ATTACHMENT E-2 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORTS: LAKE … · Lake Anna & Waste Heat Treatment Facility Shoreline Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for: Dominion Virginia Power 5000 Dominion

ATTACHMENT E-2

WETLAND DELINEATION REPORTS:

LAKE ANNA

AND

WASTE HEAT TREATMENT FACILITY SHORELINE

Dominion North Anna Power Station

Lake Anna & Waste Heat Treatment Facility

Shoreline Wetland Delineation Report

Prepared for:

Dominion Virginia Power

5000 Dominion Boulevard

Glen Allen, Virginia 23060-3308

Prepared by:

EA Engineering, Science, and Technology

15 Loveton Circle

Sparks, Maryland 21152

(410) 771-4950

July 2009

Lake Anna and WHTF Shoreline Wetland Delineation Report July 2009

Dominion North Anna Power Station ES-1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The North Anna Power Station (NAPS) is a nuclear power plant with the capacity to generate

electricity from two units (Unit 1 and Unit 2). NAPS is located in Louisa County, near the town

of Mineral, on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna, approximately 5 miles upstream

of the North Anna Dam. Virginia Electric and Power Company D/B/A Dominion Virginia

Power (Dominion), operates the existing nuclear units on the NAPS site.

Dominion is evaluating the possible construction of an additional nuclear generating unit (Unit

3) within the property boundary of the existing NAPS. An Early Site Permit (ESP) from the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was received in November 2007 finding the site suitable

for a new Unit 3. As presented in the ESP, a closed-cycle cooling system is proposed with dry

and hybrid wet cooling tower components with make-up water supply provided by Lake Anna.

Although the Unit 3 cooling system would use less water as compared to Units 1 and 2, it would

still involve some consumptive use of water from Lake Anna. Should Dominion decide to

construct Unit 3, it would propose to raise the normal pool elevation of Lake Anna by 3 inches to

250.25 ft msl. Similarly, the Waste Heat Treatment Facility’s normal full-pool elevation would

be raised by 3 inches to 250.85 ft msl. These new water elevations would help offset some of the

additional consumptive use by increasing water storage within Lake Anna.

In 2007, field data was collected at five representative coves within Lake Anna to estimate

potential shoreline impacts associated with raising the normal-pool elevation of Lake Anna.

Based on the results of the 2007 field study, wetland presence and type were a direct function of

elevation and percent slope of the ground surface.

In 2009, a desktop analysis of the Lake Anna and WHTF shorelines, including the five coves

evaluated in 2007, was conducted to determine the area of potential inundation and to classify

the percent slopes of the shorelines of Lake Anna and the WHTF. The desktop analysis was

conducted using aerial photographs and topographic information. This information was

incorporated into a Geographic Information System (GIS) and used to classify the percent slopes

of the shorelines of Lake Anna and the WHTF. This information was used to determine the

likely presence of wetlands along the shorelines, based on percent slope and elevation.

Increasing the normal water level elevations within Lake Anna and the WHTF by 3 inches is

estimated to impact a total of 8.14 acres of wetland area. For purposes of this assessment, it has

been assumed that all areas with slopes 2% currently support wetlands and these areas will be

impacted by the proposed increase in normal pool elevations of Lake Anna and the WHTF.

The overall wetland impact will likely be a temporary loss of function or a change in wetland

type, rather than a permanent loss of wetland acreage. It is believed that over time new wetlands

may develop at slightly higher elevations in some locations; however, the impacts associated

with the proposed inundation of areas classified as having slopes 2% will be considered to be

permanent impacts to wetlands and will require mitigation.


Dominion North Anna Power Station 1

1.0 INTRODUCTION

The North Anna Power Station (NAPS) is a nuclear power plant with the capacity to generate

electricity from two units (Unit 1 and Unit 2). NAPS is located in Louisa County, near the town

of Mineral, on a peninsula on the southern shore of Lake Anna, approximately 5 miles upstream

of the North Anna Dam (Figure 1). Virginia Electric and Power Company D/B/A Dominion

Virginia Power (Dominion), operates the existing nuclear units on the NAPS site. Dominion

owns the land above and below the lake surface and around the lake up to the expected high-

water mark.

Lake Anna is one of the largest freshwater lakes in Virginia. In 1968, Dominion purchased

18,000 acres to provide a reliable clean source of cooling water for NAPS. By 1972, the North

Anna Dam was completed and the North Anna River was impounded creating the 9,600 acre

Lake Anna. Adjacent to Lake Anna is a 3,400 acre Waste Heat Treatment Facility (WHTF) that

receives the cooling water and transfers the excess heat from the water to the atmosphere before

discharge to the lower reservoir (Figure 2). North Anna Units 1 and 2 began commercial

operation in 1978 and 1980, respectively. Lake Anna is approximately 17 miles long and 1.5

miles wide, with approximately 272 miles of shoreline. Currently, the normal pool elevation of

Lake Anna is 250.0 ft mean sea level (msl). The elevation of the lake surface typically fluctuates

between 249.0 ft msl and 250.5 ft msl based on near-term weather, and has fluctuated between

248.0 ft msl and 251.0 ft msl based on long-term severe weather or severe precipitation events.

