GO2-19-035, Energy Northwest to Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report

Energy Northwest to Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report

ML19044A548
Person / Time
Site:	Columbia
Issue date:	02/07/2019
From:	Khounnala S Energy Northwest
To:	Bumpus S Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Briana Grange 301-415-1042
References
DIC 409.3, GO2-19-035
Download: ML19044A548 (251)

Text

Shannon E. Khounnala Columbia Generating Station P.O. Box 968, MD PE03 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Ph. 509-377-8639 sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com February 7, 2019 GO2-19-035 DIC 409.3 Sonia Bumpus Siting and Compliance Manager Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL ONLY P.O. Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504-7250

Subject:

COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY INTERIM REPORT

References:

GI2-18-096, dated November 19, 2018, from S. Bumpus (EFSEC) to S.

Khounnala (Energy Northwest), Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest (EN), Fish Entrainment Study Updated Schedule, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA002515-1 As per the above reference, the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is required to submit an interim fish entrainment study report by May 1, 2019, to satisfy Condition S12.B of the facilitys National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (No.

WA002515-1). The entrainment characterization study was delayed one year due to mechanical problems with the fish cages. Therefore, the submittal of the final fish entrainment characterization study will also be delayed by one year to May 1, 2020.

Attached for you review is the interim fish entrainment characterization study report. This report will also be submitted electronically to the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) via Ecologys WQWebPortal.

The approved Study Plan for the fish entrainment characterization effort was prepared by Dr. Charles Coutant. Dr. Coutant conducted a peer review and provided comments during the preparation of this interim report.

Energy Northwest is not requesting agency comments on the information provided in this report. If comments are received on the interim report, they will be incorporated into the final report, which is due by May 1, 2020.

I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Please contact WK Whitehead at (509) 377-8794 or wkwhitehead@energy-northwest.com if you require any additional information regarding this submittal.

Sincerely, 07/02/19 11:56:21 -08:00 X

Khounnala, Shannon E. , Environme Shannon E. Khounnala Environmental and Regulatory Programs Manager SEK/nb

Attachment:

CGS Entrainment Study Interim Report - FINAL.pdf cc: Amy Moon (EFSEC)

Ellie Ott (Ecology)

Ritchie Graves (NMFS) Ritchie.graves@noaa.gov Lynne Krasnow (NOAA) lynne.krasnow@noaa.gov Briana Grange (NRC) briana.grange@nrc.gov NRC Document Control Desk endangeredspecies.resources@nrc.gov Larissa Rohrbach (Anchor QEA) lrohrbach@anchorqea.com Charles Coutant ccoutant3@comcast.net INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: FILE COPY SEK/lb M. Ramos (PE03) Columbia Files 964Y M. Schmitt (PE03) C. ODonnell (PE03) Docket File PE20

January 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report Prepared for Energy Northwest

January 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report Prepared for Prepared by Energy Northwest Anchor QEA, LLC P.O. Box 989 23 South Wenatchee Avenue, Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 Wenatchee, Washington 98801 Project Number: 171376-01.01

\\wenatchee1\wenatchee\Projects\Energy_Northwest\04-Deliverables\2018 Preliminary Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Study Schedule..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Historical Fish Occurrence ..................................................................................................... 13 3 Fish Entrainment Sampling ................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Cage Efficacy Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Fish Impingement, Debris Monitoring, and Water Elevation Differential .................................. 17 4 Data Summaries and Analyses ............................................................................................ 22 4.1 Columbia River Flow Rate ............................................................................................................................. 25 4.1.1 Seasonal Climatic Trends............................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Priest Rapids Dam Total Discharge Flow ................................................................................. 25 4.2 Columbia River Temperature ....................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Columbia Generating Station Tower Make-Up System Data.......................................................... 30 4.3.1 Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation: Pump 1A, Pump 1B, Pump 1C ..................... 30 4.3.2 Circulating Water Make-Up Flow ............................................................................................... 31 4.3.3 River Level at Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ......................................... 32 4.3.4 Change in River Elevation.............................................................................................................. 34 4.4 Columbia Generating Station Meteorological Data ........................................................................... 35 5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38 6 References ................................................................................................................................ 39 TABLES Table 1 2018 Final Entrainment Sampling and Cage Efficacy Schedule........................................... 10 Table 2 2019 Anticipated Sampling Schedule ............................................................................................. 12 Table 3 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month ........................................................................ 15 Table 4 Entrained Fish Summary, 2018 ........................................................................................................... 16 Interim Report i January 2019

Table 5 2018 Cage Efficacy Testing Summary ............................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Entrained Debris Summary .................................................................................................................. 18 Table 7 Differences in Pumphouse to Columbia River Water Depth ................................................ 21 Table 8 2018 Entrainment Sampling Event Summary .............................................................................. 23 Table 9 Priest Rapids Dam Flow and Water Temperature Data in 2018, Summarized by Study Week ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 10 Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Requirements for Priest Rapids Dam Flow Operations 2017 to 2018.................................................................... 29 Table 11 Minimum Priest Rapids Dam Flow Pertaining to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Section C.3.b.6 ........................................................................ 29 Table 12 Summary of Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation, 2018............................................. 31 Table 13 Weekly Summary of Columbia Generating Station Circulating Water System Make-Up Flow............................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 14 Monthly Average Water Depth Above Columbia Generating Station Intakes ............. 34 Table 15 Meteorological Data at Columbia Generating Station in 2018, Summarized by Study Week ................................................................................................................................................. 36 FIGURES Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 Schematic of the Fish Entrainment Sampling Cage and Platform at the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse......................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Sampling Cage with Gap-Bridging Insert ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge............................................................................................................ 14 Figure 6 Water Elevation Differential Between the Columbia River and Tower Make-Up System Pumphouse, 2018 .................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Hourly Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Flow Volume, 2018 ................................ 20 Figure 8 Priest Rapids Dam Discharge and Temperature with Entrainment Sampling Dates and Fall Chinook Salmon Life Stages .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 9 Columbia River Water Elevation and Clearance to Columbia Generating Station Intakes ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10 Actual and Hypothetical Stage-Discharge for Columbia Generating Station Pumphouse Reach of Columbia River ............................................................................................ 35 Interim Report ii January 2019

APPENDICES Appendix A 2014 Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington Appendix B Sampling and Analysis Protocol Appendix C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Transport Application/Permit Appendix D Energy Northwests Request Letter to EFSEC for Updated Fish Entrainment Schedule and EFSEC Schedule Approval Letter Appendix E Fish Entrainment Study Raw Data Appendix F Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Interim Report iii January 2019

ABBREVIATIONS CGS Columbia Generating Station EFSEC Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council fps feet per second gpm gallons per minute HRFCPPA Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement kcfs thousand cubic feet per second m /s 3

cubic meters per second MGD million gallons per day mm millimeter mmHg millimeter of mercury NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Plan Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory RKM river kilometer RM river mile SAP Sampling and Analysis Protocol SD standard deviation TMU Tower Make-Up System TSE Total Seasonal Entrainment WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Interim Report iv January 2019

Executive Summary Energy Northwests Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located adjacent to the Columbia River near river mile (RM) 352 (river kilometer 566) approximately 5 miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington. The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches and The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1). The Hanford Reach is heavily used by spawning fall run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and some steelhead (O. mykiss).

A reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests CGS was published in 2014 by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. During consultation for the reissuance of the NPDES permit, questions were raised about whether the CGSs water intake structure located in the Columbia River would impinge or entrain fish. To address concerns regarding fish entrainment, NPDES Condition S12.B was included requiring CGS to prepare an entrainment characterization study that includes a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study. A Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington (Plan; Coutant 2014; Appendix A) was developed to guide the implementation of the fish entrainment study.

The intent of this interim report is to describe the results for the first year of the fish entrainment study, which began in the spring of 2018. In addition to describing the methodology used to conduct the 2-year fish entrainment study in a Sampling Analysis Protocol, provided in Appendix B, a review of existing literature has been drafted to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement. The Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review of the Hanford Reach is briefly summarized in this interim report with the full literature review attached as Appendix F.

In addition to monitoring fish entrainment, the risks of fish impingement associated with the two 42-inch (107-centimeter)-diameter cylindrical T-screen intake units currently used to withdraw water from the Columbia River is under investigation. Of particular interest are the risks posed to downstream-migrating juvenile salmonids. Energy Northwest contracted Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., to analyze the physical flow patterns (i.e., velocity and pressure fields) around the intake screens using 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling reported in Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station (Alden 2018). The modeling provides supporting evidence that a bow wave at the upstream end of the cylindrical intake screens could hydraulically deflect fish and stimulate screen avoidance behavior by fish. Thus, there is low likelihood of impingement in nearly all of several river flow and direction cases due to the generally high ratio of tangential (sweeping) flow in the boundary layer very near the screen to normal (approach) flow toward the screen pores.

Interim Report ES-1 January 2019

Weekly fish entrainment sampling was conducted from early April to June and approximately every other week from July through mid-September in 2018. High river conditions during late May and early June 2018 prohibited routine entrainment sampling and postponed one cage efficacy test to late June 2018.

Across all 13 routine fish entrainment sampling events, a total of two fish were entrained and retrieved from the sampling cages. These included a fall run Chinook salmon fry recovered on May 3, 2018, and a Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) ammocoete recovered on June 22, 2018.

Cage efficacy testing confirmed that efficacy was high (greater than 80%). For 2018, each sampling event represented approximately a 24-hour sample period. Entrainment rates will be calculated at the end of the second year of study following the methods outlined in the Sampling and Analysis Protocol (Appendix B).

The Plan also calls for studies to demonstrate whether any clogging of the make-up water intake screens occurs by debris and associated fish impingement (Coutant 2014). The two CGS intake structures were visually inspected in-situ using underwater video on individual days in June 2016, October 2017, and September 2018. Algae biofouling was noted with greater than 50% of the screen area covered by algae or other debris in each event. No fish were observed in the vicinity of the intake structures and no impingement of fish or shellfish was observed during any of the events.

Clogging of screen pores can also cause a short-term draw down of water level in the Tower Make-Up System (TMU) pumphouse, observed as a differential in water elevation of the Columbia River at the intake screens compared to water level within the TMU system pumphouse. Hourly water elevation differential between the river and the pumphouse was variable during the 2018 fish entrainment monitoring period, but corresponded closely with the pattern of increasing and decreasing make-up flow, suggesting that head differential was closely related to changes in pump flow volume. There was no evidence in the hourly head differential data to suggest any blockage of the intake structure occurred during the study period.

Debris entrained in the sampling cages during fish entrainment testing in 2018 was routinely monitored. Debris type and volume varied throughout the season and included algae clumps, sediment, aquatic insect larvae, and sponge-like material. In general, light to medium amounts of debris were observed during the sampling.

Columbia River flow, water temperature, and meteorological data during the 2018 field season are summarized in this report along with CGS operational data.

Based on the Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review on entrainment risk, a conservative assumption is that some risk exists for some species, even though the CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish. Periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable Interim Report ES-2 January 2019

species are present in highest abundance from March through September. Though hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity year-round, risk of encountering the intake may increase late in the year when submergence depths may fail to meet National Marine Fisheries Service criteria of greater than one screen radius, or 1.75 feet.

Field studies conducted in 2018 represent the first of 2 years of study. The preliminary findings suggest that fish entrainment was extremely rare, and that biofouling of the intake screens had no effect on intake screen flow in ways that that would increase the risk of entrainment or impingement to fish. Complete fish entrainment rate results and conclusions based on 2 years of study will be developed for the final report following the 2019 field season.

Interim Report ES-3 January 2019

1 Introduction Energy Northwests Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is a boiling-water nuclear power plant located in south-central Washington State in Benton Country, approximately 5 miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington, that became operational in December 1984. The CGS is located adjacent to the Columbia River near river mile (RM) 352 (river kilometer 566). The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches.

The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1) is heavily used by spawning fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and some steelhead (O. mykiss).

On September 30, 2014, the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) published a reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.

WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests CGS. The final permit, effective November 1, 2014, was the result of consultations between EFSEC and interested agencies, including the Washington Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Concerns were raised by NMFS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about potential entrainment and impingement of fish given the existing screens are not designed to their criteria. NMFS and WDFW were especially concerned about the potential risk to Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmonids. The existing intake screens were installed using a design developed prior to the formal development of NMFS engineering design criteria (NMFS 2011).

To address NMFS and WDFWs concerns regarding fish entrainment, NPDES Condition S12.B was included in the final permit that became effective on November 1, 2014, requiring CGS to prepare an entrainment characterization study design and submit it to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015.

The Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington (Plan; Coutant 2014; Appendix A) was submitted to EFSEC in October 2015. EFSEC approved the study plan in June 2016. The approved plan described the general methods for a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study. The study was scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017 and to be completed in the fall of 2018. As per NPDES Condition S12.B the final report was to be submitted to EFSEC by May 1, 2019. Due to unforeseen mechanical problems with the fish entrainment cages, fish retention in the cages (cage efficacy) was low and the start of the study was delayed 1 year. In 2017, EFSEC was informed of the delay and CGS staff spent several months throughout 2017 and early 2018 retrofitting the sampling equipment to ensure that cage efficacy rates of 80% or better were attained for both sampling cages. In January 2018, Energy Northwest requested from EFSEC that the fish entrainment schedule be updated so that the study could begin in the spring of 2018 and be completed in the fall of 2019, with the final study report to be submitted by May 1, 2020. EFSEC approved the updated entrainment study schedule in November Interim Report 1 January 2019

2018, with the stipulation that an interim report be submitted by May 1, 2019. The intent of this interim report is to describe the results for the first year of the fish entrainment study, which began in the spring of 2018. In addition to describing the methodology used to conduct the 2-year fish entrainment study, the Plan also outlined the need for a review of existing literature to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement. The Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review of the Hanford Reach is briefly summarized in this interim report with the full review attached as Appendix F.

