those found
in Lake Norman. 'Shallow flats where the boat could not access within 3-4 m of the shoreline
were excluded. All sampling was conducted during daylight, when water temperatures were
expected to be between 15 and 20° C. All stunned fish were collected and identified to
5-1

species (scientific names of fish collected are listed in Table 5-1). Fish were enumerated and
weighed in aggregate by taxon except for largemouth d spotted bass where total lengths
(rum) and weights (g) were obtained for each individual collected.Sagittal otliths were
removed from all bass > 125 mm long (fish < 125 mm were assumed to be age 1 because
young -of -year bass are generally not collected in spring samples >20' C) and sectioned for
age determination (De `es and Frie 1996). Growth rates were calculated with the mean
length for all fish of the same age. Condition using relative weight was calculated for
largemouth bass >150 mm long and spotted bass >100 min long, using the formula Wr
(W/Ws) x 100, where W= weight of the individual fish g) and TVs = length -specific mean
weight () for a fish as predicted by a weight -length equation for that species (Anderson and
Neumann 1996).
Fall electrofishing surveys for young -of -year bass
Fall electrofishing surveys were conducted in id -November at the same three locations as
spring surveys and consisted of five 300-m shoreline transacts at each location. Again,
shallow flats where the boat could not access within 3-4 in of the shoreline were excluded.
All stunned bass were collected, identified to species, and individually measured and
weighed. A year class "cut off' of 150 min was determined for all black bass by examining
length -frequency data.
Summer striped bass mortalfty s eys
Mortality surveys for striped bass were conducted weekly in July and August to specifically
search for dead or dying striped bass in Zones 1-4. All dead striped bass were collected
during these surveys and their location. noted. Total length was measured prior to disposal.
Striped bass nettina survey
Striped bass were collected for age, growth, and condition (Wr) determinations in early
December by NCWRC and Duke Energy (DE) personnel. Four monofilament nets (76.2 in
long x 6.1 in deep), two each containing two 38.1-in panels of 3- and 5 1 -nim square :mesh
d two each containing 3 8.1-in panels of 63- and 76-min square mesh, were set overnight in
areas where striped bass were previously located. Individual total lengths and weights were
obtained for all striped bass collected and sagittal otolihs were removed to determine age,
-2

growth, and condition (Wr) as described previously for largemouth bass. Additionally, all
catfish collected were identified to species and enumerated.
Fall hvdr.oacoustics and purse seine
The abundance and distribution of pelagic prey fish in Lake Norman were determined using
mobile hydroacoustic (Brandt 1996) and purse seine (Hayes et al. 1 ) techniques. A
mobile hydroacoustic survey of the entire lake was conducted in mid -September to estimate
forage fish populations. Hyroacoustic surveys employed multiplexing, side- and down -
looking
transducers to detect surface -oriented fish and deeper fish (from 2.0 m depth to the
bottom), respectively. Both transducers were capable of determining target strength directly
by measuring fish position relative to the acoustic axis. Due to its large size and spatial
heterogeneity, the lake was divided into six zones (Figure 5-1).
Purse seine samples were also collected in September from the do lake (Zone 1), midlake
(Zone 2), and uplake (Zone 5) areas of the reservoir. The purse seine measured 118 x, 9
with a mesh size of 4.8 nim. A subsample of forage fish collected from each area was used to
estimate taxa composition and size distribution.
Crappie trap -net study
The Lake Norman black and white crappie population was sampled using trap nets by the
NCWRC and DE in late October as described by Nelson and Dorsey (2005). Individuals
were identified to species, measured for total length, weighed, and sagittal otoliths removed
for age and growth determinations.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Spring, Electrofishing Su eys
Electrofishing was conducted at water temperatures ranging from 13.4 to 25.1 'C (56.1 to
77.2 °F). Nine hundred twenty four fish (16 species and two hybrid complexes) weighing
68.8 kg were collected from the MSS area, 1,087 fish (17 species and one hybrid complex)
weighing 69.3 kg from the REF area, and 742 fish (13 species and two hybrid complexes)
weighing 48.0 kg from the MNS area (Table 5- ). Overall, redbreast sunfish and bluegill
5-