Dominion is evaluating the possible construction of an additional nuclear generating unit (Unit

3) within the property boundary of the existing NAPS. An Early Site Permit (ESP) from the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was received in November 2007 finding the site suitable

for a new Unit 3. As presented in the ESP, a closed-cycle cooling system is proposed with dry

and hybrid wet cooling tower components with make-up water supply provided by Lake Anna.

Dry cooling towers would use water-to-air finned-fan coolers to transfer heat through the finned

tubes to the atmosphere. The wet cooling towers would remove heat by spraying the water to a

forced or induced air stream.

Although the Unit 3 cooling system would use less water as compared to Units 1 and 2, it would

still involve some consumptive use of water from Lake Anna. Should Dominion decide to

construct Unit 3, it would propose to raise the normal pool elevation of Lake Anna by 3 inches to

250.25 ft msl. Similarly, the WHTF’s normal full-pool elevation would be raised by 3 inches to

250.85 ft msl. These new water elevations would help offset some of the additional consumptive

use by increasing water storage and reducing the potential increased frequency of implementing

the Lake Level Contingency Plan, related to temporary reductions of flow from the Lake Anna

dam during drought (i.e., low-flow) conditions.

In September 2007, EA Engineering, Science, and Technology (EA) conducted a study that

evaluated five representative coves within the lake to estimate potential shoreline impacts

associated with raising the normal-pool elevation of Lake Anna. This work was conducted based

on a multi-agency-approved study plan dated March 28, 2007. In addition, a desktop analysis of

the Lake Anna and WHTF shorelines, including the five coves evaluated in 2007, was conducted

to determine the area of potential inundation, also known as the “zone of inundation.” The



purpose of the analysis was to evaluate the relationship between the lake level and wetland areas

in Lake Anna and the relationship between water surface elevations of the WHTF and existing

wetlands along the shoreline of the WHTF.

2.0 METHODOLOGY

2.1 Field Studies

2.1.1 2007 Lake Anna Wetland Study

Field studies were conducted during the week of 17 September 2007, and 25 September through

27 September 2007 to determine the existing conditions present within the study areas and to

estimate potential shoreline impacts associated with raising the normal full-pool elevation. Five

coves within Lake Anna were assessed (Figure 3). The selected coves were associated with the

confluence of tributaries entering Lake Anna and were located at the interface between tributary

streams and the existing 250.0 ft msl normal full-pool elevation of Lake Anna.

Refined Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) elevation survey point files were provided by

Dominion for each of the five coves considered in this study. LIDAR is a remote sensing system

used to collect topographic data. A digital elevation model (DEM) was created by interpolating

the ground surface elevation points provided by the LIDAR. The processed LIDAR data

allowed proposed changes in water level elevations to be depicted geographically. The areal

extent of changes in inundation within the study areas caused by proposed normal full-pool

elevation changes were quantified using Geographic Information System (GIS) techniques. The

GIS compared the areas inundated at existing normal pool elevations to areas that would be

inundated by the proposed increase in normal pool elevation. The resultant DEM was contoured

at 0.25 ft intervals to depict areas of the 5 coves that would be inundated at lake levels ranging

from 248.0 to 250.25 ft msl.

Field-run transects situated perpendicular to the shoreline were established to collect vegetation

community information. Field observations of the vegetation communities were combined with

the DEM to assign elevation ranges to the wetland communities. The extent of the various

wetland communities observed (i.e., emergent, scrub/shrub, forested) were closely associated

with specific ground elevation ranges. Wetland presence and type were a direct function of

elevation and percent slope of the ground surface.

The coves that were assessed represent a range of topographic characteristics found throughout

Lake Anna. Some of the coves studied had steep slopes while others had flatter slopes. The

selected coves were located away from the dam in an effort to evaluate areas likely to be most

impacted by alterations in the current full pool elevation. Field surveys of 30 transects in five

coves were conducted as part of the Lake Anna study. A total of 19 transects out of the total 30

transects were assessed for wetland communities. As shown in Figure 3 the five coves studied

were:



Christopher Creek,

Contrary Creek,

Crafton Creek,

Freshwater Creek, and

Goldmine Creek.

Vegetative communities (wetland or upland types) were identified at each cove at transects

spaced approximately 1,000 ft apart. Four to seven transects were studied along the length of

each cove. Along each transect, data points were located approximately 50 feet apart. Sampling

stations were comprised of an area with a 6-ft radius centered on the transect. The transects

extended landward to elevation 252 ft msl. At each sampling point, observations of plant species

present, their distribution, dominance, and condition were recorded. A qualitative assessment of

plant density was also recorded. Measurements of density were recorded as 1 through 5, based

upon the Braun-Blanquet method for assessing cover class. A description of the cover class

codes is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Braun-Blanquet Vegetative Cover Classes

Code Description Cover class

5Any number of plants covering more than ¾ of the

sample site > 75%

4Any number of plants covering between ½ and ¾ of

the sample site 50% - 75%

3Any number of plants covering ¼ to ½ of the sample

site 25% - 50%

2Any number of plants covering between 1/20 and ¼

of the sample site 5% - 25%

1

Numerous individuals, but cover < 1/20 of the sample

site, or scattered with cover up to 1/20 of the sample

site

< 5%

To estimate the area of wetlands within each cove, the DEM was used to determine the range of

elevations where known wetland transect points were identified. In the office, the wetlands that

were found along the cove at this range of elevation were interpolated to predict the wetland

areas within the cove, between transects with wetland communities. This approach allowed the

wetland areas to be quantified within the five coves based on the discrete transect locations and

the associated ‘wetland’ elevations. Using the estimated wetland areas and contoured areas of

potential inundation, the percentages of surveyed wetlands inundated at various lake levels

ranging from 248.0 – 250.25 ft msl were calculated.