To satisfy NMFS requirements, Energy Northwest agreed to investigate the risks of fish impingement associated with the two 42-inch (1.07 meter) diameter cylindrical T-screen intake units currently used to withdraw water from the Columbia River for cooling operations at CGS. Of particular interest are the risks posed to downstream-migrating juvenile salmonids. Energy Northwest contracted Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., to analyze the physical flow patterns (i.e., velocity and pressure fields) around the intake screens using 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. The modeling provides tentative biological interferences when the modeled velocity and pressure fields are compared to known responses of fish published in the scientific literature. The modelling effort used a two-phased approach in which the first phase focused on simulating larger-scale (screen body-scale) dynamics around the intake structures and the second phase focused on simulating smaller-scale (fish-scale) dynamics in the turbulent boundary layer over several individual holes of perforated screen areas. The two phases are referred to as global and near-field models, respectively. The global model supports evidence from other studies that a bow wave at the upstream end of the cylindrical intake screens could provide pressure and velocity changes that act hydraulically to divert fish away from the screen and as stimuli for fishs active screen avoidance behavior. The global model results also showed that oblique flow of the river (sweeping flow) compresses of the boundary layer to within a few inches of the screen on the up-current face and expands the layer on the leeward side to a few feet where the layer blends with the wake region. In terms of impingement risk, the up-current face of the upstream screen and the leeward face of the downstream screen are associated with the highest potential risk (due to high approach velocity and low sweeping velocity, respectively). However, the near-field model suggests low likelihood of entrainment or impingement in nearly all of multiple model-input cases due to the generally high ratio of tangential (sweeping) flow in the boundary layer to normal (approach) flow toward the screen pores and low approach velocities through the pores over most of the screen area for most river conditions. Concentrated inflow regions resulting from non-uniformity in through-screen flow produced some local minor exceedances of approach velocity thresholds given in NMFS guidelines (NMFS 2011). For details, see report entitled, Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station (Alden 2018).

This Interim Report for the Fish Entrainment Study describes the entrainment monitoring conducted at CGS in 2018. Sampling conducted in 2018 represent the first of 2 years of study. Because the Interim Report 2 January 2019

results are preliminary, the report provides no formal conclusions; these will be developed based on results of both years of monitoring. The report represents an interim progress report on entrainment and debris field monitoring, methods, and results to date including operations, flow, and other environmental data associated with field monitoring, per the requirements of NPDES Permit Condition S12.B.2.b. This report also includes a summary of the review of existing literature to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement (Section 2), the complete findings of which can be found in the Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review (Anchor QEA 2018; Appendix F).

1.1 Site Description Entrainment and cage efficacy sampling were conducted at the CGS make-up water pumphouse building, located at river kilometer (RKM) 566 (RM 352) on the Columbia River, approximately 300 feet (91 meters) shoreward of the rivers normal high-water mark. The general layout of the pumphouse, intake pipes, and intake screens is depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

The pumphouse houses three make-up water pumps situated in a pump well, with two pumps typically in use. Water is gravity-fed into the pump well via two intake structures consisting of two 36-inch (91-centimeter)-diameter buried pipes that extend 900 feet (274 meters) from the pumphouse to the river channel. Water is then pumped from the pump well by the 800-horsepower make-up water pumps designed to each supply 12,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (0.79 cubic meters per second [m3/s] or 9 million gallons per day [MGD]) or half the system capacity at design head.

Two pumps can supply make-up water to the plant with a withdrawal capacity of 25,000 gpm (1.58 m3/s or 36 MGD) but during normal operating periods, the average make-up-water withdrawal is about 17,000 gpm 1.1 m3/s or 24.48 MGD). Actual withdrawal rates vary seasonally and hourly.

An intake structure is located at the end of each of the buried pipes. The pipes make a 90-degree, upward bend and extend slightly above the surface of the riverbed (Figure 1). Attached to each of the pipes is a 30-foot (9-meter)-long, cylindrical screen housing mounted above the riverbed and approximately parallel to the river flow. Each cylinder is composed of two intake screens each 6.5-feet (2-meters)-long and mounted upstream and downstream of a central chamber attached to the buried pipe. Solid cones cap each end of the dual-screen structure. The screens consist of an outer and inner sleeve of perforated pipe. The outer sleeve (forming the wall of the cylinder) is 42 inches (107 centimeters) in diameter with 0.375-inch (9.5-millimeter [mm]) holes comprising 40%

of the surface area. The inner sleeve is a 36-inch (91-centimeter)-diameter cylinder with 0.75-inch (19-mm) holes comprising 7% of the surface area. The double-sleeve intake screens are designed to distribute water flow into the structure evenly along its outer surface.

Interim Report 3 January 2019

Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse Building Notes: Drawings are not to scale and are intended to highlight the general orientation of the facility relative to the intakes and screens.

Large blue arrows depict the direction of pumped water conveyed through the pumphouse building.

Interim Report 4 January 2019

Figure 2 Schematic of the Fish Entrainment Sampling Cage and Platform at the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse The pumphouse building has two levels: an upper level, referred to here as the Entry Level; and a lower level where sampling occurs, referred to here as the Sampling Platform (Figure 2). Fish entrainment sampling occurs on the sampling platform. Two identical sampling cages are suspended in the intake pump well at the termination of the buried pipes leading from the intake structures in the river (Figures 1 and 2) (Mudge et al. 1981). Each cage is approximately 5.8-feet (1.5-meters) long, 5-feet (1.52 meters) high, and 3.5-feet (1.07-meters) wide. Each cage has a 11.5-square foot (1.07-square meter) door for coupling with the 36-inch intake pipe openings. The cages have an aluminum frame and door, while the remainder is made of woven stainless-steel wire mesh with 2.0-mm square Interim Report 5 January 2019

openings. Initial investigations in 2017 identified gaps between the cage door openings and the sluice gates at the end of intake pipes, allowing fish to escape the cages. Cages were retrofitted with engineered inserts that extend out from the cages doors to bridge the gap between the cage doors and intake pipe outlets and provide a close seal with the incoming pipe from the river (Figure 3).

Inserts are configured to rest inside the cage doors while they are being lowered or raised. Each cage insert is equipped with brushes around the outer edge of the insert that adjoin to the uneven surface of the sluice gate when the insert is extended.

Figure 3 Sampling Cage with Gap-Bridging Insert Note: Cage is shown with door removed. Added gap-bridging insert provides a close seal with incoming pipe from the river.

The cages are lowered individually approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the water of the pumphouse sump using electric winches to the sampling position in direct alignment with the sluice Interim Report 6 January 2019

gates of the intake pipes. As the cage nears the intake pipe sluice gates the cage door abuts against a fixed stop-block that causes the door to automatically open as the body of the cage continues to descend into position. Once cages are in position at the termination of the intake pipes and cage doors are fully open, the inserts are immediately extended by manually pulling a cable attached to the insert, bridging the gap between the cage doors and sluice gates. A separate cable is used to retract the cage insert immediately prior to closing the doors and raising the cage to the surface. As the cage is raised from the vault, the cage door automatically closes.

1.2 Study Objectives The objective of this study is to quantify fish entrainment through the CGS intake structures over 2 years of monitoring. The 9.5-mm (0.375-inch) openings of the outer screens of the intake structures are potentially large enough to entrain early life stages of several fish species including fall Chinook salmon and Pacific lamprey (Anchor QEA 2018; Appendix F). The environmental conditions that may influence fish entrainment, such as river flow in the adjacent Columbia River, are also monitored in coordination with fish entrainment sampling.

1.3 Study Methodology The Sampling and Analysis Protocol (SAP; Appendix B) provides detailed descriptions of the mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures and documentation, and health and safety protocols associated with the entrainment monitoring and other sampling conducted at CGS in 2018. Further details for safe and effective handing of sampled fish is described in Tower Make-Up System (TMU) Fish Cages - Operational Considerations (EN 2018). A short summary of the sampling methods used is provided below.

Two sampling cages were used during entrainment sampling. The cages were individually lowered and raised into position in front of the intake pipes. The cages were designated as Cage 1 and Cage 2 based on the south-north orientation depicted in Figure 4.

Interim Report 7 January 2019

Figure 4 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform South North According to the studys sampling schedule, CGS staff lowered both sampling cages from the Sampling Platform approximately 35 feet into the pumphouse sump directly in alignment with the openings of the inlet pipes. The cage doors automatically opened to allow access to the cages for any fish entrained in the intake pipes. A field data form located on the Entry Level was used to record the date and time that each cage was lowered into the pumphouse sump. Field data for the first year of the study are provided in Appendix E.

After a 24-hour sampling period, Anchor QEA staff met with CGS staff at the pumphouse to conduct fish retrieval and sampling activities. Fish identification and other sampling activities were conducted at a sampling station on the Entry Level of the pumphouse. One sampling cage at a time was raised to retrieve any fish present. If no fish were observed in Cage 1 or when counting was completed for Cage 1, Cage 2 was raised and the identical protocol was followed. Once sampling was completed, Anchor QEA and CGS staff visually inspected the cages to ensure cage integrity for the next test date.

Fish retrieved from the sampling cages were transferred from a 5-gallon bucket to a container with Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS-222) to be euthanized and the following data were recorded:

• Identification of species and life stage

• Weight (grams)

• Fork Length (mm)

• Description of any outward signs of damage or disease Interim Report 8 January 2019

In addition to monitoring fish entrainment, the Plan calls for studies to demonstrate any clogging of the water intake screens by debris and associated fish impingement (Coutant 2014). CFD modelling suggests low likelihood of impingement due to the generally high ratio of sweeping flow in the boundary layer to approach flow toward screen pores (Alden 2018). There is, however, variation in this ratio among modeled locations on the screen unit and with angle of incident river flow that suggest variations in impingement risk across the screen units.

To demonstrate whether the clogging of pores could affect through-screen (approach) velocities of non-clogged pores in a way that influences fish impingement, the intake screens were periodically inspected and water level elevation in the pumphouse was constantly monitored for evidence of a sudden drawdown that could result from clogged pores. The two CGS intake structures were inspected in situ by Mainstem Fish Research, LLC, along with Energy Northwest Environmental Services personnel using a GoPro digital camera. The structures were then cleaned and re-inspected in accordance with NPDES permit condition S12.A.3 and in support of permit condition S12.B.

Cleaning was conducted using a 2,500-psi pressure washer fitted with a 6-foot wand. CGS Operations personnel isolated one intake structure at a time before the perforated sections were cleaned and videoed. The Plan also specifies the need to compare hourly water elevations of the river and in the pumphouse well to identify any abnormal differential that could be attributed to clogging of the intake screens.

Throughout this report, environmental data such as water elevations are depicted in plots of the hourly data or as mean weekly or monthly conditions, where appropriate. Standard deviation (SD) is reported to illustrate the spread in the data, reported as one SD around the mean, which represents the majority (68.2%) of the data points, assuming the data are normally distributed.

1.4 Study Schedule As discussed with the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Energy Northwest began the fish entrainment characterization study in spring 2017; however, mechanical issues associated with the operation of the fish cages caused concern about capture efficiency (the efficacy of the cages for capturing and retaining fish). It was discovered that there was a gap between each fish entrainment cage and the sluice gate at the outlet of the intake pipe that was wide enough for entrained fish or any fish placed in a cage during an efficacy test to easily escape into the TMU vault. To address this issue, Energy Northwest spent several months in 2017 observing the operation of the fish cages and engineering cage retrofits. Successful trials were conducted to ensure that fish capture and retention was adequate for both cages. The first year of the 2-year entrainment characterization study then began in spring 2018 (Table 1).

Interim Report 9 January 2019

Table 1 2018 Final Entrainment Sampling and Cage Efficacy Schedule Sampling Dates Start Finish Notes Tuesday, April 3, 2018 Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Thursday, April 5, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Thursday, April 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Thursday, April 19, 2018 Routine Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Thursday, April 26, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Thursday, May 3, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Thursday, May 10, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Thursday, May 17, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Thursday, May 17, 2018 Friday, May 18, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Thursday, May 24, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Thursday, June 7, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 20, 2018 Thursday, June 21, 2018 Routine Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Cage Efficacy (Make-Up) + Routine Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Thursday, June 28, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up (Make-Up) + Routine Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Thursday, July 12, 2018 Routine Cage Efficacy (Cage 2 Only) + Routine Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Wednesday, July 18, 2018 (Make-Up)

Efficacy Follow-Up (Cage 2 Only) + Routine Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Thursday, July 19, 2018 (Make-Up)

Wednesday, August 1, 2018 Thursday, August 2, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, August 29, 2018 Thursday, August 30, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018 Adjusted Routine From early-April to mid-June 2018, routine entrainment sampling was scheduled to occur once per week. Additionally, three separate cage efficacy tests were scheduled to be conducted concurrently with routine sampling on dates that span the typical fall-Chinook salmon emergence period.