dominated samples numerically while spatted bass, largemouth bass, and common`carp
dominated samples gravimetriclly.
Total numbers and biomass of fish collected in spring 2006 were highest in the REF area,
intermediate in the MSS area, and lowest in the MNS area (Figure 5-). There is no apparent
trend in the number of fish collected within or among areas since 1993 however, overall,
biomass has generally been highest in the MSS area, intermediate in the REF area, and lowest
in the MNS area. An extreme occurred in the 2003 MSS collection when large numbers o
common carp were collected greatly inflating total fish biomass.
Spotted bass, thought to have ;originated from angler introductions, were first collected in
Lake Norman in the 2001 spring ele trofishi g samples. They have increased in numbers and
biomass since 2001 (Figure 5-3) and, in 2006, were most abundant in the MNS area,
intermediate in the MSS area, and least abundant in the REF area. Biomass was highest at
S, intermediate at REF, and lowest at MSS.
In 2006, small spotted bass (< 150 ) dominated the catch in all areas sampled (Figure -
4), and their growth rate was generally similar among all areas sampled (Table 5-). Spotted
bass Wr ranged from 69` for fish 10-199 mm long in the MSS area: to 90 for fish 50-399
mm long in the REF area (Figure 5-5). Overall, Wr values were highest for REF spotted
bass, intermediate at NMS, and lowest at MSS.
In 2006, largemouth bass numbers and biomass decreased at all locations relative to 2005'
d values at each location were the lowest recorded since sampling began in 199 (Figure -
6). As in most years largemouth bass numbers and biomass were highest at MSS,
intermediate at REF, and lowest at MNS.
Since 2000, largemouth bass > 00 mm dominated the catch in all three sampling areas (Duke
Power 2001, 2002 2003, 2004, 20), with largemouth bass '< 150 nun low in abundance;
An exception was 2006, where a high abundance of largemouth bass < 150 turn, occurred i
the MSS area (Figure 5-). There was no trend in largemouth bass growth among areas in
2006 (Table -3) however, largemouth bass mean lengths for ages 2, 3, and 4 were generally
higher beginning in 2003 relative to historic data (1974 — 78, 1993, and 1994)("Table 5-4•
While displacement of largemouth bass since the introduction of spotted bass in the lower
lake is apparent, the direct effect on largemouth bass recruitment is indeterminate, possibly
due to confounding effects of other introductions (e.g., alewives and white perch).
5-4

Largemouth bass Wr was similar for all sues of fish in all sampled areas in 2006 (Figure 5-5`
and similar to that noted in 2003, 2004 (Duke Power 2004, 2005), and 2005 (Duke Energy
2006).
Fall electrof shine surveys for oun -of-year bass
Fall 2006 electrofishing resulted in the collection of 95 spotted and four largemouth bass
young -of -year (< 150 ) compared to 94 spatted and 20 largemouth bass in 2005.
Additionally three hybrid bass young -of --year were collected in 2006 and four in 2005.
Overall, numbers in both years were highest at MSS, intermediate at MNS, and lowest at
REF (Figure 5-7).
Summer stri ed bass mortality surveys
In 2006, a total of six dead striped bass were collected during the July -August surveys (Table
5-5). Since the survey began in 1983, summer mortalities in excess of 25 dead striped bass
occurred in three years: 13 in 1983, 43 in 1986, and 2,610 in 2004.
Striped bass netting survey
In December 2006, 120 striped bass were collected for age, growth, and Wr determinations
(Figure 5-). Growth of Lake Norman striped bass was slow after age 3, as noted in prior
years (Duke Energy 2006; Duke Power 2004, 2005), and, overall, Wr was highest for young
fish and decreased with age. The mean Wr for all fish in 2006 was 80. Since 2001 Wr
means have ranged from 79 to 84:
The December striped bass gillnetting also yielded 87 catfish. Blue catfish (60) dominated
the catch, followed by channel catfish (16) and flathead catfish (11)
Fall hydroacoustics and purse seine
Average forage fish densities in the six zones of Lake Norman ranged from 2,008 (Zone 6) to
,20 (Zone 5) fish/ha in September 2006 (Table 5-6) The shallow nature of the riverine
Zone 6, and resulting limited habitat available for acoustic sampling, complicates discussion
5-5