Formal wetland delineations were not conducted as part of this study and USACE Routine

wetland Determination data forms were not completed; however, the procedures outlined in the

1987 Corps of Engineers Delineation Manual (USACE 1987) were used to identify wetland



areas within the study areas. Hydrophytic vegetation and wetland hydrology indicators were

used to roughly define the boundaries of the observed wetland areas along each wetland transect.

Project-specific field data forms for the wetland community surveys were created for the wetland

assessment. Data collected in the field were recorded on these data forms and entered

electronically in the office. Copies of the data forms are included in Appendix A. Photographs

of the transects assessed during the Lake Anna Reservoir Study are included in Appendix B.

2.1.2 2009 Agency Field Visit

A tour of Lake Anna and the WHTF by boat was conducted in June 2009 with representatives of

the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (VDEQ) and the Norfolk District of the U.S.

Corps of Engineers (USACE). The primary goal of the field visit was to determine if the results

of the desktop analysis (See Section 2.2, below) were supported by the observable field

conditions. During the field visit, the shoreline wetland resources were compared with the slope

of the land as predicted by the desktop analysis. Another goal of the field visit was to determine

how wetland areas may be impacted by a 3 inch increase in water surface elevation within the

WHTF and Lake Anna. Prior to the field visit, specific locations were identified to reflect

approximately 1 percent, 3 percent, 5 percent and 10 percent shoreline slopes. Digital photos

were taken of these sites during the field visit and can be found in Appendix B.

2.2 Desktop Analysis

A desktop analysis of the shorelines of Lake Anna and the WHTF was conducted using available

information from several sources. Access to aerial photographs used during the analysis was

provided by the Virginia Geographic Information Network (aerial imagery circa late

February/early March 2007). Topographic information provided by Spotsylvania and Louisa

Counties was also acquired by EA. Spotsylvania County Government provided contour data for

approximately ¾ of Lake Anna’s shoreline at a 2-ft interval and Louisa County Government

provided contour data at a 5-ft interval for approximately ¼ of the lake shoreline and the entirety

of the WHTF shoreline.

To model the wetland impacts of raising the level of Lake Anna from 250 ft msl to 250.25 ft msl

and the WHTF from 250.6 ft msl to 250.85 ft msl, the following GIS workflow sequence was

undertaken. Contour data were obtained for the entire perimeter of Lake Anna and the WHTF,

using 2 ft and 5 ft contours for the lake and 5 ft contour data for the WHTF. Two foot contour

data was not available for the WHTF. While 2-ft contours were of adequate density to depict the

Spotsylvania County portion of the shoreline of Lake Anna, an additional contour was digitized

from aerial imagery for the areas covered by 5-ft contours (Louisa County portion of Lake Anna

and the WHTF) in order to capture the shoreline. The digitized contour was assigned a value of

250 ft msl on the lake side and 250.6 ft msl on the WHTF, corresponding to the water surface

elevation of Lake Anna and the WHTF, based on Dominion records for the dates of aerial

acquisition.

The contour data were used to build a DEM. From this DEM, the 250.25 ft msl contour was

extracted and used in conjunction with the existing 250 ft msl contour on the lake side to create a



zone of inundation from 250 – 250.25 ft msl. For the WHTF, a 250.85 ft msl contour was

extracted and used in conjunction with the digitized 250.6 ft msl contour to create a zone of

inundation from 250.6 – 250.85 ft msl. The zone of inundation was manually edited in some

locations where contour data did not correspond with the shoreline morphology, due to minor

data inconsistencies. Land cover associated with developed areas, such as impervious cover,

bulkheads, landscaped turf (as delineated from aerial imagery, where wetlands were not expected

to be found) were not included in the zone of inundation. Slopes within the zone of inundation

were calculated from the DEM and summarized to determine the area of potential inundation,

following a 3 inch rise in normal water surface elevation for Lake Anna and the WHTF.

3.0 RESULTS

3.1 2007 Lake Anna Wetland Studies

Wetland areas identified within the coves were characterized as emergent, scrub/shrub, and

forested wetlands. The majority of the wetlands observed were concentrated where the tributary

entered Lake Anna, with the exception of Goldmine Creek. At Goldmine Creek, wetlands were

observed within each of the transects evaluated.

The slope of banks within the study areas varied from steep to relatively shallow, typical of the

coves and tributaries throughout the lake. The coves with steep banks did not support wetlands

within the defined study area, while the coves with flatter slopes were more likely to support

wetland communities. The average ground surface slope of the wetland areas observed along the

shoreline was 1.75 percent.