However, high river conditions during late May and early June 2018 prohibited routine entrainment sampling and postponed one cage efficacy test to late June 2018 due to the pumphouse sampling platform being underwater (Table 1).

Interim Report 10 January 2019

In 2018, water elevation in the river and pumphouse exceeded the capacity of CGS gauges during the extremely high spring run-off conditions experienced from early-May to early-June, resulting in a period from May 6 to June 6 during which water elevation data may be inaccurate for the pumphouse vault and the river adjacent to the site. Water elevation data are reported here to illustrate the severity of the environmental conditions; however, the potential inaccuracy above the gauge threshold is noted.

In addition, at approximately 7 AM on May 18, 2018, CGS was disconnected from the power grid (SCRAM) due to a problem with the No. 1 transformer. The plant was offline for 6 days and synched back with the grid at approximately 11 AM on May 24, 2018, at 65% power output. At the request of the Bonneville Power Administration, the plant operated at 65% power until June 10, 2018, due to surplus power production at nearby hydropower dams caused by the high river water levels. This period of reduced power output corresponds with reduced demand for make-up flow.

From July to early-September 2018, routine entrainment sampling was scheduled to occur once every other week; however, additional sample dates were added, and the routine sampling schedule was adjusted to compensate for the sample dates that were not conducted from May 16 to June 6, 2018, due to the high river conditions. Additionally, a follow-up cage efficacy test on Cage 2 was conducted from July 17, to 19, 2018, to confirm that cage efficacy was adequate.

For all sampling, CGS staff deployed the cages on Wednesday mornings at approximately 9:00 AM and cage retrieval occurred 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> later on Thursday mornings.

In 2019, routine entrainment and cage efficacy sampling will occur from mid-March to September; mid-March through June sampling will be weekly whereas during the July to early September period, sampling will occur once every other week. Anticipated sampling dates are listed in Table 2. There will be no field sampling activities from approximately May 11 to June 15, 2019, to accommodate a planned maintenance outage. Every 2 years CGS shuts down to conduct routine maintenance throughout the facility. During the maintenance outage, the cooling towers are taken out of service and the amount of water pumped from the river is drastically reduced to a flow level that would make sampling impossible. Exact outage dates are subject to change, and specific sampling dates will be identified closer to the 2019 sampling period to align with CGS operations.

Interim Report 11 January 2019

Table 2 2019 Anticipated Sampling Schedule Sampling Dates1 Start Finish Notes Tuesday, March 12, 2019 Wednesday, March 13, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, March 13, 2019 Thursday, March 14, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, March 20, 2019 Thursday, March 21, 2019 Routine Wednesday, March 27, 2019 Thursday, March 28, 2019 Routine Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Thursday, April 4, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, April 10, 2019 Thursday, April 11, 2019 Routine Wednesday, April 17, 2019 Thursday, April 18, 2019 Routine Tuesday, April 23, 2019 Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Thursday, April 25, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, May 1, 2019 Thursday, May 2, 2019 Routine Wednesday, May 8, 2019 Thursday, May 9, 2019 Routine Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Thursday, May 16, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, May 22, 2019 Thursday, May 23, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Thursday, May 30, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Thursday, June 6, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 12, 2019 Thursday, June 13, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 26, 2019 Thursday, June 27, 2019 Routine Wednesday, July 10, 2019 Thursday, July 11, 2019 Routine Wednesday, July 24, 2019 Thursday, July 25, 2019 Routine Wednesday, August 7, 2019 Thursday, August 8, 2019 Routine Wednesday, August 21, 2019 Thursday, August 22, 2019 Routine Wednesday, September 4, 2019 Thursday, September 5, 2019 Routine Wednesday, September 18, 2019 Thursday, September 19, 2019 Routine Note:

1. Contingency sampling will occur if more than 20 individual fish are captured during a routine sampling session. Contingency sampling consists of immediate redeployment of the sampling cages for two sequential 12-hour day and night periods and is meant to identify any diel variation in entrainment.

2. The sampling schedule is contingent on plant operation and subject to change. Sampling will be suspended from mid-May to mid-June of 2019 for a scheduled reactor outage.

Interim Report 12 January 2019

2 Historical Fish Occurrence Per the Plan (Coutant 2014), a Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review (Anchor QEA 2018) was prepared that provides a literature review on fish species present in the Hanford Reach, factors that determine fish entrainment, entrainment risk at CGS, and a review of historical spring river elevations and discharges.

Figure 5 shows the seasonal presence of the species identified to be at highest risk of encountering the CGS intake based on overlapping habitat preference for mid-channel or benthic habitat with river conditions and fish size. A conservative assumption is that some risk exists for these species even though the CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish. Periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable species are present in highest abundance from March through September, highlighted in yellow in Figure 5. Though hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity year-round, risk of encountering the intake may also increase late in the year when submergence depths may fail to meet NMFS criteria of greater than one screen radius, or 1.75 feet, highlighted in orange in Figure 5.

Concerns were raised by NMFS and WDFW about risk of entrainment and impingement to Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmonids. Those migrating from upstream spawning and nursery areas include the upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (Endangered), upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened), Wenatchee and Okanogan sockeye salmon (O. nerka; not listed), and coho salmon (O. kisutch; coho salmon are unlisted, but currently a reintroduction effort exists to reverse historical extirpation from the middle and upper Columbia River Basin). Typically, migratory smolts originating from the upper Columbia River Basin (upstream of Hanford Reach) are a size that would exclude them from becoming entrained through the CGS intake screens (greater than 75 mm). In addition, smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin tend to behave in ways that greatly minimize their risk of impingement: their peak emigration timing is in spring and summer, concurrent with peak sweeping velocities (shown in Figure 5); they tend to migrate near the surface, placing them approximately 7 to 12 feet from the intake screens at this time of year; and they would have burst swimming capacities greater than 2.5 feet per second (fps; Taylor and McPhail 1985),

which greatly exceed the bulk flow approach velocities of 0.07 fps through the CGS intakes. Based on these biological factors, the risk of entrainment or impingement to migrating smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin is negligible for the CGS intake structures.

Salmon and steelhead that emerge and rear within the Hanford Reach have higher potential risk due to their small size and potential exposure to the intake during early development. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook salmon are the salmonid species at highest risk due to their proximity and abundance near the CGS intakes. Table 3 shows determining factors of entrainment that are evaluated individually relative to the biological characteristics of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon (discussed in detail in Interim Report 13 January 2019

of the Historical Occurrence report, Appendix F) to characterize the level of risk created by each individual factor. The entrainment factors that create the most risk for fall Chinook salmon are their presence in proximity to the intake structure, their habitat preference that causes them to move away from nearshore areas as they grow, and their small size relative to the external screen pore size.

These characteristics put fall Chinook salmon at relatively higher risk in April and May when large numbers of fry are both small in size and starting to move away from nearshore areas.

Entrainment factors that effectively minimize the risk to fall Chinook salmon are facilitated by orientation of the intake in a relatively high-velocity, mid-channel location, parallel to flow that creates sweeping velocities that exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 10. It can also be assumed that fall Chinook salmon can effectively avoid entrainment given their ability to sense rapid changes in acceleration and burst swimming capacity that also exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 10.

Figure 5 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge Notes:

• Eggs may drift, or larvae have a drifting pelagic phase vulnerable to entrainment by the CGS intake Mean Daily Discharge shows the daily mean discharge below Priest Rapids Dam with each day represented by a black dot and the overall seasonal trend represented by the blue line. Data were collected from January 1975 through January 2016.

Interim Report 14 January 2019

Table 3 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month Risk Level Created by Each Determining Factor of Entrainment by Month Entrainment Factor Review of Literature Summary Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Presence in Hanford Fry emerge from mid-March through mid-May, redistribute to shallow Reach nearshore areas through early summer, and migrate downstream from early M H H H H M L June through mid-August.

Habitat Preference Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet L L H H H H H and velocities between 0.6 to 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas, but can be found across the entire river channel and water column.

Fish Size 37 to 44 mm at emergence, 70 to 110 mm by early June, and 105 to 125 mm H H H M M L L by mid-August Hydraulic Bypass Mean sweeping velocity ranges from 4 to 5 fps during the months that emerging fry and subyearlings are present and exceeds the typical bulk flow L L L L L L L approach velocity of 0.07 fps by at least a factor of 50.

Behavioral Avoidance Burst swimming capacity of 3.5 fps exceeds the typical approach velocity of L L L L L L L 0.07 fps by a factor of 50.

Exclusion Salmon larger than approximately 75 mm excluded from outer screen pores H H H M L L L that are 9.5 mm in diameter. Most subyearlings reach 75 mm by June.

Sweep-Off or Sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocities contribute to sweep-off.

Impingement Blocked screen pores may contribute to higher and uneven approach velocities L L L L M M M and increase the potential for impingement; river debris is likely to be swept off; however, biofouling of screen pores may increase across the summer.

Combination of All Low risk for one factor negates the risk posed by subsequent factors L L L L L L L Entrainment Factors Note:

Each entrainment risk factor and relevant biological characteristic is briefly summarized on the left-hand side of the table, and the relative level of risk is shown on the right side of the table, by month, as red, yellow, and green, representing the range from high (H), to moderate (M), to low (L) risk. The overall risk created by the combination of entrainment factors is depicted in the bottom row, representing the outcome of the sequence of entrainment factors.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 15 January 2019

3 Fish Entrainment Sampling Fish entrainment sampling conducted from early April to mid-September in 2018 resulted in a total of two fish being entrained and retrieved from the sampling cages. These included a Chinook salmon fry recovered during the 24-hour sampling event that occurred from May 2, to May 3, 2018, and a Pacific lamprey ammocoete recovered during the June 21 to June 22 sampling event (Table 4).

The Chinook salmon fry was of a size consistent with the fall-run stock that originates from the Hanford Reach. Fall-run Chinook salmon are known to be abundant near the CGS intake structure from mid-March to mid-July (Anchor QEA 2018). Based on the most recent available data, WDFW estimated the number of Hanford Reach fry to be approximately 56.4 million in 2017. Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet, and velocities between 0.6 and 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas, but can be found across the entire river channel and water column. Fall-run Chinook salmon are not a listed species but are native in origin and are a species of interest for this study.

Pacific lamprey ammocoetes are present in the reach year-round and prefer mid-channel benthic habitat for rearing. Pacific lamprey are a native fish and are federally listed as a Species of Concern (WDFW 2008).

Table 4 Entrained Fish Summary, 2018 Sampling Length Weight Protected Abundance and Habitat Event Date Species Life Stage (mm) (gram) Status Description May 2-3 Chinook salmon Juvenile 37 0.4 Species of Abundant near the CGS intake (Oncorhynchus (Age 0) interest to structure from mid-March to tshawytscha) the study mid-July and use mid-channel and nearshore habitat for rearing June 20-21 Pacific Lamprey Ammocoete 129 3.7 Species of Potentially common near the (Lampetra Concern CGS intake structure year-tridentata) (Federal) round and make use of mid-channel and benthic habitat for rearing 3.1 Cage Efficacy Testing Three trials were conducted in 2018 to evaluate the efficacy of the sampling cages for capturing and retaining fish (Table 5). The purpose of these trials is to create a correction factor that can be applied to the seasonal entrainment estimate to account for less than 100% fish retention. Hatchery reared juvenile steelhead (O. mykiss) placed in sampling cages and the percent remaining after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was recorded, following protocols described in the SAP. Test fish were obtained from Interim Report 16 January 2019

Ringold/Meseberg Hatchery in Mesa, Washington, per WDFW Fish Transport Application/Permit No.

7675-01-05-18 (Appendix C).

Table 5 2018 Cage Efficacy Testing Summary Start Date End Date Cage Efficacy Percent 1 (South) 91 Tuesday, April 3, 2018 Wednesday, April 4, 2018 2 (North) 88 1 (South) 94 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2 (North) 94 1 (South) 86 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2 (North) 49 1 (South) Not Tested Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2 (North) 86 Seven cage efficacy values were obtained in 2018 (Table 5). The cage efficacy testing confirmed that cage efficacy was generally high (greater than 80%). Also, efficacy rates between the two replicate cages were similar except for June 27. The low efficacy of Cage 2 on June 27 followed 5 weeks of high water that submerged the sampling cages. The efficacy of Cage 2 was restored by modifying cable attachments following the high-water event.

Three additional cage efficacy trials will occur during the 2019 sampling effort. Each trial will include an efficacy test for both the north and south cages for a total of six cage efficacy values.

3.2 Fish Impingement, Debris Monitoring, and Water Elevation Differential Visual inspection of the CGS intake for debris and signs of fish and shellfish impingement occurred on June 16, 2016, October 13, 2017, and September 17, 2018. A GoPro digital camera was used to record underwater video of both outer intake screens and structures. Algae biofouling was noted in the perforated and non-perforated areas of both intake structures during each inspection event.

Visual estimation of the perforated area covered by algae was greater than 50% based on a post-monitoring visual assessment of images taken of the perforated areas. No fish were observed in the vicinity of the intake structures, and no impingement of fish or shellfish was observed during any inspection event.