of fish densities in this uppermost zone of Lake Norman. The lakewide population estimate
in September 2006, approximately 61.8 million fish, was comparable to annual estimates
since 1997 and well above the lowest estimate of 47.1 million recorded in 2004 (Figure -9).
No trends have been noted in lakewide pelagic fish population estimates in Lake Norman
from 1997 through 2006. Zones 4 and 6 population estimates continue to remain below other
zone estimates.
Purse seine sampling in 206 indicates that the forage fish population estimated b
hydro coast cs was comprised of 94. % threadfin shad and 5.1% alewives (Table -7). As in
2005, no gizzard shad were collected in the 2006 purse seine samples, and the modal length
of threadfin shad was between 41 and 45 mm in 2006 (Figure 5-10). Alewives were first
detected in low numbers in 1999 and increased to approximately 25% of the pelagic forage
fish community by 2002. The percent composition of alewives declined from 2002 to 2005,
however, increasing to approximately 5.1 % of the forme fish catch in 2006. The overall
increase and subsequent decrease in the percent composition of alewife was concurrent with
an increase in the threadfin shad modal length class and subsequent decrease to values
treasured prior to the alewife introduction.
CraDDie tr -net study
Duke Energy and NCWRC personnel collected 306 black crappie from 60 overnight trap -net
sets in Lake Norman in 2006. No white crappie were collected.
FUTURE STUDIES
The only requested change to the fish portion of the 2007 Lake Norman Maintenance
Monitoring Program is the implementation of additional purse seine sampling in late
June/early July to assist NC'WRC in evaluating the changing forage fish community,
SUMMARY
In accordance with the Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program for the MNS NPS
permit, specific fish monitoring programs continued during 2006. Spring electrofishing
indicated that 13 to 17 species of fish and two hybrid complexes comprised fish populations
5-6

in the three sampling areas, and numbers and biomass of fish in 2006 were generally similar
to those noted annually since 1993. Largemouth bass numbers and biomass continue to
decline in recent years and the 2006 numbers and biomass were the lowest recorded since
sampling began in 1993. During 2006, the number of summer striped bass mortalities (six)
and winter mean relative weight (0) were similar to those of previous years. Hydroacoustic
sampling estimated a forage fish population of approximately 62 million in 2006, comparable
to previous years. Although purse seine sampling indicated a slight increase in the
percentage of alewives in 2006, the percent composition was much lower than in years
immediately following their 1999 introduction. During 2006, threadfin shad lengths returned
to pre -alewife introduction sizes. Trap 'netting indicated little change in the crappie
populations in Lake Norman.
5-7

Table 5-1. Common and scientific names offish collected in Lake Norman, 2006.
Common name
Scientific name
Alewife
Alosa pseudoharengus
Gizzard shad
Dorosoma cepedianum
Threadfin shad
Dorosoma petenense
Whitefin shiner
Cyprinella nivea
Common carp
Cyprinus carpio
Golden shiner
Notemigonus crysoleucas
Spoffail shiner
Notropis hudsonius
Quillback
Carpiodes cyprinus
Shorthead redhorse
Moxostoma macrolepidotum
Blue catfish
Ictalurus furcatus
Channel catfish
Ictalurus punctatus
Flathead catfish
Pylodictis olivaris
White perch
Morone americana
Striped bass
Morone saxatilis
Redbreast sunfish
Lepornis auritus
Green sunfish
Lepornis cyanellus
Warmouth
Lepornis gulosus
Bluegill
Lepomis macrochirus
Redear sunfish
Lepomis microlophus
Hybrid sunfish
Lepomis hybrid
Spotted bass
Micropterus punctulatus
Largemouth bass
Micropterus salmoides
Hybrid black bass
Micropterus hybrid
Black crappie
Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Tessellated darter
Etheostoma olmstedi
Yellow perch
Perca flavescens
5-8