The emergent wetland communities present were dominated by native species adapted to

wetland conditions. Soft rush (Juncus effusus), rice cutgrass (Leersia oryzoides), clearweed

(Pilea pumila), spotted touch-me-not (Impatiens capensis), nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus),

Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pensylvanicum), broadleaf cattail (Typha latifolia), and

lesser sparganium (Sparganium americanum) were the dominant plant species observed within

the emergent wetland community. The emergent wetlands were typically adjacent to the

tributary or cove and constituted fringe wetlands that experience periodic changes in depth and

frequency of inundation. Scrub/shrub wetlands were observed typically adjacent to emergent

wetlands. The dominant plant species within the scrub/shrub wetlands included speckled alder

(Alnus rugosa) and common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). These areas included high and

low marsh and appeared to be healthy, even though the field survey was conducted during a

period of relatively low lake levels. Forested wetlands were not as abundant, within the study

area, as emergent wetlands. The forested wetlands were located at higher elevations, further

from the shoreline of the tributaries and coves, and likely experience fewer changes in

hydrologic regime than the fringe wetlands. The forested wetland areas were dominated by red

maple (Acer rubrum), river birch (Betula nigra), and black willow (Salix nigra). Data forms for

the 2007 field study are presented in Appendix A.

The majority of species observed within the wetland areas have an inundation frequency

tolerance that ranges from seasonally saturated to irregularly or seasonally inundated. These



wetlands, especially the fringe wetlands, currently experience fluctuations in the water surface

elevations and have adapted to seasonal changes in inundation.

A description and summary of the coves studied is presented below:

Christopher Creek

Three of the five transects (CH-1, CH-3 and CH-5) were assessed for wetlands within

Christopher Creek.

The slope of the banks within the cove varied from moderately steep to steep.

No wetland areas were observed within the transects assessed.

Contrary Creek

Four of the six transects (CO-1, CO-3, CO-5 and CO-6) were assessed for wetlands

within Contrary Creek.

No wetlands were observed within the transects assessed.

Crafton Creek

Two of the four transects (CR-2 and CR-4) were assessed for wetlands within Crafton

Creek.

The banks along Crafton Creek were approximately three to six feet above the water

surface.

No wetlands were observed within the transects assessed.

Freshwater Creek

Four of the seven transects (FR-1, FR-3, FR-5 and FR-7) were assessed for wetlands

within Freshwater Creek.

Wetlands were observed along Transect FR-1.

The dominant species within FR-1 included red maple, rice cutgrass, soft rush, river birch,

speckled alder, common greenbrier, and hay scented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula).

Goldmine Creek

Six transects (GM- 1, GM-3, GM-5, GM-7, GM-9, and GM-11) were assessed for

wetlands within Goldmine Creek.

Wetland areas were observed within all transects assessed.

Goldmine Creek transect GM-1 was located at the interface of Goldmine Creek and Lake Anna.

The left bank of Goldmine Creek, at Transect GM-1, included upland forest. Wetlands were

observed along the transect on the left bank of Goldmine Creek. The dominant species included

clearweed, spotted touch-me-not, crowned beggarticks (Bidens coronata), nutsedge, and soft



rush. Transect GM-1 was dominated by emergent wetlands, but a forested wetland was observed

further from the shoreline, close to the endpoint of the transect.

Emergent wetland areas were observed along GM-3. The dominant species included

Pennsylvania smartweed and Nepalese browntop (Microstegium vimineum). Transect GM-5 was

dominated by emergent wetlands with shrubs and trees located throughout the emergent areas.

The dominant plant species included black willow, spotted touch-me-not, clearweed, river birch,

and crowned beggarticks.

GM-7 was dominated by emergent wetlands, but a forested wetland was observed further from

the shoreline, close to the endpoint of the transect. The dominant plant species along GM-7

included musclewood, rice cutgrass, broadleaf cattail, and lesser sparganium. GM-9 was

dominated by emergent wetlands. Dominant species within GM-9 included rice cutgrass,

Pennsylvania smartweed, and broadleaf cattail.

GM-11 was dominated by emergent wetlands. The dominant species within GM-11 included

rice cut grass and Allegheny blackberry.

3.2 2009 Agency Field Visit

At the end of the field visit conducted by USACE and VDEQ on 26 June 2009, it was concluded

by agency staff that the “desktop approach” was the preferred method to conservatively quantify

the amount of wetlands that might be inundated following a 3-inch increase in the normal lake

level. The desktop approach efforts and conclusions were supported in the field during the

agency field visit. The results of the desktop analysis are presented in Section 3.3, below.

3.3 Desktop Analysis

EA conducted a desktop analysis to determine areas that potentially support emergent,

scrub/shrub, and forested wetlands within the proposed zone of inundation. A shoreline slope

2% was chosen as the limit of wetland extent within the zone of inundation based on

observations made during field surveys of the five coves conducted in 2007. Within the zone of

inundation, with a ground surface slope 2%, the analyses determined that approximately 2.72

acres along the Lake Anna shoreline will potentially be inundated following a 3 inch rise in lake

level from 250 ft msl to 250.25 ft msl. Of the 2.72 acres, 2.5 acres are forested and 0.19 acres

have emergent/scrub-shrub vegetative cover. For the WHTF, approximately 5.42 acres within

the zone of inundation with a slope 2% are expected to be inundated following a 3 inch rise in

surface water elevation from 250.6 ft msl to 250.85 ft msl. Of the 5.42 acres within this zone

along the WHTF shoreline, 4.48 acres are forested and 0.94 acres have emergent/scrub-shrub

vegetative cover.