Debris entrained in the sampling cages during fish entrainment testing was routinely monitored.

Debris type and volume varied throughout the season and included algae clumps, sediment, larval Interim Report 17 January 2019

aquatic insects, and sponge-like material (Table 6). In general, light to medium amounts of debris were observed during the sampling.

Table 6 Entrained Debris Summary Field Effort Date Description Cage Efficacy 4/6/2017 Debris (algae clumps) sorted and thoroughly inspected Cage Efficacy 5/12/2017 Debris (algae clumps) sorted and thoroughly inspected Cage Efficacy 7/27/2017 Light algae debris was found inside both cages Cage Efficacy 4/5/2018 Light debris in cages Routine 4/11/2018 Light debris in cages Routine 4/19/2018 Light debris, light sand Cage Efficacy 4/26/2018 Light debris Routine 5/3/2018 Light debris Routine 5/10/2018 Medium debris, high water Routine 6/15/2018 Heavy debris Routine 6/21/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, light to medium debris Cage Efficacy 6/28/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, medium to heavy debris Routine 7/12/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, light to medium debris Cage Efficacy 7/19/2018 Medium amount of debris in cages Routine 8/2/2018 Light debris Routine 8/16/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, light other debris Routine 8/30/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, medium other debris Routine 9/13/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, medium other debris Clogging of screen pores can also cause a short-term drawdown of water level in the TMU system pumphouse, observed as a differential in water elevation of the Columbia River at the intake screens compared to water level within the TMU system pumphouse vault. A sudden change or excessive increase in water elevation differential is an indication that the intake structure screens are clogged or are becoming clogged. Water elevation differential between the Columbia River and the TMU pumphouse was variable during the 2018 fish entrainment monitoring period (Figure 6). Water elevation differential was at its minimum in late May when there was flooding of the pumphouse vault and surrounding area and approximately no difference between the river and pumphouse; however, gauges were submerged and accurate data are unavailable for that time period. Maximum water elevation differential was greater than 2 feet in August 2018. Differential varied within days across the sampling period; for the entire sampling period for which reliable data exist, the mean change in height over a 24-hour period was 0.92 feet. The maximum monthly standard deviation in Interim Report 18 January 2019

depth differential was approximately 0.5 feet or less, suggesting that changes in differential were generally stable.

Figure 6 Water Elevation Differential Between the Columbia River and Tower Make-Up System Pumphouse, 2018 Note: The gray line is the hourly data, the black line is the rolling 24-hour mean, and the red line is the modeled trendline for illustration of the linear trend associated with the ascending and descending limbs during summer. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet). Data are also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet). Hourly data for the entire unreliable period from May 06 00:00:00 to June 06 00:00:00 are shown in light blue. The rolling 24-hour mean during the unreliable period is shown as a dashed line.

One overall pattern in the data was that water elevation differential during CGS operational periods trended higher during summer until early August 2018. After approximately August 1, 2018, the pattern in water elevation differential reversed and differential levels decreased (Figure 6). The pattern of increasing summer differential (June 15 to August 1, 2018) and decreasing late-summer differential (August 1, 2018, onward) corresponds closely with the pattern of increasing and decreasing make-up flow in these same periods (Figure 7).

Interim Report 19 January 2019

Figure 7 Hourly Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Flow Volume, 2018 Note: The gray line is the hourly data, the black line is the rolling 24-hour mean, and the red line is the modeled trendline for illustration of the linear trend associated with the ascending and descending limbs during summer. The make-up flow status gauge indicates that data are unreliable for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on May 17 and continuously from May 20 00:00:00 to May 22 06:00 and June 03 02:00 to June 04 10:00. Unreliable data are shown as light blue circles.

The similarity in trends between the water elevation differential and CGS make-up water flow suggests that water elevation differential patterns were related to make-up water flow volume. The increased water elevation differential during summer is also apparent in the increase in mean weekly differential in the July to September period compared to the March to June period (Table 7). Overall, there was no evidence in the hourly water elevation differential data to suggest that a blockage of the intake structure occurred to cause a sudden drawdown of water level in the TMU pumphouse.

Interim Report 20 January 2019

Table 7 Differences in Pumphouse to Columbia River Water Depth Median Minimum Maximum Week Mean Difference SD Difference Difference Difference Difference of (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 11-Mar 0.46 0.19 0.47 -0.05 0.86 18-Mar 0.49 0.22 0.47 -0.03 1.06 25-Mar 0.50 0.24 0.52 -0.09 1.04 1-Apr 0.49 0.19 0.50 -0.02 0.91 8-Apr 0.54 0.18 0.55 0.01 0.97 15-Apr 0.53 0.21 0.53 0.02 0.95 22-Apr 0.59 0.30 0.59 -0.01 1.35 29-Apr 0.60 0.27 0.64 -0.03 1.41 6-May1 0.68 0.26 0.67 -0.06 1.35 13-May1 0.96 0.51 0.94 -0.05 1.87 20-May1 0.20 0.26 0.10 -0.10 0.89 27-May1 0.10 0.23 0.05 -0.10 1.57 3-Jun2 0.12 0.22 0.06 -0.10 1.05 3-Jun2 0.07 0.16 0.02 -0.11 0.49 10-Jun 0.64 0.39 0.71 -0.10 1.72 17-Jun 1.00 0.39 0.95 -0.07 1.72 24-Jun 0.90 0.23 0.90 0.16 1.50 1-Jul 0.96 0.54 0.98 -0.11 2.24 8-Jul 1.09 0.34 1.08 0.14 2.13 15-Jul 1.30 0.51 1.15 0.32 2.13 22-Jul 1.33 0.40 1.29 0.30 1.89 29-Jul 1.37 0.51 1.37 0.28 2.28 5-Aug 1.41 0.58 1.42 0.26 2.33 12-Aug 1.20 0.39 1.30 -0.05 1.90 19-Aug 1.10 0.42 1.04 0.37 2.22 26-Aug 0.97 0.25 1.01 -0.11 1.58 2-Sep 1.07 0.40 1.08 -0.11 1.80 9-Sep 0.93 0.33 0.94 -0.10 1.55 Notes:

1. Indicates weeks for which data accuracy is affected by high water levels. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet).

Data are also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet).

2. This week is shown in two lines because data for June 03 to June 06 00:00 were unreliable, while data for June 06 01:00:00 to June 09 were reliable.

Interim Report 21 January 2019

4 Data Summaries and Analyses A summary of fish entrainment sampling events and associated make-up flow conditions is provided in Table 8. Two fish were entrained across all 19 sampling events, which included 16 routine fish entrainment monitoring events and four cage efficacy trials. Species-specific entrainment rates will be calculated following the methods outlined in the SAP at the end of the second year of the study in 2019.

Interim Report 22 January 2019

Table 8 2018 Entrainment Sampling Event Summary Average Average Hourly Hourly CGS CGS Make-Up Flow Number Total Number Sample Deployment Retrieval Make-Up Flow (cubic meter per of Cages Minutes of Fish Species Event Event Type Day Day (gpm) minute) Deployed Deployed Entrained Entrained 1 Cage Efficacy 4/3/2018 4/4/2018 15,610.75 59.09 2 1,440 0 None Efficacy Follow-Up +

2 4/4/2018 4/5/2018 15,521.39 58.75 2 1,380 0 None Routine 3 Routine 4/11/2018 4/12/2018 15,366.22 58.17 2 1,440 0 None 4 Routine 4/18/2018 4/19/2018 15,975.15 60.47 2 1,440 0 None 5 Cage Efficacy 4/24/2018 4/25/2018 16,772.73 63.49 2 1,440 0 None Efficacy Follow-Up +

6 4/25/2018 4/26/2018 17,076.17 64.64 2 1,440 0 None Routine Fall 7 Routine 5/2/2018 5/3/2018 17,017.28 64.42 2 1,440 1 Chinook 8 Routine 5/9/2018 5/10/2018 15,345.30 58.09 2 1,440 0 None 9 Routine 6/13/2018 6/14/2018 16,230.49 61.44 2 1,440 0 None Pacific 10 Routine 6/20/2018 6/21/2018 18,456.73 69.87 2 1,440 1 lamprey Cage Efficacy (Make-11 6/26/2018 6/27/2018 17,283.80 65.43 2 1,440 0 None Up) + Routine Efficacy Follow-Up 12 6/27/2018 6/28/2018 16,933.67 64.10 2 1,380 0 None (Make-Up) + Routine 13 Routine 7/11/2018 7/12/2018 17,609.09 66.66 2 1,440 0 None Cage Efficacy (Cage 2 14 Only) + Routine 7/17/2018 7/18/2018 20,325.08 76.94 1 1,440 0 None (Make-Up)

Interim Report 23 January 2019

Average Average Hourly Hourly CGS CGS Make-Up Flow Number Total Number Sample Deployment Retrieval Make-Up Flow (cubic meter per of Cages Minutes of Fish Species Event Event Type Day Day (gpm) minute) Deployed Deployed Entrained Entrained Efficacy Follow-Up 15 (Cage 2 Only) + 7/18/2018 7/19/2018 19,860.58 75.18 2 1,560 0 None Routine (Make-Up) 16 Adjusted Routine 8/1/2018 8/2/2018 19,231.70 72.80 2 1,440 0 None 17 Adjusted Routine 8/15/2018 8/16/2018 18,622.79 70.49 2 1,680 0 None 18 Adjusted Routine 8/29/2018 8/30/2018 17,642.05 66.78 2 1,440 0 None 19 Adjusted Routine 9/12/2018 9/13/2018 16,315.74 61.76 2 1,440 0 None Interim Report 24 January 2019

4.1 Columbia River Flow Rate 4.1.1 Seasonal Climatic Trends An unusually large snowpack during the 2017-2018 winter followed by rapid warming in May 2018 resulted in spring run-off flows that were well-above normal in the spring and summer of 2018 (Bowman and Lawson 2018). Spring precipitation events in the Idaho panhandle and western Montana also resulted in higher than normal downstream Columbia River elevations in central Washington in late May and June 2018 (Culverwell 2018).

4.1.2 Priest Rapids Dam Total Discharge Flow Mean daily discharge from Priest Rapids Dam for March 11 to September 9, 2018, was 162.8 kcfs (thousand cubic feet per second; SD = 80.8 kcfs) and mean river elevation at CGS pumphouse was 350.2 feet (SD = 4.2 feet). Spring and summer discharge for 2018 was approximately 19% higher than during the same period for the Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement (HRFCPPA) years 2008 to 2017, when mean daily discharge was 137.0 kcfs (SD = 60.8 kcfs). Mean river stage from 2008 to 2017 was 349.5 feet (SD = 4.6 feet). Discharge in 2018 was largely influenced by conditions in May, which was nearly 80% higher than the previous 10 years for an extended period of 35 days. A 12-hour rolling mean of Priest Rapids Dam discharge, water temperature, flow required by the HRFCPPA, and key fall Chinook salmon life stage time periods are shown in Figure 8, Panel A. Dates of fish entrainment and sampling are overlaid with discharge in Figure 8, Panel B to illustrate when sampling was suspended during peak flow events. Mean daily discharge ranged from 128.65 kcfs during the first study week to a maximum of 361.72 kcfs during the week of May 13, and a minimum of 67.5 kcfs during the last week of study starting September 9. (Table 9). Additional details of HRFCPPA requirements for Priest Rapids Dam discharge are summarized in Table 10. Other statistics that support decision making under sections C.3.b.1-5 of the HRFCPPA are summarized in Table 9, including mean daily minimum discharge, the delta in mean daily flow, and weekly mean water temperatures. Mean daily minimum flows for Monday through Thursday of each study week are shown in Table 11, as these values pertain to section C.3.b.6 of the HRFCPPA.

Total discharge from Priest Rapids Dam influences water velocity at the CGS intakes, which determines risk for entrainment. Based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 2D MASS2 model simulation of the Columbia River reach centered at RM 352.13, water velocities at the intake likely ranged between 5 and 7 fps from March to mid-August 2018, dropping to about 4 fps in late August and early September. Higher river velocities passing the CGS intakes make it more likely that juvenile fish will be swept past the intakes without entrainment.

Interim Report 25 January 2019

Figure 8 Priest Rapids Dam Discharge and Temperature with Entrainment Sampling Dates and Fall Chinook Salmon Life Stages Notes:

Panel A: Water temperature data from Priest Rapids Dam tailrace is shown in red. Water temperature data from alternate sources are shown in blue (Priest Rapids forebay), purple (Wanapum Dam tailrace), and dark green (Rock Island Dam tailrace). Priest Rapids Dam discharge is shown in black as 12-hour rolling mean. Range of rearing flow is specified by HRFCPPA Sections C.3.b.5 to 6.

Panel B: Routine entrainment sampling dates are shown in light blue; dates when entrainment occurred are shown in orange.

Priest Rapids Dam discharge is shown in black as 12-hour rolling mean.