Table 5-2. Numbers and biomass of fish collected from electrofishing ten. 300-m transects
1 each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman from late March to early
April 00.
MN
MSS
REF
Taxa
N
K
N
K
N
Gizzard shad
3
1 J9
Thrdfin shad
195
0.91
23
0.08
Whitefin shiner
9
0.4
15
0.03
4
0.0
Common carp
4
12.13
11
22.11
4
7.85
Golden shiner
1
< 0.01
pottail shiner
15
OA2
2
0.02
Quillback
1
1.28
1
1.43
1
1.31 -
Shorthead redhorse
4
3.18
Channel catfish
1
0.89
4
1.49
5
1.7
Flathead catfish
2
0.19
3
0.11
1
< 0.01
Striped bass
1
1.54
Redbreast sunfish"
149
2.85
389
5.78
186
2.88
Green sunfish
12
OA61
0.01
Warmouth
6
.04
24
0.40
23
0.1
Bluegill
500
5.54
308
3.15
358
3.85
Redear sunfish
85
6.20
47
122
30
3.94
Hybrid sunfish
31
0.73
25
0.86
27
0.53
Spotted bass
41
8.38
31
11.23
65
15.82
Largemouth bass
58
2537
26
16.78
13
7.88
Hybrid black bass
3
0.75
1
0.39
Black crappie
2
0.97
Tessellated darter
1
< 0.01
Yellow perch
1
0.03
Total
924
68.1
1,087
69.34
742
48.02
Table 5-3. Mean total lengths
( ) at age
for spotted bass (SPB) and; largemouth bass
(L ) collected from electrofishing ten 300-m transects
each, at three areas
(MSS; REF, S) in Lake Norman from late March to early April 2006.
Age
Taxa Location 1
SPB MSS 185
REF 162
2
3 4
5
6 7
8
9
307
327
383 440
388 417
MNS 186
288
392 393
488
LMB MSS 184
347
346 408
413
45 416
371
461
REF 180
300
363 378
430
417
M'NS 169
308
361 402
475
459
-

Table -4. Mean total length ( m) at age for largemouth bass collected from electro shin
ten 300-m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, ) in Lake Norman from
late March to early April 2006.
Age
Location and year
1
2
MSS 1974-781
170
266
310
377
MSS 19932
170
277
314
33
MSS 19942
164
273
308
332
MSS 20033
216
317 `
349
378
MSS 20044
176
309
355
367
MSS 20055
190
314
358
396
MSS 2006
184
347
346
408
REF 19932
157
242
279
330
REF 1994 2
155
279 `
326
REF 20033
139
296
358
390
REF 20044
143
288
364
415
REF 2005
139
307
357
36
REF 2006
180
300
363
38 ;
MNS 1971.781
134
257
325
37
MNS 19932
176
256
316
334
MNS 1994 2
169
256
298
347
MNS 2003 317
315
248
39
MNS 20044
170
276
335
370
MNS 20055
16
342
359
429
MNS 2006
169
308
361
40
' Siler 1981, 2 Duke Bower unpublished data; 3 Duke Power 2004; 4 Duke Power 2005
s Duke Energy 2006
Table 5-5. Dead striped bass
observed in
Lake Norman during weekly
surveys in July and
August 2006.
Date Number
Zone
Total length (rrtm
Jul 20 2
1
592
602
Jul 24 1 1 576
Aug 7 2 1 435
2 574
Aug 22 1 3 610
5-10

