NC0024406_Annual Report_20070822

Duke
Energy©
August 22, 2007
Mr. Jimmie Overton
Chief, Environmental Sciences Section
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
1621 Mail Service
Raleigh, NC 27699-1621
Duke Energy Corporation
526 South Church St.
Charlotte, NC 28202
Mailing Address:
PO Box 1006
Charlotte, NC 28201-1006
Subject: Review of Duke Energy Carolinas Report, August 2006 — Assessment of Balanced and
Indigenous Populations in Belews Lake for Belews Creek Steam Station
NPDES No. NCO024406
Dear Mr. Overton:
Duke Energy biologists of EHS Services reviewed your letter dated June 5, 2007 and have
provided the attached response to comments and additional monitoring request changes for your
consideration.
Thank you for your comments and willingness to work with us to modify the Belews Lake
sampling program. If you need additional information concerning approval of the requested
changes, please contact me at [phone] or relewisI ct,duke-energy.com.
Sincerely,
Ron Lewis
EHS Water Management Group
cc with attachment: Trish MacPherson (ESS)
Mark Hale (ESS)
Steve Tedder (WSRO)
Gil Vinzani (Eastern NPDES)
AUG 2 3 2007
DENR - WATER QUALITY
POINT SOURCE
www.duke-energy.com

RESPONSE TO NCDENR-DWQ.
This is in response to the NCDENR review comments of the BCSS NPDES report presenting
data from 2001-2005 (NPDES no. NC0024406).
After reviewing the DWQ's response to our recommendations relative to the macro invertebrate
and plankton selenium monitoring program for Belews Lake, we would like to offer additional
comments and clarification. Duke Energy appreciates the DWQ's consideration and concurrence
with our recommendations to reduce the number of sampling locations and sample periods, and
we believe that these program changes will result in a more efficient sampling program.
Concerning our recommendation to reduce the number of groups of organisms sampled from
five to three by discontinuing sampling of Odonata and Ephemeroptera due to low abundance of
these taxa, the DWQ recommended that we continue to sample Odonata and Ephemeroptera for
at least another year and that a sweep net rather than a kick net be employed for those shoreline
collections. The DWQ's recommendation was based upon information we provided in the
Materials and Methods section of the report in which we stated that we were using kick nets
exclusively. This statement was in error. In fact, we have been using sweep nets for sampling
the wadeable shoreline since we began the Belews Lake macroinvertebrate sampling program.
We have used the terms "kick net" and "sweep net" interchangeably in our reports over the
years, however, the sampling gear that has been employed for the BCSS NAA collections has
always been the traditional sweep net with 1,000-µm mesh.
We apologize for the confusion, and we will ensure that we use the traditional nomenclature in
all future reports. Additionally, we have continued to sample all five groups of organisms during
2006 and 2007. The NAA data from 2006 is currently available, and we should have the 2007
data before the end of the year. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the DWQ review the
2006 and 2007 data, and, in light of the above clarification concerning sampling gear, reconsider
our original recommendation to eliminate sampling of Odonata and Ephemeroptera.
Concerning the Belews Lake fisheries assessments and the DWQ's recommendations, we have
reviewed those recommendations and have provided the following information regarding fish
species and numbers collected from the lake as a way to judge the likelihood of success (Table .
1). Bottom feeding species suggested as an alternative to common carp (various species of
catfish) are similarly rare in all areas of Belews Lake based on 14 years of annual spring
electrofishing data (1994-2007). Very few channel catfish have been collected from the
Downlake and Discharge regions over this period; in some cases being just as scarce as the
common carp. We might suggest that the redear sunfish could represent the bottom feeding
species you seek, although, we typically must also expend additional effort to collect the required
numbers and sizes of this species. The redear sunfish is principally a benthic feeder (Etnier and
Starnes 1993, Jenkins and Burkhead 1994, and Marcy et al. 2005). According to Barwick and
Wilda (1999), midges and clams constitute most of the redear diet in Belews Lake, thereby
mobilizing Se that may be present in the sediment. The only other species abundant enough
throughout the lake for sampling is the bluegill; however, its diet is comprised mostly of
terrestrial insects (Barwick and Wilda 1999), and analysis of this sunfish species might under -
represent aquatic Se burdens. We would like to recommend that, in combination with our

vigorous in -lake water quality monitoring program and the absence of any plant operational
changes that might direct Se back into the reservoir, we only monitor tissue burdens in
largemouth bass and redear sunfish. The largemouth would represent a top predator of high
recreational value that was extremely sensitive to the excessive Se burdens experienced during
the 1970's and 1980's (Barwick and Harrell 1997). The redear sunfish would represent a bottom
feeding species that has somewhat greater availability than most other bottom feeders typically
evaluated for contaminants.
We appreciate your willingness to work with us on the Belews Lake sampling program and look
forward to hearing from you concerning these requested program changes.
Barwick, DH and RD Harrell. 1997. Recovery of fish populations in Belews Lake following
selenium contamination. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 51:209-216.
Barwick DH and TJ Wilda. 1999. Influence of diet on selenium contamination in recovered fish
populations in Belews Lake, North Carolina. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of
the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 53:61-65.
Etnier, DA, and WC Starnes. 1993. The Fishes of Tennessee. The University of Tennessee
Press, Knoxville, TN. 681 pp.
Jenkins, RE, and NM Burkhead. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries
Society, Bethesda, MD. 1079 pp.
Marcy, BC, Jr., DE Fletcher, FD Martin, MH Paller, and MJM Reichert. 2005. Fishes of the
Middle Savannah River Basin: With Emphasis on the Savannah River Site. The
University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA. 462 pp.

1
Table 1. Cumulative numbers offish collected during spring electrofishing at five 300-m
transects at each of four locations in Belews Lake, NC, from 1994 — 2007.
DOWNLK=downlake, DISCH=condenser cooling water discharge
LOCATION
SPECIES DOWNLK DISCH MDLAKE UPLAKE Grand Total
Gizzard shad
4
10
144
673
831
Threadfin shad
65
216
5105
5386
Grass carp
1
1
2
Satinfin shiner
181
6
79
397
663
Common carp
17
86
237
639
979
Eastern silvery minnow
1
1
Golden shiner
4
2
5
57
68
Fathead minnow
2
2
White sucker
8
8
Notchlip redhorse
2
1
3
6
Golden redhorse
4
3
7
Snail bullhead
1
1
White catfish
1
34
35
Brown bullhead
2
13
15
Flat bullhead
6
13
5
24
Channel catfish
21
52
135
84
292
Flathead catfish
1
2
4
7
Eastern mosquitofish
1
1
2
White perch
57
1267
1324
Redbreast sunfish
2243
623
1780
153
4799
Green sunfish
39
10
338
110
497
Pumpkinseed
3
40
43
Warmouth
51
41
55
33
180
Bluegill
4103
3259
7052
7878
22292
Redear sunfish
109
587
485
860
2041
Hybrid sunfish
380
149
229
22
780
Largemouth bass
451
524
641
660
2276
White crappie
228
761
989
Black crappie
1
7
118
174
300
Yellow perch
6
4
216
1498
1724
Grand Total
7685
5364
12045
20480
45574