Interim Report 26 January 2019

Table 9 Priest Rapids Dam Flow and Water Temperature Data in 2018, Summarized by Study Week Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Mean Weekly SD Weekly Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Min Daily Flow Max Daily Flow Delta Flow Delta Flow Temperature Temperature Week of Flow (kcfs) Flow (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (°C) (°C) 11-Mar 117.57 13.57 99.73 130.74 12.29 5.59 4.55a 0.14a 18-Mar 110.93 13.66 99.32 134.56 16.10 10.65 5.04 0.16 25-Mar 111.33 13.80 86.65 125.23 15.15 11.17 5.13 0.23 1-Apr 128.65 10.03 110.24 138.42 6.02 3.42 5.50 0.07 8-Apr 130.94 11.23 115.77 142.62 6.47 5.44 5.98 0.32 15-Apr 165.89 14.73 143.75 179.15 7.83 7.69 6.92 0.24 22-Apr 184.94 10.07 169.81 198.41 8.09 2.39 8.01 0.42 29-Apr 226.93 22.19 192.07 266.14 19.66 14.36 9.09 0.22 6-May 286.28 32.24 240.83 344.53 21.11 14.43 9.99 0.36 13-May 361.73 19.43 335.31 387.62 20.39 7.56 11.44 0.44 20-May 339.64 17.08 314.32 352.40 10.33 10.74 12.42 0.38 27-May 278.60 24.21 241.87 308.98 18.92 11.86 13.18 0.19 3-Jun 227.34 18.39 205.93 254.08 9.32 5.43 13.61 0.36 10-Jun 179.78 18.37 164.40 206.77 9.93 9.14 14.26 0.30 17-Jun 150.77 6.97 139.60 160.93 10.85 8.15 15.64 0.57 24-Jun 189.32 14.47 170.51 209.98 12.92 6.99 16.57 0.20 1-Jul 126.28 15.69 110.86 152.38 14.61 12.38 16.28 0.39 8-Jul 132.53 16.41 101.81 150.71 13.15 17.24 17.62 0.40 15-Jul 132.84 6.46 125.05 140.89 6.08 4.49 18.63 0.14 22-Jul 130.29 14.19 104.20 147.38 16.33 14.72 19.23 0.34 29-Jul 110.44 26.00 63.47 132.77 18.24 19.10 19.57 0.18 5-Aug 110.52 15.37 80.05 123.85 11.00 15.11 20.29 0.35 Interim Report 27 January 2019

Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Mean Weekly SD Weekly Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Min Daily Flow Max Daily Flow Delta Flow Delta Flow Temperature Temperature Week of Flow (kcfs) Flow (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (°C) (°C) 12-Aug 98.06 14.01 75.63 117.17 12.95 5.91 19.88 0.22 19-Aug 112.20 14.75 85.46 128.29 13.73 12.92 19.54 0.37 26-Aug 89.85 20.15 66.05 120.10 25.79 12.27 18.87 0.18 2-Sep 76.18 13.12 50.98 88.98 12.42 7.16 18.99 0.16 9-Sep 67.50 7.53 56.88 77.13 11.11 6.69 18.75 0.16 Notes:

a. Indicates temperature data are from Priest Rapids Dam forebay instead of tailrace gauges.

Interim Report 28 January 2019

Table 10 Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Requirements for Priest Rapids Dam Flow Operations 2017 to 2018 Typical Time Life Stage Required Flow (kcfs) Description Period Mid-March to Section C.2.b Maintains protection level flow at or above Emergence 60 mid-May the critical elevation set by the monitoring team Section C.3.b.1-4 Controls the variation in flow within a Mid-March to day (delta) depending on the previous days (a) weekday Rearing 20-60 per day mid-July inflow from Wanapum Dam or (b) weekend outflow from Chief Joseph Dam Section C.3.b.5 Requires minimum daily flow when Mid-March to previous days (a) weekday inflow from Wanapum Dam Rearing 150 mid-July or (b) weekend outflow from Chief Joseph Dam is greater than 170 kcfs Average of daily hourly Section C.3.b.6 Requires minimum daily flow for 4 Mid-March to minimum flow from consecutive weekends after 800 Accumulated Rearing mid-July Monday to Thursday of Temperature Units have accumulated from the end of the current week the spawning period Table 11 Minimum Priest Rapids Dam Flow Pertaining to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Section C.3.b.6 Study Week Average of daily hourly minimum flow from Monday to Thursday (kcfs) 13-May 323.70 20-May 323.55 27-May 254.55 3-Jun 199.30 10-Jun 161.43 17-Jun 131.23 24-Jun 169.08 1-Jul 88.30 8-Jul 102.43 15-Jul 106.00 4.2 Columbia River Temperature In 2018, mean weekly Columbia River temperatures for the fall Chinook salmon emergence period (mid-March to mid-May) ranged between 4.5 and 10°C, with a mean of 6.7°C (SD = 1.9°C) (Table 9).

Interim Report 29 January 2019

Water temperatures during the subsequent rearing period (mid-May to mid-July) ranged between 11.4°C and 17.6°C, with a mean of 14.6°C (SD = 2.0°C) (Table 9). Water temperature of discharge from Priest Rapids Dam in 2018 is shown in Figure 8, Panel A and summarized in Table 9. Water temperature is driven by climate and flow regulation from upstream dams and is important for driving transitions between fish life history stages, behavior, and occurrence near the TMU intake structures. The effect of temperature on early fish development is typically described in Accumulated Temperature Units representing the cumulative effect of temperature over time, defined as one degree of temperature for a 24-hour period. Emergence and rearing periods are defined in the HRFCPPA specifically for the purpose of maintaining adequate flows for juvenile fall Chinook salmon.

Emergence is defined as the point at which the water over eggs in Redds at Vernita Bar or other areas

[in the Hanford Reach] have accumulated 1,000 (°C) Temperature Units after the Initiation of Spawning (HRFCPPA 2004)

Similarly, Rearing Period is defined as the time period beginning with the start of the Emergence Period and continuing thereafter until 400 (°C) Temperature Units have been accumulated at Vernita Bar after the end of Emergence Period (HRFCPPA 2004) 4.3 Columbia Generating Station Tower Make-Up System Data 4.3.1 Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation: Pump 1A, Pump 1B, Pump 1C CGS operated with two TMU flow pumps in March, April, and September 2018. TMU pump operation is monitored by tracking the electrical current (amperage) flow to each of the three pumps (1A, 1B, and 1C). For the remainder of the season, all three TMU flow pumps operated on loads ranging from 20.9 to 77.4 amps. Pump operations in 2018 are summarized in Table 12.

Interim Report 30 January 2019

Table 12 Summary of Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation, 2018 Percent of Operation Total Hours Hours (Status OK/In Use) Average Amps Month for Study Pump 1A Pump 1B Pump 1C Pump 1A Pump 1B Pump 1C March 432 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 75.2 81.5 April 720 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 76.4 82.4 May 744 100/34.8 100/87.37 100/57.66 25.6 67.2 48.4 June 720 100/100 100/100 100/27.22 71.6 74.1 20.9 July 744 100/100 100/100 100/100 69.3 72.1 78.6 August 744 100/89.7 100/100 100/97.31 62.4 72.9 77.4 September 360 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 77.7 86.2 Note:

A single asterisk (*) on zero amperage indicates that the pump was available for operation but was not in use.

4.3.2 Circulating Water Make-Up Flow Circulating water make-up flow will be used to extrapolate season-wide entrainment rates at the conclusion of the entrainment sampling study at the end of 2019. Season-wide entrainment rates will be based on the number of fish entrained and flow that occurred while sampling cages were in the water.

Throughout most of the 2018 season, circulating water make-up flow to the cooling towers from the Columbia River operated at approximately 60% to 80% of maximum intake flow of 25,000 gpm.

During the period of high flow on the Columbia River from mid-May to late-June, make-up water flow to the circulating water system was approximately 40% of maximum operating conditions, corresponding with the period of 65% power output from the plant (Figure 7). Weekly mean make-up water flow to the circulating water system ranged from 8,516.34 gpm the week of May 13, 2018, during peak Columbia River flow to 19,624.64 gpm the week of July 22, 2018 (Table 13). Both intake pipes were in use throughout the 2018 study period.

Interim Report 31 January 2019

Table 13 Weekly Summary of Columbia Generating Station Circulating Water System Make-Up Flow Flow (gpm)

Week of Season Mean SD Min Max 11-Mar 15,282.55 1,447.56 11,075.83 18,069.45 18-Mar 15,461.00 1,591.13 11198.96 19,208.37 25-Mar 15,571.74 1,829.36 9,645.387 19,119.32 1-Apr 15,532.05 1,381.20 11,501.58 18,144.89 8-Apr 15,756.75 1,308.20 11,669.32 18,656.83 15-Apr 15,792.98 1,489.93 11,941.43 18,591.99 22-Apr 16,120.17 2,127.01 8,370.834 20,885.00 29-Apr 16,396.68 1,931.37 11,419.46 21,259.24 6-May 16,714.12 2,152.16 537.31 20,760.97 13-May1 15,108.98 5,182.61 0.80 22,271.13 20-May1 8,516.34 3,912.07 412.32 14,298.14 27-May 11,287.39 1,995.47 4,927.44 20,674.12 3-Jun1 11,264.29 1,643.17 7,816.51 15,008.25 10-Jun 15,298.26 2,681.96 8,334.63 20,908.83 17-Jun 17,383.53 2,059.50 9,166.75 20,815.31 24-Jun 17,047.49 1,284.21 12,295.92 20,041.63 1-Jul 17,088.57 3,248.30 6,197.95 22,936.21 8-Jul 18,187.14 1,671.68 12,129.24 22,623.69 15-Jul 19,157.38 2,382.823 13,927.85 22,800.37 22-Jul 19,624.64 2,024.615 13,494.93 22,995.21 29-Jul 19,350.03 2,509.323 13,062.52 23,479.15 5-Aug 19,499.8 2,860.309 13,129.77 23,836.44 12-Aug 18,593.26 2,153.421 10,228.34 22,070.61 19-Aug 18,085.95 2,121.82 13,763.83 23,449.45 26-Aug 17,095.04 1,407.877 10,029.49 20,036.96 2-Sep 17,223.03 2,137.011 8,356.74 20,436.52 9-Sep 16,836.52 1,937.819 9,707.55 19,694.35 Note:

The make-up flow status gauge indicated that data are unreliable for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on May 17 and continuously from May 20 00:00:00 to May 22 06:00 and June 03 02:00 to June 04 10:00.

1. Indicates weeks that contain unreliable data.

4.3.3 River Level at Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Mean river elevation at CGS pumphouse was 350.2 feet (SD = 4.2 feet). Mean daily water elevations for the season are shown in Figure 9. During the periods of highest risk to fall Chinook salmon Interim Report 32 January 2019

juveniles during May and June (Anchor QEA 2018), the mean water depth clearance to the CGS intakes ranged from 7.74 to 13.25 feet (Table 14). During the 12-hour period between 1:00 p.m. and midnight on September 8, water depth above the CGS intakes fell below the 1.75 feet required by NMFS and reached a minimum depth of 1.12 feet (Table 14).

Figure 9 Columbia River Water Elevation and Clearance to Columbia Generating Station Intakes Note: Calculated Columbia River elevation based on pumphouse water depth, pumphouse elevation, and depth differential to river. Entrainment sampling dates are shown in light blue and dates when entrainment occurred are shown in orange. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data points were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet). Data is also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet). The rolling 24-hour mean during the unreliable period is shown as a dashed line.

Interim Report 33 January 2019

Table 14 Monthly Average Water Depth Above Columbia Generating Station Intakes Month Mean (feet) SD (feet) Median (feet) Min (feet) Max (feet)

Mar 6.9 1.05 6.98 4.13 8.59 Apr 9.28 1.58 8.94 5.77 12.87 May 13.25 6.68 13.72 10.75 13.96 Jun 11.02 1.7 10.97 7.59 13.79 Jul 7.74 0.99 7.89 4.73 10.31 Aug 5.88 1.76 6 1.88 9.04 Sept 3.77 1.22 3.67 1.12 7 4.3.4 Change in River Elevation Hypothetical and observed river elevation data at the CGS pumphouse on the Columbia River are shown in Figure 10. Observed river elevation data closely follows hypothetical simulations developed by Niehus et al. (2014) for RM 352.13 until approximately 250 kcfs mean daily flow, at which point the elevation of the Columbia River at the pumphouse reaches an asymptote relative to discharge from Priest Rapids Dam. Based on conversations with CGS operators, the asymptote is indicative of a failure of pumphouse gauges to accurately measure river elevation above bank-full conditions of approximately 355 feet of river elevation.

Interim Report 34 January 2019

Figure 10 Actual and Hypothetical Stage-Discharge for Columbia Generating Station Pumphouse Reach of Columbia River Note: Hypothetical stage-discharge curve is based on modeling done by PNNL using their 2D MASS2 model. Grey points are daily mean river elevation and discharge data from the 2018 season. Color points represent data values on days entrainment occurred.

4.4 Columbia Generating Station Meteorological Data Seasonal data for air temperature, wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure in 2018 are summarized by study week in Table 15. The mean daily low and high air temperatures in May and July 2018 were approximately 5°F warmer than historical (1981 to 2010) published data for the Richland, Washington, area (U.S. Climate Data 2018). Winds generally blew from a west-southwesterly direction, occasionally blowing from the northwest. A maximum wind gust of 61 miles per hour (mph) was recorded in July, but average wind speeds were less than 12 mph throughout the season.

Interim Report 35 January 2019

Table 15 Meteorological Data at Columbia Generating Station in 2018, Summarized by Study Week Study Mean Low Mean High Mean Wind Min. Wind Max. Wind Median Wind Mean Pres. Min Pres. Max Pres.