Table 5-6. Lake Norman forage fish densities (Number/hectare) and population estimates
from hydroacoustic surveys in September 2006.
Zone
Density (N/ha)
Population
Estimate
1
2,930
6,683,330
2
3,481
10,728,790
3
6,084
21,023,384
4
4,01
5,036,021
5
8,240
17,353,440
2,008
959,824
Lakewide total
61,784,789
5% Cl
58,266,596 - 65,302,982
Table - . Total numbers (N) and percent composition
of forage fish, and modal length class
ofthreadfin shad collected in purse seine samples from Lake Norman d'ng late
summer/fall, 19 -- 2006.
Species Composition
Threadfin shad modal
Year
N
Threadfin
Gizzard
Alewife
len th class mnn
1993
13,063
100.00%
0 00%
0.00%
31- 5
1994
1,619
99.94%
0.06%
0.00%
6- 0
1995
4,389
99.95%
0.05%
0.00%
1-35
1996
4,465
100. 0%
0.00%
0.0 %
41-45
1997
6,711 ,
99.99%
0.01 %
0.00%
41-45
1998
5,723
99.95%
0.05%
0.00%
41-45
1999
5,404
99.26%
0.26%
OA8%
6-40
2000
4,265
87.40%
0.22%
12.37%
51- 5
2001
9,652
76.47%
0.01 %
23.5 %
56-60
2002
10,134
74.96%
0.00%
25.04%
41-45
2003
33,660
82.59°/®
0.14%
17.27%
46-50
2004
21,158
86.55%
0.24%
13.20%
51`55
2005
23,147
98.10%
0.00%
1.90% -
41-45
2006
14,823
94.87%
0.00%
5.13%
41-45
5-11

3600
®MSS
■ REF
3000
CI MN
2500
2000
150
I+t
100
50
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
200
7
� Ms
180
REF
❑ M�
160
140
120
100
c«=
`
80
60
40
20
0
193 1994 1995 1996 17 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 5-2. Numbers and biomass of fish collected From electrofishfng ten 300-rn trscts
each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman, 1993 - 2006.
-1

140 -
120
100 -
E
8 -
Ce)
X-
.c
60 -
0
z
40 -
0'
0.
18
16
14'
12
E
Cj
c+a
c
6
4
2
H.
_0
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 5-3. Numbers and biomass of spotted bass collected from electroshi ten 300-m
Iran ects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, ) in Lake Norman, 2001-- 2006.
5-14
7=7
2005 2006

25
S
:iRREF
NS
20
15
10
5
0
<150 150-199 -249
250-299 0 -3 350-399 400.449 > 50
Length group (mm)
1
2
® MSS
REF
p-MNS'
20
c
15
us
10
5
0
150 150-199 200-2 9
250-29 300-349 350-399 400-449 >450
Length group (mm)
Figure 5-4.
Size distributions of
spatted bass and largemouth bass collected from
electrofish ng ten 300-m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, ) in
Lake Norman, 2006.
-1

300
MS8
■ REF
250
❑ MNS
200
E
150
a,
z
100
fl
ik
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
70
1
REF
60
p N
50
E
c>
40
0
C
30
-20
10
0
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1999 2000 -001 2002 2003 204 2005 200
Year
Figure -6. Numbers and biomass of largemouth bass collected from electroshing ten 300-
m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, S) in Lake Norman, 1993 —
2006.
-1

100
c:Spotted bass
90
Largemouth bass
80
❑ Hybrid bass
70
60
40
30
20
--
10
il INS;
2005 206
Year
Figure 5-7.
Total number of young -of -year black bass collected from electrofishing five 300-
m transects each, at three areas (MSS, REF, ) in Lake Norman, 2005 and
2006.
700
90
n
Wr
600
500
50
400
75
300
7/�y
V
Ow
QO
65
0
ILL..,
y
60
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 10
Age
Figure -8.
Mean total length and mean relative weight (Wr) for striped bass collected from
Lake Norman, December 2006. Numbers of fish associated with mean length
are inside bars.
5-18

100
3 -e 4
90 - — 5—s
Lakewide
80
70
o,
60
w s0
0
40
Z
30
0
1`0
0
1997 198 19 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Year
Figure 5-9. Zonal and lakewide population estimates of pelagic forage fish in Lake Norman,
1 1997 —2006.
200
180
160
140
120
100 F
80
m
6
40
e
a
20
A
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110
Length group (mm)
Figure 5-10. Size distributions of threadfin shad (TFS) and alewives (ALE) collected in
purse seine surveys of Lake Norman, 2006.
5-19