It has been assumed that all areas with slopes 2% within the zone of inundation currently

support wetlands. This is a conservative assumption since it is likely that non-wetland areas are

present within the zone of inundation with slopes less than 2%.



4.0 REGULATORY COORDINATION

The desktop analysis quantified the wetland areas located within the perimeter of Lake Anna and

the WHTF. Based on the methodology utilized, the field conditions observed in 2007 and 2009,

and the best technical information available related to the project site, the wetland delineation is

EA’s professional estimate of the wetlands located within the proposed zone of inundation.

5.0 CONCLUSION

Increasing the normal water level elevations within Lake Anna and the WHTF by 3 inches is

estimated to impact a total of 8.14 acres of wetland area. For purposes of this assessment, it has

been assumed that all areas with slopes 2% currently support wetlands and these areas will be

impacted by the proposed increase in normal pool elevations of Lake Anna and the WHTF.

The increase in lake level elevation would occur 75 percent of the time based on model

predictions utilizing historic lake level elevation data. These minor increases in water surface

elevation may affect existing wetlands. While some wetland types may tolerate a slight increase

in inundation (e.g., emergent wetlands) other wetland types (e.g., forested wetlands) may not be

able to adapt as easily. Wetlands, including forested wetlands, may shift in the landscape to

slightly higher elevations as a result of the proposed increase in the normal pool elevations of

Lake Anna and the WHTF. If forested wetlands shift to a higher elevation, the process would

likely take several years to occur.

The overall wetland impact will likely be a temporary loss of function or a change in wetland

type, rather than a permanent loss of wetland acreage. It is believed that over time new wetlands

may develop at slightly higher elevations in some locations; however, the impacts associated

with the proposed inundation of areas classified as having slopes 2% will be considered to be

permanent impacts to wetlands and will require mitigation.

LouisaCounty

HanoverCounty

CarolineCounty

SpotsylvaniaCounty

OrangeCounty

North Anna Power Station

Dam

WildernessWilderness

Fredericksburg

522

33

522

208

20

3

22

600

208

Spotsylvania Co Batl Nmp/FrdrcSpotsylvania Co Batl Nmp/Frdrc

Lake Anna State ParkLake Anna State Park

Q:\

pro

jects

\GIS

\14

39

10

1\M

XD

\Fig

ure

1.

Gen

era

l L

ocatio

n M

ap

.mxd

V i r g i n i a

0 42

Miles

Figure 1. General Location Map

Fig

ure

2.

La

ke

An

na

an

dth

eN

ort

hA

nn

aP

ow

er

Sta

tio

n's

Wa

ste

He

at

Tre

atm

en

tF

ac

ilit

y

05

2.5

Mile

sI J

uly

20

09

EA

Pro

jec

tN

o.

14

39

10

20

00

4N

ort

hA

nn

aP

ow

er

Sta

tio

nL

ak

eA

nn

aW

etl

an

ds

As

se

ss

me

nt

Are

aE

nla

rged

P:\Utilities\DominionEnergy\Projects\1439101-NorthAnnaPermitting\GIS\LakeAnnaReservoirWetlandAssessment\MXD\Figure2-LakeAnnaandtheNorthAnnaPowerStation'sWasteHeatTreatmentFacility.mxd

Dam

Nort

hA

nna

Po

wer

Sta

tion

La

ke

An

na

Waste

Heat

Tre

atm

en

tF

acilit

y

Dis

charg

ecanal

Fig

ure

3.

20

07

La

ke

An

na

Stu

dy

05

2.5

Mile

sI J

uly

20

09

EA

Pro

jec

tN

o.

14

39

10

20

00

4

No

rth

An

na

Po

we

rS

tati

on

Pe

rmit

tin

gA

ss

ista

nc

eL

ak

eA

nn

aW

etl

an

ds

As

se

ss

me

nt

Stu

dy

Are

a

P:\Utilities\DominionEnergy\Projects\1439101-NorthAnnaPermitting\GIS\LakeAnnaReservoirWetlandAssessment\MXD\Figure32007LakeAnnaStudy.mxd

Gold

min

eC

reek

Christo

pher

Cre

ek

Contr

ary

Cre

ek

Fre

shw

ate

rC

reek

Cra

fton

Cre

ek

Ora

ng

eC

ou

nty

Dam

Nort

hA

nna

Po

wer

Sta

tion

APPENDIX A

2007 FIELD SURVEY DATA SHEETS

Dominion Lake Anna Study

Creek: Christopher Creek

Date: 9/17/07 Person(s) Sampling: CWL, MLH, TW

Wetland Communities Survey

Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)

Plant Species Distribution Dominance Condition DensityWetland /

Upland

CH-1 50 Open Water Water




CH-1 250 Betula nigra Even Healthy 5 Upland

Platanus occidentalis

Rubus allegheniensis

Lonicera japonica

mowed upland X





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CH-3 0 Pasture Even X Healthy 5 Upland






CH-3 300 Platanus occidentalis Even Healthy 5

(creeks edge) Toxicodendron radicans X

Dichanthelium clandestinum








Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland


Fescue sp.

Cirsium arvense

50 Pasture Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Fescue sp.

Cirsium arvense


Fescue sp.

Cirsium arvense

150 Open Water Water


Fescue sp.

Cirsium arvense


Apocynum androsaemifolium

Hypericum perforatum

Solanum sp.