Week Temp (°C) Temp (°C) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Dir. (0° N) (mmHg) (mmHg) (mmHg) 11-Mar 36.5 56.4 5.9 0.0 12.9 250.8 29.3 29.2 29.4 18-Mar 34.3 55.7 7.1 0.3 26.0 222.7 29.4 29.0 29.7 25-Mar 37.9 59.7 8.5 0.0 23.8 242.5 29.7 29.4 29.8 1-Apr 40.9 56.7 7.1 0.0 18.6 269.0 29.4 28.9 29.6 8-Apr 45.4 61.6 11.8 1.3 23.9 204.0 29.5 29.1 29.8 15-Apr 43.5 62.5 10.3 0.0 27.9 235.9 29.5 29.0 29.8 22-Apr 44.0 73.4 6.3 0.0 20.2 322.6 29.6 29.1 29.9 29-Apr 49.4 73.8 7.8 0.2 19.1 188.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 6-May 57.4 74.6 6.4 0.1 20.8 241.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 13-May 56.2 81.0 6.8 0.2 19.2 317.6 29.4 29.2 29.5 20-May 59.6 83.1 6.6 0.1 21.1 284.5 29.3 29.1 29.5 27-May 52.0 77.4 7.7 0.4 25.3 205.5 29.5 29.2 29.7 3-Jun 53.7 79.1 8.2 0.1 22.6 242.8 29.4 29.2 29.5 10-Jun 51.1 74.9 9.3 0.0 24.2 271.1 29.4 29.2 29.7 17-Jun 62.7 85.3 8.8 0.0 35.4 291.7 29.4 29.3 29.6 24-Jun 57.9 82.5 9.7 0.1 30.4 260.5 29.4 29.1 29.6 1-Jul 60.9 84.7 9.4 0.7 24.8 279.5 29.5 29.4 29.7 8-Jul 64.7 93.1 10.1 0.0 61.0 301.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 15-Jul 63.3 94.5 7.3 0.1 21.4 279.0 29.4 29.3 29.6 22-Jul 64.9 95.4 4.3 0.0 11.4 338.2 29.5 29.3 29.7 29-Jul 64.9 94.8 7.1 0.3 19.8 295.3 29.4 29.2 29.5 5-Aug 65.2 97.5 5.1 0.0 19.7 274.8 29.4 29.2 29.6 12-Aug 61.6 89.6 3.9 0.0 12.3 305.5 29.5 29.3 29.6 Interim Report 36 January 2019

Study Mean Low Mean High Mean Wind Min. Wind Max. Wind Median Wind Mean Pres. Min Pres. Max Pres.

Week Temp (°C) Temp (°C) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Dir. (0° N) (mmHg) (mmHg) (mmHg) 19-Aug 59.2 85.4 7.7 0.0 17.8 308.4 29.4 29.3 29.6 26-Aug 56.6 79.7 6.4 0.0 20.2 250.8 29.4 29.2 29.6 2-Sep 57.5 82.8 7.3 0.0 23.0 319.8 29.5 29.3 29.6 9-Sep 55.2 75.1 6.9 0.0 18.0 209.0 29.4 29.3 29.5 Interim Report 37 January 2019

5 Conclusions Activities were undertaken in 2018 as the first year of a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study at Energy Northwests CGS intake following the EFSEC-approved study plan. Preliminary observations indicate that few fish were entrained over the observation season, with only two fish observed during thirteen 24-hour sampling events. The small number of fish entrained is consistent with the findings of previous monitoring (Mudge et al. 1981).

The modifications made to entrainment cages to reduce gaps between the intake pipes and cage openings resulted in fish retention rates that were generally high (greater than 80%). Visual inspections of the intake screens by video showed no fish impingement. Though some biofouling by algae was observed, monitoring of the water level differential between the Columbia River and the TMU system pumphouse vault showed no evidence of clogged screen pores, a condition that could increase the risk of fish impingement.

Discharge from the upper Columbia River Basin and Priest Rapids Dam was exceptionally high in 2018 and peak flows occurred in May, approximately 1 month earlier than average, causing an interruption in typical make-up flow and routine fish entrainment monitoring activities. Nonetheless, the fish entrainment monitoring that was undertaken in March and April prior to the high flows coincided with the typical peak emergence period for Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon, allowing for representative sampling during this key time of year.

In addition, a detailed literature review and evaluation of species and life stages potentially at risk indicated that listed salmonid stocks from the upper Columbia River Basin were not at risk of entrainment or impingement due to their large size and strong swimming ability on reaching the CGS intake. The primary vulnerable salmonid species and life stages are fall Chinook salmon and steelhead fry originating from the Hanford Reach, in relatively close proximity to the CGS intakes.

However, this risk is minimized by the hydraulic conditions around the intake structure. Overall, the published literature supports the observations from the first year of fish entrainment monitoring that a low probability of impingement and entrainment exists for the CGS intake in this reach of the Columbia River.

Complete results and conclusions based on 2 years of study will be developed for the final report following the 2019 field season.

Interim Report 38 January 2019

6 References Alden (Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.), 2018. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station. Revision 00, Alden Report No.: 1175ENWCGS.

Prepared for Energy Northwest. April 2018.

Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2018. Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review. Prepared for Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study. November 21, 2018.

Bowman M., and G. Lawson, 2018. Columbia River electric generation in 2018 remains normal despite above-normal water flow. U.S. Energy Information Administration Today in Energy.

Last modified September 28, 2018; accessed November 13, 2018. Available at:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37152#.

Coutant, C. C., 2014. Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington. For NPDES Permit No. WA002515-1, Effective November 1, 2014.

Culverwell, W., 2018. Mother Nature Isnt Done with the Columbia River Yet. Tri-City Herald.

May 15, 2018; accessed November 13, 2018. Available at: https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article211193749.html.

EN (Energy Northwest), 2018. Tower Make Up System (TMU) Fish Cages - Operational Considerations.

Harnish, R. A., R. Sharma, G. A. McMichael, R. B. Langshaw, and T. N. Pearsons, 2014. Effect of Hydroelectric Dam Operations on the Freshwater Productivity of a Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon Population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71(4):602-15.

Mudge, J. E., G. S. Jeane II, K. P. Campbell, B. R. Eddy, and L. E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

Niehus, S. E., W. A. Perkins, and M. C. Richmond, 2014. Simulation of Columbia River Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature from 1917 through 2011 in the Hanford Reach. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA. Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County.

2014.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Interim Report 39 January 2019

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Modular Aquatic Simulation System 1D and 2D software, operated by Battelle, produced under funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

https://basin.pnnl.gov/Software/Details/16.

Taylor, E. B., and J., D., McPhail. 1985. Ontogeny of the startle response in young coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:552-557.

U.S. Climate Data, 2018. Climate Richland - Washington. Accessed November 13, 2108. Available at:

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/richland/washington/united-states/uswa0373/2007/1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List. Last modified June 2016. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/.

Interim Report 40 January 2019

Appendix A 2014 Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station Richland, Washington For National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA002515-1, Effective November 1, 2014 Energy Northwest P. O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Attention: Shannon E. Khounnala sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com DRAFT Prepared by Charles C. Coutant, PhD ccoutant3@comcast.net 1

ABSTRACT This study plan for characterizing fish entrainment at the Columbia Generating Station was prepared in response to stipulation in the reissue of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests (EN) Columbia Generating Station (CGS). This Permit includes operation of a water intake in the Columbia River for make-up water for the CGSs cooling, fire protection, and potable water systems. The Permit was issued September 30, 2014 (for implementation November 1, 2014) by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) in coordination with the Washington Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies had questions about the water intake structure and its efficacy for excluding entrainment of fish, particularly early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead. Extensive consultations were conducted between EN and the NMFS as a consequence of the existing water intake not conforming to NMFS screening criteria, which were developed primarily from screening of irrigation canals and other intakes unlike the CGS intake. Two entrainment studies conducted at CGSs commissioning in the 1980s were deemed out of date and the present intake screens do not meet current NMFSs screening guidelines.

The proposed Study Plan provides an overview of the CGS; a general description and operating characteristics of the intake system for cooling tower makeup-water on the Columbia River upstream of Richland, Washington; general methods for conducting an updated entrainment characterization study; data management and analysis; and reporting. Methods include sampling period and frequency, general sample collection protocols, and ancillary data collection (e.g.,

river temperature, river elevation). The study plan includes characterization of the fish present in the area of influence of the intake structure based on a long history of fish studies in the Hanford Reach and near the intake location, and monitoring of entrainment into the cooling systems pump well. ENs standard health & safety, quality assurance, and quality control procedures will be followed for sampling in the CGS pump well. Detailed sampling, data management and analysis protocols will be developed by EN environmental staff and a fisheries contractor following approval of the overall Study Plan by the EFSEC. Although the water withdrawal rate by CGS is lower than the 125 MGD that requires existing power plants to conduct such an entrainment study, this Study Plan is informed by the requirements of the final EPA Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule published August 15, 2014 and follows relevant guidance in the Rule (quoted in Appendix A).

Keywords Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Columbia River Salmon Cooling Water Intake Structures NPDES Permit Study Plan 2

PEER REVIEW A draft of this Entrainment Study Plan was peer reviewed by three experts in biological monitoring and Columbia River fish in accordance with the EPA Peer Review Guidelines (EPA 2006). The reviewers were Dr. Dennis D. Dauble, Dr. Lyman L. McDonald and Mr. Goeff A.

McMichael, all who have had extensive experience with Columbia River salmon, including conduct of field studies in the Hanford Reach (Dauble, McMichael) and an internationally recognized biometrician with long tenure of membership on the Northwest Power and Conservation Councils Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (McDonald). A summary of their expertise follows. Comments relevant to this draft Study Plan have been incorporated. Following that peer review, a revised draft Study Plan was reviewed by relevant agencies, including the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (and others as requested). As a result of that informal review, the scope of the Study has been narrowed to two main components: (1) a summary of fish species and life stage presence and vulnerability to entrainment, and (2) entrainment sampling in the water withdrawn from the intake. The final Study Plan will/does incorporate the formal agency comments on this draft, which will be/are included as Appendix B.

Dr. Dennis D. Dauble. Dr. Dauble retired in 2009 after a 35-year career as a fisheries scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington where he focused on Endangered Species issues, fish passage and behavior and aquatic ecological monitoring. He has participated in and directed field studies of salmonids and other species in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. He is currently an adjunct professor at the Washington State University branch campus in the Tri-Cities. Since retirement, he has participated in expert science panels on issues relating to salmon survival and water export for the San Joaquin/Sacramento River delta; influence of flow fluctuations on productivity of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon; and impacts of potential mining activities on salmon ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. He is a member of the Independent Scientific Review Panel for the Northwest Power Planning Council and a member of the Monitoring Panel for the Salmon Recovery Board of Washington State.

Dr. Lyman L. McDonald. Dr. McDonald is an internationally known biometrician with over 40 years of experience in the application of statistical methods to design, conduct, and analyze field and laboratory studies. Initially on the faculty of the University of Wyoming, he was a founder and now Senior Biometrician of Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) environmental and statistical consultants. He designed and managed both large and small environmental impact assessments and monitoring programs in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems including marine environments. He had appointments to regional and national technical advisory and review committees including the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and NOAA Fisheries.

Mr. Goeff A. McMichael. Mr. McMichael is a consulting fishery biologist who was employed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) between September 1999 and May 2014.

Prior to forming Mainstem Fish Research, Mr. McMichael worked on a wide variety of aquatics 3

projects at PNNL, most recently development and implementation of a new acoustic telemetry system for use on very small fish. Mr. McMichael has been a Project Manager and Principal Investigator for acoustic telemetry projects using the newly-developed Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS). These projects have addressed critical uncertainties regarding juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead survival and passage behavior in the Snake and Columbia rivers and in the near shore Pacific Ocean. He has also been Principal Investigator in comprehensive studies of the effects of hydropower operations on the fall Chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River. Extensive evaluations of fish screen performance criteria, and ADCP surveys of water velocities upstream of Grand Coulee Dam are particularly relevant to the CGS entrainment study. Geoff has also been active in other research areas including ecological interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids, behavioral ecology, fish population monitoring, fish capture methods development, input to Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment modeling efforts, predator-prey interactions, and electrofishing injury. He managed over $30M in research over the past 15 years and has published over 100 technical reports and papers, including the most cited paper in Fisheries for the past three years.

4

CONTENTS ABSTRACT PEER REVIEW INTRODUCTION Purpose Entrainment Studies Under Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

Previous Studies STUDY AREA Plant Description Make-up Water Intake Structure Entrainment Sampling Location and Operation STUDY TASKS AND METHODS Task 1: Historical Fish Occurrence Task 2: Fish Entrainment Sampling Task 3: Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring Task 4: Data Summaries and Analysis Task 5: Reporting PERMITS QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL HEALTH AND SAFETY REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A. EPA §316(b) RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY APPENDIX B. AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT STUDY PLAN 5

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS; star at center) in relation to nearby features in the approximately 50-mi (80-km) radius. [After NRC 2011 Figure D-1-1, which is after EN 2010a]

Figure 2. Location of the CGS in relation to nearby features in the approximately 6-mi (10-km) radius. [After NRC 2011 Figure D-1-2, which is after EN 2010a]

Figure 3. The CGS intake system in plan (upper) and profile views. [after NRC 2011 Figure D 4]

Figure 4. Artists rendering of the cooling-water intake system of the CGS from the in-river intake screens to the pump house.