LITERATURE MITE
American Public Health Association (APHA). 1995. Standard: Methods for the Examination
of Water and Wastewater. 19th Edition. APHA, Washington, DC.
Anderson, RA, and RM Neumann. 1996. Length, weight, and associated structural indices.
Pages 447-482 in BR Murphy and DW Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques.
American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.
Brandt, SB 1996. Acoustic assessment of fish abundance and distribution. Pages 38 -43
in BR Murphy and D W Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Cole, TM, and HH Hannan. 1985. Dissolved oxygen dynamics, IN Reservoir L" polo
Ecological Perspectives. KW Thornton, BL Kimmel and FE Payne, (editors). John
Wiley & Sans. New York,
Courant, C. 1985. Striped. Bass, Temperature, and Dissolved Oxygen.. A Speculative
Hypothesisfor Environmental Risk. Transactions American Fishery Society 114.31-
61.
Derwort, JE. 1982. Periphyton, p 279-31 . in JE Hogan and WD Adair, editors. Lake
Norman Summary, vol. II. Duke power Company, Technical Report DUKE P RI82-
02. Duke Power Company, Production Support Department, Production
Environmental Services, Huntersville, NC:
Devries, DR, and RV Frie. 1996. Determination of age and growth. Pages 48 -512 in S
Murphy and DW Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, MD.
Duke Energy. 2006. Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program: 25 Summary.
Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
'Duke - Power. 1997. Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program. 199E Summary.
Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte; NC.
Duke Power. 1998. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1997 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 1999. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program 1998 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2000. Labe Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1999 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
L-1

Duke Power. 2001. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2000 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2002. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2001 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2003. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2002 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2004a. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2003 summary.
Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2004 . McGuire Nuclear Station. Updated Final Safety Analysis Report.
Duke Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power. 2005. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 2004 summary. Duke
Energy Corporation, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1976. McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2, Environmental
Report, Operating License Stage. 6th rev. Volume 2. Duke Power Company,
Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1985. McGuire Nuclear Station, 316(a) Demonstration. Duke
Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1987. Lake Norman Maintenance Monitoring Program: 1986
Summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1988. Lake Norman Maintenance monitoring program: 1987
Summary. Duke Power ;Company, Charlotte, NC
DukePower Company. 1989. Lake Norman maintenancemonitoring program: 1988
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1990. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1989
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1991. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1990
summary, Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
i
Duke
Power Company. 1992. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1991
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, N.
Power Company. 1993. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1992
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
L-2

Duke Power Company. 1994. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1993
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1995. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring program: 1994
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1996. Lake Norman maintenance monitoringprogram: 1995
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC.
Duke Power Company. 1997. Lake Norman maintenance monitoring` program: 1996
summary. Duke Power Company, Charlotte, NC
Ford, DE. 1985. Reservoir transport processes. In Reservoir li ology°. ecological
perspectives. KW Thornton; BL Kimmel and FE Payne, (editors), John Wiley
Sons. New York.
Hame, RE. 1982. Zooplankton. Pages 33-353 in JE Hogan and WD Adair, editors. Lake
Norman Summary, Technical Report DU P 82-02. Duke Power Company,
Charlotte, NC. 460 p.
Hannan, HH, IR Fuchs, and DC Whittenburg. 1979. Spatial and temporal patterns of
temperature, alkalinity, dissolved oxygen and conductivity in an oligo- esotrophic,
deep -storage reservoir in Central Texas. Hydrobiologia 51 (30); 209-221.
Hayes, DB, CP Ferrier, and WW Taylor. 1996. Active fish capture methods. Pages 193-220
in BR Murphy and D Willis, editors. Fisheries Techniques. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD.
Higgins, JM and BR Kim. 1981. Phosphorus retention models for Tennessee Valley
Authority reservoirs. Water Resources Research,`17:571-576
Higgins, JM, WL Poppe, and ML Iwanski. 1980. Eutrophication analysis of TVA reservoirs.
in Surface Water Impoundments. HG Stefan, (editor). American Society of Civil
Engineers, NY, pages 41-2.
Hutchinson, GE 1938. Chemical stratification and lake morphometry. Proceedings of
National Academy of Sciences, 24:63-69.
Hutchinson, GE 1957. A Treatise on Linmology, 'Volume I Geography, Physics and
Chemistry. John Wiley & Sons, Inca
Hutchinson, GE. 1967. A Treatise on Linmology. Vol. II. Introduction to Lake :Biology and
the Limnoplankton. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. NY. 1115 p.
L-