Sorghum halepense


Creek: Contrary Creek



Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CO-1 0 Turf - mowed Even X Healthy 5 Upland

CO-1 50 Quercus alba Upland

Quercus phellos

Pinus virginiana Even X Healthy 5

Viburnum dentatum

Smilax rotundifolia

Vaccinium corymbosum

Nyssa sylvatica

Sphagnum sp.

CO-1 100 Gravel Upland



CO-1 250 Open Water Upland



CO-1 400 Kalmia latifolia Uneven X Healthy 2 Upland

Gravel

Smilax rotundifolia

CO-1 450 Pinus virginiana Uneven Fair-drought stress 2 Upland

Andropogon virginicus X

sand



CO-1 600 Pinus virginiana Even X Healthy 3 Upland

Betula nigra

Acer rubrum

Andropogon virginicus

Smilax rotundifolia





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CO-3 0 Ulmus americana Equal X Healthy 5 Upland

Betula nigra

Pinus virginiana X


Smilax rotundifolia

Kalmia latifolia

Dennstaedtia punctilobula

CO-3 50 Betula nigra Equal Healthy 5 Upland

Pinus virginiana X

Scirpus cyperinus

Eupatorium purpureum

Solidago sp.

Andropogon virginicus


Pinus virginiana

CO-3 150 Water - gravel bed Water



CO-3 300 Liquidambar styraciflua Even X Healthy 4 Upland

Smilax rotundifolia X

Pinus virginiana

Pilea pumila

CO-3 350 Acer rubrum Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Smilax rotundifolia

Betula nigra

Liquidambar styraciflua





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CO-6 50 No plant species within this transect, disturbed area. Upland

CO-5 50 Disturbed area (pea gravel) Upland

CO-4 50 Disturbed area (pea gravel) Upland


Creek: Crafton Creek



Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CR-2 50 ft (RB) Verbesina alternifolia Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Toxicodendron radicans

Lonicera japonica


CR-2 50 ft (LB) Toxicodendron radicans Even Healthy 5 Upland

Asimina triloba X

Rosa multiflora

Bidens coronata

Verbesina alternifolia

Rubus allegheniensis X

Campsis radicans


Acer negundo


Phlox sp.


Creek: Crafton Creek



Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

CR-4 50 ft (RB) Bidens coronata Even Healthy 5 Upland

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Lactuca canadensis

Ulmus americana

Acer negundo

Impatiens capensis

Carex sp.

Juncus effusus

Vernonia sp.

Polygonum pensylvanicum

Acer rubrum

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Trifolium sp.

Scirpus cyperinus

Microstegium vimineum X

CR-4 50 ft (LB) Lonicera japonica Even Healthy 5 Upland

Juniperus virginiana

Carpinus caroliniana

Trifolium sp.

Rosa multiflora




Creek: Freshwater Creek



Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

FR-1 150 (RB) Carpinus caroliniana Even X Healthy 4 Upland

Smilax rotundifolia

Quercus alba

Betula nigra


Lycopodium dendroideum

Carya ovata

Sassafras albidum

FR-1 100 Betula nigra Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Acer rubrum X

Cornus amomum

Alnus sp.

Carex sp.


Bidens coronata

Leersia oryzoides

Juncus effusus

Scirpus cyperinus

FR-1 50 Alnus sp. Even Healthy 5 Upland

Cornus amomum

Betula nigra

Juncus effusus


Leersia oryzoides X

Pilea pumila

FR-1 0 Open Water Water

FR-1 250 (LB) Smilax rotundifolia Even X Healthy 4 Wetland

Acer rubrum

Betula nigra


FR-1 200 Cornus amomum Even / Diverse Healthy 5 Wetland

Betula nigra

Onoclea sensibilis

Pilea pumila

Bidens coronata

Smilax rotundifolia





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

FR-1 150 Betula nigra Diverse Uniform Healthy 5 Wetland

Acer rubra

Pilea pumila

Leersia oryzoides


Bidens coronata

Juncus effusus X

Scirpus cyperinus


FR-1 100 Betula nigra Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Alnus sp.

Bidens coronata

Juncus effusus X

FR-1 50 Alnus sp. Even Healthy 5 Wetland


Juncus effusus X

Bidens coronata

Cephalanthus occidentalis

Pilea pumila


FR-1 0 Acer rubrum Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

(end of tape measCarpinus caroliniana

Betula nigra



Sphagnum sp.

FR-1 50

(from last pointBetula nigra Even X Healthy 4 Wetland

Acer rubrum

Sphagnum sp.


Smilax rotundifolia

Nyssa sylvatica

FR-1 100 Smilax rotundifolia Even Healthy 4 Upland

Dennstaedtia punctilobula X

Quercus phellos

Acer rubrum

Carpinus caroliniana X


Carya ovata

Nyssa sylvatica





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

FR-3 Carpinus caroliniana Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Quercus alba X

Ilex opaca


Carya glabra


Smilax rotundifolia

Quercus rubra

Mitchella repens

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Polystichum acrostichoides

Betula nigra

Liriodendron tuliperfera

Sassafras albidum

Quercus marilandica

Liquidambar styraciflua


Pinus virginiana






Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

FR-5 Ilex opaca Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Smilax rotundifolia





Carya glabra

Quercus alba


Liriodendron tuliperfera








Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

FR-7 Smilax rotundifolia Even Healthy 5 Upland

Acer rubrum


Ilex opaca



Cornus florida

Carya glabra




Creek: Goldmine Creek



Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-1 50 Liriodendron tulipifera Even Healthy 4 Upland


Betula nigra

Asimina triloba

Smilax rotundifolia X

Rosa multiflora X

Nyssa sylvatica

Lonicera japonica

Acer rubrum

Festuca sp.