Figure 5. Cylindrical intake screens in plan (upper), section (middle) and side views. [after NRC Figure D-1-6, which is after WPPSS 1980]

Figure 6. Photographs of (A) side view of one section of the cylindrical, perforated-plate intake screen in storage, which would attach either upstream or downstream of the central housing located above the pipe to the pump house; (B) a close-up of the outer sleeve with 3/8th-in (9.5-mm) perforations; (C) a close-up of the inner sleeve with 3/4-in (19-mm) perforations. [after NRC Figure D-1-7]

Figure 7. Location of pump house, pipelines and intakes in relation to the Columbia River channels at about RM 352 showing historical fall Chinook salmon and potential steelhead spawning locations. [after NRC 2011 Figure D-1-5]

Figure 8. Facilities for fish entrainment monitoring in the CGS pumphouse. Fish sampling cages attach to the terminal ends of the buried pipes carrying water from the in-river intake structures and are raised to a monitoring platform above the water surface for fish counting.

6

INTRODUCTION Purpose This document presents an Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) in accordance with the requirements of a re-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. On September 30, 2014 the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) published a reissuance of NPDES Permit No.

WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests (EN) Columbia Generating Station. The final Permit, effective November 1, 2014, was the result of consultations between EFSEC and interested agencies, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies had questions about the water intake structure and its efficacy for excluding entrainment (withdrawal) of fish, particularly early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead, through the intake screens (Atkinson 2014). Extensive consultations were conducted between EN and the NMFS through a physical meeting, letters, and e-mail as a consequence of the existing water intake not conforming to NMFS screening criteria, which were developed primarily from screening of irrigation canals and other intakes unlike the CGS intake (NMFS 2011; Coutant 2014b). Entrainment studies conducted at CGSs commissioning in 1979-80 (Mudge et al. 1981) and 1985 (WPPSS 1985) were considered by NMFS as out of date.

The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches. The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1) is heavily used by spawning fall race of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and some Steelhead O. mykiss. The Hanford Reach is home to one of the most productive stocks of fall Chinook salmon anywhere (Harnish et al.

2014) and is so abundant that there is concern for density dependent limitations to population growth (McMichael and James 2015). These fall Chinook salmon spawn largely in October-November mostly in the upper reaches of the Hanford Reach although some spawn closer to CGS near Ringold (Dauble and Watson 1997; Annual monitoring reports available from the U.S.

Department of Energy, Mission Support Alliance Project). Early life stages occupy near-shore rearing areas throughout the Reach mostly April-June. Steelhead spawn in spring, primarily in the discharge of the Ringold hatchery and a nearby irrigation return canal (approximately 2.5 miles or 4 km upstream of the CGS intake and on the opposite shore), but rarely in the main river (Wagner et al. 2014). Early life stages after the emergent fry stage rear in the area in summer. No Steelhead spawning has been identified immediately upstream of the CGS intake. Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus occupy the river rarely, limited by the species requirement for especially cold water (Jeff Chen, USFWS, Section 10 permit unnecessary for Bull Trout per telecom to Shannon Khounnala, May 2012). Sockeye salmon O. nerka migrate past the CGS area to upriver hatcheries, spawning and rearing zones while yearling or older juvenile Sockeye salmon migrate downstream past it. Coho salmon O. kisutch also migrate past the area to hatchery release locations and habitats upstream of the CGS, with yearling or older smolts migrating downstream.

Of these species, three have been identified as federally Threatened (T) or Endangered (E):

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (E), Upper Columbia River Steelhead (T), and bull trout (T) (NRC 2011). The abundant Hanford fall Chinook salmon are not a listed species.

7

The anadromous Pacific lamprey Entophenus tridentatus, with potentially entrainable juvenile stages, is known to spawn and rear in the Hanford Reach and migrate near the CGS intake (Dauble et al. 2006). It is not a listed species.

The reissued Permit requires EN to conduct an Entrainment Characterization Study of its existing cooling-water intake system, with emphasis on potential entrainment of early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead and any threatened or endangered species. A related operational monitoring stipulation requires evaluation of impingement. An entrainment Study Plan is to be submitted to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015. Because the CGS uses a closed-cycle cooling system of mechanical draft cooling towers, it is assumed that any fish entrained in the intake structure will not survive in the cooling system. The re-issued NPDES Permit in its entirety is located at:

http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Columbia%20Generating%20Station/EFSEC/CGS-NPDESPermit-Final-ElectronicSignature.pdf The requirement for an Entrainment Characterization Study states (Page 26):

S12.B. Entrainment Characterization Study The Permittee must prepare and conduct an entrainment characterization study consistent with the content requirements in 40 CFR 122.21(r) (9).

1. Study design The Permittee must:

a. Prepare documentation of the proposed entrainment characterization study design and submit it to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015. The Permittee must submit a paper copy and an electronic copy (preferably in a portable document format (PDF)).

2. Study implementation The Permittee must:

a. Following EFSEC approval of the study design referenced in S12.B.1, conduct the entrainment characterization study according to the approved design.

b. Submit the final entrainment characterization study to EFSEC by May 1, 2019. The Permittee must submit a paper copy and an electronic copy (preferably in a portable document format (PDF)).

The results of the Entrainment Characterization Study will be taken into account by the EFSEC for review and possible revision of the existing permit or for application to the next NPDES permit cycle.

Entrainment Studies Under Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

At about the same time as the renewed Permit was being finalized the EPA published (August 15, 2014) the final Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule for cooling-system intake structures at existing power plants. The final Rule presents the compliance options EPA requires for impingement and entrainment control at cooling-water intake systems for existing power plants and other industrial facilities. One of the requirements is for an Entrainment Characterization Study (40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)). The EPA Rule applies to owners and operators of any existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 million gallons per day (MGD) of actual intake flow. This flow rate 8

is much greater than the maximum 36 MGD of cooling-tower make-up water that is withdrawn by the CGS. Also, legal challenges to the Rule can be expected. Nonetheless, the Rule can be taken as general guidance for any study of entrainment. The Rules study requirements thus inform the content of an entrainment study plan for the CGS. The EPAs requirements for an Entrainment Characterization Study (40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)) are provided in Appendix A. Details of the full final Rule are available at the EPA website located at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm.

Salient points of the EPA Rule for this Entrainment Study Plan include:

• A minimum of two years of entrainment data collection;

• Documentation of data collection period and frequency;

• Identification of fish that occur in the vicinity of the cooling-water intake structure and are susceptible to entrainment, including any species protected under Federal, State or Tribal law with habitat ranges that include waters in the vicinity of the intake structure;

• Biological collections that are representative of the entrainment in the subject intake;

• Description of spatial and temporal characteristics of fish abundance in the vicinity of the intake (can be based on historical data);

• Description of annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment as related to climate, weather, spawning, feeding and water column migration;

• Entrainment collections that are representative of current operation of the facility (e.g.,

flows) and biological conditions at the site;

• Documentation of all assumptions and methods used to calculate the total entrainment for the facility;

• Documentation of all study methods and quality assurance/control procedures for data collection and analysis that are suitable for a quantitative survey.

Previous Studies Studies of salmon spawning, rearing and migration in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River have been conducted since the early 1950s by the U.S. Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies operating the Hanford Works (e.g., Becker 1970, 1973, 1985, 1990; Becker and Gray 1989; Dauble et al. 1989; Geist et al. 2000; Geist and Dauble 1998; Gray and Dauble 1977a, 2001; and annual monitoring reports available from the U.S. Department of Energy Mission Support Alliance Project, Richland Operations). These studies have documented a generally increasing density of fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Reach as nearly all other reaches of the river were impounded and natural riverine features were flooded (Dauble and Watson 1997; Visser et al. 2002). In the late 1970s, considerable effort was expended on characterizing the fish community, particularly in the vicinity of water intakes for the N Reactor, the adjacent power-production facility, and the site of the planned CGS intake (then called WNP-2; Gray and Dauble 1976, 1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979a, 1979b; Page et al. 1974). Spatial and temporal distributions were identified, particularly for fall Chinook salmon. These studies also identified salmonids from upper reaches of the Columbia River basin that migrate through the Hanford Reach. These numerous reports have been catalogued and copies are publicly available. Many are cited in NRC 2011. Reports cited here are a partial listing of studies; the Study Plan includes synthesis of these and related documents for relevance to entrainment of fish at the CGS water intake.

9

Fish entrainment studies have been conducted previously at the CGS. Beak Consultants conducted entrainment studies in May 1979 to May 1980 as part of the Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program for what was then called the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) (Beak 1980; Mudge et al. 1981). No juvenile salmonids were entrained. As a result of review by the EFSEC, WPPSS was required to conduct additional studies during one spring (April-June) out-migration of naturally spawned juvenile salmon when the facility was at or above 75% power load (EFSEC Resolution 214 issued in 1982). Further review by NMFS (Evans 1983) established the study period would extend to September 15 (Sorensen 1983), although recent studies in the Hanford Reach indicate that entrainment sampling to this late date is not biologically relevant. The facility reached approximately 75% thermal (power) load in November 1984 and the studies were conducted in 1985 to fulfill the requirements set forth in EFSEC Resolution No. 214 and to address the concerns of NMFS. The entrainment sampling equipment for each study was the same as described in Mudge et al. (1981) and is largely the same for the current plan. During times when Chinook salmon juveniles were confirmed present in the vicinity by beach seining there were no fish, fish eggs or larvae collected during 294 hours0.0034 days <br />0.0817 hours <br />4.861111e-4 weeks <br />1.11867e-4 months <br /> of entrainment sampling with an average sampling period of just under 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per sample (WPPSS 1985).

Fish impingement and biofouling at the intakes were also studied in 1985 using SCUBA divers (WPPSS 1985). On nine occasions between March 13 and December 3 (six of which took place in April-September when juvenile salmonids were likely present) divers inspected and reported any fish impingement on or interaction with the intake structure, the need for maintenance, accumulation of submerged debris and plugging of orifices by attached growths. Videotape logs were made in spring and fall. Although resident fish were seen around the intakes structures, there were no impinged fish found and no fouling by algae, insects, sponges or debris occurred that would impact proper operation of the intakes.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently prepared a combined biological assessment (BA) and essential fish habitat assessment (EFH) to address the effects of renewing the CGSs operation license on endangered or threatened species or their designated habitat (NRC 2011).

This assessment summarized relevant information for NRCs consultation with federal agencies as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. The combined BA/EFH Assessment examined the potential impacts of the proposed re-licensing action by the NRC on federally listed aquatic species within the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jurisdictions as well as the designated and revised critical habitat and the EFH. It also described any proposed conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on designated EFH resulting from the re-licensing. The reports conclusions for species under the Endangered Species Act were: Bull Trout- no effect; Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon and Upper Columbia River Steelhead - may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect. For other downstream-migrating juveniles from upstream hatcheries or habitats (Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon), the report concluded that the CGS will have minimal adverse effect. Sockeye salmon and Pacific lamprey were not mentioned. The report considered the CGSs cooling tower system to be the most reasonable way to mitigate the number of aquatic organisms entrained and impinged in 10

comparison with other power plant cooling systems. The NRCs assessment provides valuable background for this Entrainment Study Plan.

This document presents the Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the CGS in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Permit. The Study Plan provides an overview of the CGS; a general description and operating characteristics of the cooling-water make-up intake system on the Columbia River upstream of Richland, Washington; general methods for conducting the entrainment characterization study; data management and analysis; and reporting. Methods include sampling period and frequency, general data collection protocols, and ancillary data collection (e.g., river temperature, river elevation). Detailed sampling, data management and analysis protocols will be developed by a fisheries contractor and EN environmental staff following approval of the overall Study Plan by the EFSEC. The Study Plan includes characterization of the fish present in the area of influence of the intake structure, and monitoring of entrainment into the cooling systems pump well. ENs standard health & safety, quality assurance and quality control procedures will be implemented for sampling by EN operations staff and a fisheries contractor at the CGS pump well.

The entrainment monitoring study will concentrate on entrainment of fall Chinook salmon fry.

Through consultations with NMFS it is mutually recognized that newly emerged Chinook salmon derived from spawning beds in the Hanford Reach are the species and life stage most likely to be entrained. This is not an ESA-listed species but its populations proximity to CGS, its abundance and its seasonal sizes near the CGS intake make it a useful surrogate for all entrainable fish. It is also in NMFSs regulatory authority through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Although other species and life stages of fish occur in the vicinity of the CGS intake (as will be identified in the studys literature review), most salmonids including those with ESA listing are large enough that entrainment through the 3/8th-inch diameter pores of the intake would not be possible (Bell 1990; Nordlund 2013a). For example, downstream-migrating juveniles of Chinook (underyearlings >75 mm long and 12 mm deep), Steelhead (wild pre-smolt >125 mm long and 22 mm deep), Sockeye (89-127 mm long) and Coho salmon (yearling or older 89-114 mm) from populations spawning and rearing upstream in or upstream of the Hanford Reach would be excluded by a 3/8-inch mesh (for sizes sampled in the Hanford Reach see Dauble et al. 1989 and other Hanford reports cited above). The effective opening of a 3/8-inch pore that is positioned parallel with a high sweeping flow >1 m/s is likely less than 3/8-inch for passage of particles such as small fish.