Hydrolab Corporation. 1986. Instructions for operating the Hydrolab Surveyor Datasonde.'
Austin, TX 105p
Lee, RE. 1989. :Phycology (nd edition). Cambridge University Press. 40 West 20th St.,
New York, NY.
Matthews, WJ, LG Hill, DR Edds, and FP >Gelwick. 1985. Influence of water quality' and
season on habitat use by striped bass in a large southwestern reservoir. Transactions
American Fishery Society. 118: 243-250,
Menhinick, EF and LD Jensen. 1974. Plankton populations. Pages 120-1 8. in LD Jensen,
editor. Environmental :responses to thermal discharges from Marshall Steam Station,
LakeNorman, North Carolina. Electric Power Research Institute, Cooling Water'
Discharge Research Project -49) Report No. 11, Johns Hopkins University,
Baltimore, MD 235 p:
Mortimer, CH. 1941. The exchange of dissolved substances between mud and water in lakes
(Parts I and 11). Ecology, 29:280-32 .
Nelsen, C, and L Dorsey. 2005. Population characteristics of black crappies in Lake Norman
2004. Survey Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-23-S. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), Water Quality Section. 1991. 1990 Algal
Bloom Report.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. 2004. Red Book,
Surface Waters and "Wetland Standards. NC Administrative Code. 15a NCAC
02B.0100, .0200 and .0300. August 1, 2004. 1p.
Nygaard, G. 1949. Hydrological studies of some Danish ponds and lakes 11. K. danske
Vilensk. Selsk. Biol. Skr.
Petts GE. 1984. Impounded Rivers: Perspectives for ecological management. John Wiley
and Sons. New York. 326p.
Rodriguez, MS. 1982. Phytopla on, p. 14-260 in JE Hogan and WD Adair, editors. Lake
Norman summary. Technical Report D P 8-02 Duke Power Company,'
Charlotte, NC.
Siler, JR. 1981. Growth of largemouth bass, bluegill, and yellow perch in Lake Norman,
North Carolina - A summary of 1975 through 199 collections. Research Report
PES/81-6. Duke Power Company, Huntersville, NC.
L-4

Siler, JR, WJ Foris, and MC Mclnerny, 1986. Spatial heterogeneity in fish parameters
41 within a reservoir. Pages 1-136 in GE Hall and MJ Van Den Avyle, editors.
Reservoir Fisheries Management: Strategies for the 80's. Reservoir Committee,
Southern Division American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD
Soballe, DM, BL Kimmel, RH Kennedy, and RF Caugish. 1992. Reservoirs. in
Biodiversity of the southeastern United States aquatic communities. John 'Wiley &
Sons, Inc. New York.
Stu , W and JJ Morgan. 1970. Aquatic chemistry: An introduction emphasizing chemical
ical
equilibria in natural waters. Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, NY. 583p.
Thornton, KW, BL Kimmel, and FE Payne. 1990. Reservoir linmology. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc, New York,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1983. Methods for the Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. Environmental Monitoring and Support Lab. Office of
Research and Development, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1998a. Quality assurance project plans.
Technical Report. EPA QA/G-5.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 18b. EPA requirements for quality
assurance project plans for environmental data. Technical Report. EPA Q -5.
United States Geological Survey. 1998. National field manual for the collection of water
quality, data. United States Geological Survey. TWRI Book 9. 939p.
United. States GeologicalSurvey. 2002. Policy for the evaluation and approval of analytical
laboratories. Office of Water Quality. Technical Memoranda 2002,05.''
Wetzel, RG. 1975. Linmology. WB Saunders Company, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, p.
L-5