GM-1 100 Open Water Water

GM-1 150 Rubus allegheniensis Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Tragopogon sp.

Lonicera japonica

Cornus amomum X

Aster sp.

Carya glabra


Helianthus tuberosus

GM-1 200 Pilea pumila Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Impatiens capensis

Carex sp.

Polygonum saggitatum






Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-1 250 Cornus amomum

Impatiens capensis Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Bidens coronata

Pilea pumila

Alnus sp.

Salix nigra

Carex sp.

Leersia oryzoides

Sagitaria latifolia

GM-1 300 Rosa palustris Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Bidens coronata X


Cornus amomum


Alnus sp.

GM-1 350 Betula nigra Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Bidens coronata X

Sagitaria latifolia

Cyperus esculentus

GM-1 400 Cyperus esculentus Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Bidens coronata

Nuphar lutea

GM-1 450 Nuphar lutea Uneven Healthy - browsed 2 Wetland

Cyperus esculentus

Lemna minor

Juncus effusus X

GM-1 500 Juncus effusus Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Impatiens capensis

Scirpus cyperinus


Bidens coronata


Pilea pumila

Nuphar lutea

Cyperus esculentus X

Sagitaria latifolia


Cornus amomum





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-1 550 Bidens coronata Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Impatiens capensis

Rosa palustris

Leersia oryzoides

Pilea pumila

Carex sp.



Juncus effusus

Sagitaria latifolia

GM-1 600 Pilea pumila Even Healthy 5 Wetland


Alnus sp.

Leersia oryzoides

Sagitaria latifolia

Carex sp. X

Impatiens capensis

Acer rubrum


Cornus amomum



Betula nigra

Pilea pumila

Carex sp.

GM-1 700 Festuca sp. Even X Healthy 2 Upland

Lindera benzoin


Lonicera japonica


Rhus typhina

Aster sp.

Pilea pumila

Juncus effusus





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-3 50 Rubus allegheniensis Uneven X Healthy 3 Upland

Lonicera japonica

GM-3 100 Festuca sp. Uneven X Healthy 4 Upland

Lonicera japonica

Pilea pumila

Aster sp.

Toxicodedron radicans

Betula nigra

Carex sp.

GM-3 150 Polygonum pensylvanicum Even X Healthy 4 Wetland


Carex sp.

Bidens coronata

Pilea pumila

Impatiens capensis


GM-3 250 Microstegium vimineum Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Lonicera japonica

Pilea pumila

Salix nigra

Phytolacca americana


GM-3 300 Platanus occidentalis Even Healthy 5 Upland

Festuca sp.


Pilea pumila




Impatiens capensis

Cuscuta americana


Betula nigra


Lonicera japonica

Fraxinus americana

Pilea pumila


Festuca sp.

Lysimachia nummularia






Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland


Festuca sp.

Pilea pumila


Rosa multiflora

Lonicera japonica


Festuca sp.

Pilea pumila


GM-3 500 Pilea pumila Healthy 5 Upland

Festuca sp.

Commelina communis



Pilea pumila

Carex sp.




Solidago sp.

Carex sp.

Betula nigra

Pilea pumila


GM-3 650 Carpinus caroliniana Even Healthy 3 Upland

Quercus sp.

Carya glabra



Lonicera japonica

Smilax rotundifolia


GM-3 700 Fagus grandifolia Even Healthy 3 Upland

Asimina triloba






Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland



Smilax rotundifolia

GM-5 100 Acer rubrum Even Healthy 4 Upland

Toxicodendron radicans X

Fraxinus sp.


Smilax rotundifolia

GM-5 150 Salix nigra Even X Healthy 5 Wetland


Pilea pumila


Impatiens capensis X

Leersia oryzoides

Microstegium vimineum

GM-5 200 Pilea pumila Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Salix nigra

Carex sp.



Betula nigra

GM-5 250 Betula nigra Even X Healthy 3 Wetland

Pilea pumila

Festuca sp.



Juncus effusus

Pilea pumila

Carex sp.


Cardamine sp.

GM-5 350 Bidens coronata Uneven X Healthy 5 Wetland

Symphyotrichum novae-anliae

Echinochloa crus-galli

GM-5 400 Impatiens capensis Even Healthy 3 Wetland

Pilea pumila

Lysimachia nummularia

Smilax rotundifolia


Fraxinus americana






Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-5 450 Asimina triloba Even X Healthy 4 Upland

Lonicera japonica

Smilax rotundifolia

Campsis radicans

Acer negundo

GM-5 500 Rubus allegheniensis Even X Healthy 5 Upland

Microstegium vimineum

Impatiens capensis


Pilea pumila

GM-5 550 Open Water Uneven Healthy 2 Wetland

Sagitaria latifolia

Pilea pumila X


GM-5 600 Pilea pumila Even Healthy 4 Upland

Toxicodendron radicans X

Festuca sp. (stressed)

GM-5 650 Lindera benzoin Even Healthy 3 Wetland

Acer rubrum

Pilea pumila X

Lonicera japonica

Festuca sp.


Sagitaria latifolia

GM-5 700 Smilax rotundifolia Even Healthy 5 Upland


Acer rubrum

Carex sp.

Lonicera japonica

Campsis radicans

Lindera benzoin

Festuca sp.





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-7 50 Carpinus caroliniana Even X Healthy 4 Upland

Carya glabra


Acer rubrum X

Impatiens capensis

Pilea pumila

Leersia oryzoides

Asimina triloba

GM-7 100 Rubus allegheniensis Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Leersia oryzoides X

Lonicera japonica



Sagitaria latifolia

Impatiens capensis


GM-7 200 Leersia oryzoides Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Scirpus cyperinus

Sagitaria latifolia




Salix nigra



Sparganium sp.

GM-7 350 Sparganium sp. Even X Healthy 4 Wetland

Nuphar lutea

Galium sp.

Lemna minor



Open Water





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland


Sagitaria latifolia

Acer rubrum


Juncus effusus


Galium sp.

Open Water

GM-7 450 Juncus effusus Even Healthy 3 Wetland

Sagitaria latifolia

Leersia oryzoides X

Rosa palustris

Open Water

GM-7 500 Scirpus cyperinus Even Healthy 3 Wetland

Typha latifolia

Fraxinus pennsylvanica

Galium sp.

Sagitaria latifolia

Leersia oryzoides X

Open Water

GM-7 550 Typha latifolia Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Leersia oryzoides X



Galium sp.





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-9 50 Polygonum saggitatum Even Healthy 5 Wetland


Leersia oryzoides X

Bidens coronata

Salix nigra

Impatiens capensis

Erigeron annuus

GM-9 100 Salix nigra Even X Healthy 4 Wetland

Leersia oryzoides


Carya glabra


Garya glabra

Sagitaria latifolia

Bidens coronata

GM-9 200 Polygonum pensylvanicum Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Leersia oryzoides X

Acer rubrum

Sagitaria latifolia

Scirpus cyperinus

Carya glabra

Bidens coronata

Typha latifolia

GM-9 250 Acer rubrum Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Juncus effusus

Typha latifolia

Cyperus esculentus

Leersia oryzoides X

Sagitaria latifolia

GM-9 300 Scirpus cyperinus Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Leersia oryzoides X


Sagitaria latifolia

Acer rubrum


Cyperus esculentus





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland


Salix nigra

Scirpus cyperinus


Sagitaria latifolia

GM-9 400 Rosa palustrus Even Healthy 5 Wetland

Typha latifolia X

Leersia oryzoides X

Bidens coronata

Salix nigra

GM-9 450 Typha latifolia Even X Healthy 5 Wetland

Polygonum pensylvanicum X

Leersia oryzoides


Bidens coronata

Scirpus cyperinus

Sagitaria latifolia


GM-9 600 Scirpus cyperinus Uneven Healthy 2 Wetland

Nuphar lutea

Open Water X

GM-9 650 Nuphar lutea Uneven X Healthy 4 Wetland

Lemna minor





Transect

Number (1000

ft)

Survey

Intervals

(50 ft)


Upland

GM-11 50 Rubus allegheniensis Even X Healthy 5 Wetland




Impatiens capensis

Salix nigra

Leersia oryzoides

100 Open Water Water

APPENDIX B

PHOTOGRAPHIC RECORD

Photographic Record Freshwater Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Wetland area on right bank of transect

FR-1.

Looking upstream at Freshwater Creek

from transect FR-2.

Right bank of transect FR-3. Left bank of transect FR-4.

Looking upstream from transect FR-5. Looking downstream from transect FR-7.

Photographic Record Christopher Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Right bank of transect CH-1, looking

across Christopher Creek.

Transect CH-2, looking towards right

bank.

Transect CH-3. Rock crossing upstream of transect CH-3.

Looking across Christopher Creek to left

bank of CH-4.

Right bank riparian area of transect CH-

5.

Photographic Record Contrary Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Looking towards right bank of transect

CO-1.Transect CO-1 left bank.

Wetland area on left bank of Contrary

Creek, adjacent to transect CO-2.

Looking downstream from right bank of

transect CO-2.

Looking upstream from right bank of

transect CO-2.

Looking upstream from left bank of

transect CO-3.

Photographic Record Contrary Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Looking downstream from transect CO-

3.Transect CO-4

Looking downstream from transect CO-

4.Looking upstream from transect CO-5.

Looking upstream from transect CO-6. Surveying endpoint on right bank of

transect CO-6.

Photographic Record Crafton Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Riparian area at transect CR-2. Riparian area at transect CR-2.

Transit setup at transect CR-4. Left bank endpoint at transect CR-4.

Looking downstream from transect CR-4. Looking upstream from transect CR-4.

Photographic Record Goldmine Creek Lake Study, Dominion Energy September 2007

Left bank of transect GM-2. View of transect GM-3.

View of transect GM-5. Left bank riparian area of transect GM-7.

Right bank riparian area of transect

GM-9.Right bank riparian area of transect

GM-11.

Documents

ATTACHMENT E-2 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORTS: LAKE … · Lake Anna & Waste Heat Treatment Facility Shoreline Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for: Dominion Virginia Power 5000 Dominion