STUDY AREA Plant Description The Columbia Generating Station is located in south-central Washington State in Benton County adjacent to the Columbia River near River Mile (RM) 352 approximately five miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The site is located on leased land in the southeastern portion of the U.S. Department of Energys Hanford Site. The Columbia River bounds the CGS site on the east side.

11

The CGS is a single-unit, 1,170-megawatt boiling-water nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in December 1984 (EN 2010; NRC 2011). The reactor produces heat that boils water, producing steam for direct use in a steam turbine, which generates electricity for the Pacific Northwest grid. Steam that exits the turbine is condensed with cool water from a closed-cycle cooling system consisting of six mechanical-draft cooling towers that remove heat from the circulating water and transfer the heat to the atmosphere. A portion of the water in the circuit is lost by evaporation and drift of droplets entrained in air. The evaporative and drift losses lead to concentration of dissolved salts in the cooling circuit, necessitating a gradual replacement of water in the circuit by release of so-called blowdown water to the Columbia River. The combined losses from evaporation, drift and blowdown are replenished by so-called make-up water pumped from the Columbia River. It is the water intake for the make-up water that is the subject of this Entrainment Study Plan.

The make-up-water pump house is located 3 miles (5 km) east of the CGS reactor complex and approximately 300 ft. (91 meters) shoreward of the rivers normal high-water mark at RM 352 (Figures 3 and 4). It houses three 800-horsepower make-up water pumps situated in a pump well. The pump well is connected to intake structures in the river by two 36-inch (91-cm) diameter buried pipes that extend 900 ft. (274 m) from the pump house. Entrainment sampling will be conducted in this pump house.

The pumps are designed to each supply 12,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (0.79 m3/s or 9 million gallons per day [MGD]) or half the system capacity at design head. Two pumps can supply make-up water to the plant with a withdrawal capacity of 25,000 gpm (1.58 m3/s or 36 MGD) but during normal operating periods, the average make-up-water withdrawal is about 17,000 gpm (1.1 m3/s or 24.48 MGD). This contrasts with the average mean annual discharge of the Columbia River near the site of 117,823 cfs (3,336 m3/s or 76.2 BGD) and a minimum mean annual discharge of 80,650 cfs (2,284 m3/s or 52.1 BGD) (USGS 2010). The average make-up-water withdrawal of 17,000 gpm is thus about 0.03 percent of the average mean annual discharge and 0.05 percent of the minimum mean annual discharge of the river. The period of most concern, mid-March to mid-June when recently emerged Chinook salmon fry of entrainable size are present, is normally the period of highest river discharge, and thus the smallest percentage of river water withdrawn. At these times, 10-year average daily river flows downstream of Priest Rapids Dam (Hanford Reach; 2005-2014) rose fairly steadily from about 100 cfs near March 15 to 190-210 cfs in late May and early June (Columbia Basin Research query on July 23, 2015).

The average make-up water withdrawal of 17,000 gpm would have ranged from 0.036% in late March to 0.018-0.020 in late May and early June of this recent 10-year period.

Withdrawal rates actually vary seasonally and hourly. In the April-September period when juvenile fall Chinook salmon of progressively increasing sizes are present in the Hanford Reach, the 2014 monthly average withdrawal rates compared to CGSs maximum withdrawal capacity were: April- 63%, May- 62%, June- 69%, July 75%, August-60% and September- 66%. On a daily basis, water withdrawal rates are highest during the warm hours whereas downstream-migrating Chinook salmon juveniles pass mostly at night (Dauble et al. 1989).

12

Water velocities within the two 36-inch-diameter intake pipes, with which all make-up water is shared equally, vary with pumping rate. The calculated velocities inside each pipe at a range of flows are (http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Calculators/General/Pipe-Velocity.php):

Flow Rate (GPM), Total System Flow rate (GPM), Per Pipe Water Velocity (feet per second) 10000 5000 1.64 15000 7500 2.47 20000 10000 3.29 25000 12500 4.11 Make-up Water Intake Structure An intake structure is located at the end of each of the buried pipes. The pipes make a 90-degree, upward bend and extend slightly above the surface of the riverbed (Figures 4 and 5). Attached to each of the pipes is a 30 ft. (9 m)-long, cylindrical screen housing mounted above the riverbed and approximately parallel to the river flow. Each cylinder is composed of two intake screens each 6.5 ft. (2 m) long and mounted upstream and downstream of a central chamber attached to the buried pipe. Solid cones cap each end of the dual-screen structure (Figure 6). The screens consist of an outer and inner sleeve of perforated pipe. The outer sleeve (forming the wall of the cylinder) is 42-in in diameter (107 cm) with 3/8-in (9.5 mm) holes comprising 40 percent of the surface area. The inner sleeve is a 36-in (91-cm)-diameter cylinder with 3/4-in (19-mm) holes comprising 7 percent of the surface area. The double-sleeve intake screens are designed to distribute water flow into the structure evenly along its outer surface.

The dual intake cylinders are located approximately in the main channel of the Columbia River, which is flowing north to south (Figure 7). The river at this point has a western main channel and an eastern side channel separated by an island. Upstream of this island the river flow shifts from an eastern channel to the western channel via an area of very swift water. This zone is a minor spawning area for the fall race of Chinook salmon (Dauble and Watson 1997). A small area of suitable habitat for Steelhead spawning has been identified but no spawning activity has been documented there (G. McMichael, peer review comment). The nearest Steelhead spawning occurs in the outflow channel of the Ringold Springs fish hatchery, approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) upstream of the CGS intake and on the opposite shore.

The screens were designed for low through-screen velocities to minimize impingement and entrainment. Under maximum (abnormal) intake operating conditions of 25,000 gpm withdrawn through only one of the two intake structures there was a calculated entrance velocity at each screen pore of 0.50 to 1.1 ft./s (0.2 to 0.34 m/s) (WPPSS 1985). Under minimum operating conditions when 12,500 gpm would be withdrawn from both intake structures the entrance velocities were calculated to be 0.15 ft./s (0.05 m/s). These through-screen velocities compare to measured river velocities (sweeping velocities) of 4 to 5 ft/s (1.22 to 1.53 m/s) across the screen faces and perpendicular to flow into the screen pores.

13

Entrainment Sampling Location and Operation Entrainment sampling will be conducted in sampling cages suspended in the intake pump well at the termination of the buried pipes leading from the intake structures in the river (Figure 8)

(Mudge et al. 1981). Two sampling cages are available, each 1.5 m (5.8 ft.) long, 1.52 m (5 ft.)

high and 1.07 m (3.5 ft.) wide. Each cage has a 1.07 m2 door for coupling with the pipe outlets.

The cages have an aluminum frame and door, while the remainder is made of woven stainless steel wire mesh with 2.0-mm square openings. The existing sampling cages will be thoroughly refurbished, as needed, for this study. The cages will be lowered approximately 35 ft. (10.7 m) into the water of the pumphouse sump to the sampling position in direct alignment with the openings of the 36-inch inlet pipes. The cage door automatically opens as it nears the inlet pipe and closes upon initiation of cage retrieval. After the designated sampling time, the cages will be raised the approximately 35 ft. to a Fish Monitoring Access Platform in the pump well where the contents are processed. Tests for the apparatus effectiveness for capturing entrained fish will be conducted with hatchery fish of approximately the same size as concurrently found in the river that will be added experimentally to the sampling cage and retrieved after the designated sampling interval (as was done in previous studies; Mudge et al. 1981). There is no provision for testing latent mortality (as prescribed in EPA rule for 316(b) entrainment studies) because it is assumed any fish entering the closed-cycle cooling tower system would not survive.

STUDY TASKS AND METHODS This study plan outlines the tasks and general methods for a 2-year monitoring study focusing on early juvenile Chinook salmon but documenting other entrainable species and life stages, as well.

A literature review of abundant prior research in the Hanford Reach will lay the background for the presence and abundance of entrainable fish species and life stages. Samples of entrained fish will be taken weekly mid March through mid June (the risk window for early juvenile Chinook salmon) in the intake pump well and biweekly from July-September in each of two years when the power station is operating at >90% load (intake pumps are generally operating at 60% of the 25,000 gpm capacity or greater at these loads based on recent historical data). One of the two years may exclude a period of reactor outage, which usually occurs from early May through mid June. An independent contractor will conduct the literature review; entrainment sampling will be conducted by ENs Operations personnel (operation of sampling baskets) and an independent fisheries contractor (fish handling and data collection) with oversight and potential participation by staffs of NMFS, and relevant state agencies such as WDFW. The general approach and methods presented here will be augmented by a detailed sampling and analysis protocol (Standard Operating Procedure; SOP) to be developed by EN and its selected study contractor.

That protocol will receive additional peer review focusing on statistical issues for sampling and analysis.

Task 1--Historical Fish Occurrence Identification of fish that are, or likely to be, in the vicinity of the cooling-water intake structure and susceptible to entrainment.

14

Task 1.A. Using all existing and relevant literature resources and historical data that are reasonably obtainable, document the species, life stages, size classes, seasonal occurrence and general habitat preference of all fish species that do, or likely would, occur in the general vicinity of the CGS intake, including all ESA listed species and all salmonids. Although the monitoring will focus on juvenile fall Chinook salmon, this synthesis will not be as limited. The seasonal and diel abundance and size classes of juvenile Chinook salmon and many other species have been demonstrated in numerous prior studies, so this would be strictly a literature synthesis directed specifically at fishes in the CGS intake vicinity. Suggested sources: field research in the Hanford Reach and near CGS (as referenced above), a compendium of fishes in the Columbia Basin (Dauble 2009) and Washington State (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), and Moser et al.

(2015) on lamprey.

Task 1.B. Based on life-stage sizes and proximity to the CGS intake and the physical structure of the intake in relation to river morphology (e.g., vertical and horizontal placement of the intake in the river, hydraulics of flow around a cylinder such as the CGS intakes, pore size of the CGS screens, flow velocities into the CGS screen pores, sweeping river flows at the intakes) identify the species, life stages, size classes, and timing of fish susceptible or vulnerable to entrainment through the outer screen pores. Although not strictly part of the Entrainment Study Plan, identify risks from fish impingement on the screens, also. Published habitat-utilization data from the Hanford Reach and elsewhere can be used to estimate whether fall Chinook fry or parr would be expected to be found in the water flowing 1-3 m/s at the intake. Suggested sources: Bell 1990; NMFS 2011; Nordlund 2013a, b, c; Coutant 2014a including references therein. Particular attention should be given to recent laboratory studies of hydraulic bypass of juvenile (larval) fish around a cylindrical screen oriented parallel to rapidly flowing water (NAI and ASA 2011a, b; ASA and NAI 2012). Recent studies of capped fall Chinook spawning beds in the Hanford Reach showed that fry emerged at sizes of 36 to 42 mm fork length (McMichael et al. 2005; McMichael reviewer).

Task 1.C. Obtain and summarize, via table or figure, the historical water surface elevations and river discharges during the March-June period of potential juvenile Chinook salmon vulnerability to define the occurrence and frequency of extreme low water elevations that could affect entrainment (part of NMFS screen criteria).

Task 2--Fish Entrainment Sampling Demonstration of the species, life stages and numbers of fish entrained.

The following study features are expected, pending completion of a detailed SOP by a selected fisheries contractor and EN staff.

Task 2.A. Samples of entrained fish will be taken weekly mid March through mid June and biweekly from July-September in each of two years when the intake pumps are operating at 60%

capacity or greater (although previous studies required >75% power load, this study uses >60%

of maximum pumping capacity since it is water withdrawal rate that influences entrainment).

One of the two years may exclude a period of reactor outage, which usually occurs for a few 15

weeks in May and early June. Each sampling will include both collection cages (as near to concurrent as possible), with data maintained separately for each cage. A sample will consist of a 24-hour collection. Starting and ending times will be coordinated with the facilitys shift times, but maintained consistent throughout the study. Following processing (defined below), live fish will be allowed to recover from anesthesia and then returned to the river. Dead fish will be disposed of as organic waste through the CGS Sanitary Waste Treatment system or garbage disposal system. Any identifiable parts of dead fish will be tallied.

Additionally, two sequential 12-hour samples will be taken during normal sampling weeks when there are >20 fish appearing in the entrainment samples. This will identify any differences between daylight and dark entrainment (diel variation). Starting and stopping times will be at approximately dawn and dusk.

Fish collected will be anesthetized and then processed with the following information recorded:

• identification to species and life stage (fish of questionable identity will be preserved in 70% alcohol and referred to a qualified taxonomist for verification)

• lengths of individual fish to nearest mm (if >50 of a species, then a sample of 50 can be taken)

• weights of individual fish to nearest gram (if >50 of a species, then a sample of 50 can be taken)

• any outward signs of damage or disease, which should be described Task 2.B. The efficacy of the cages for capturing and retaining fish (capture efficiency) is to be established by tests with juvenile hatchery fish twice during each annual sampling period (also see section on Quality Control and Quality Assurance). Juvenile Chinook salmon of the sizes found concurrently in the river will be used. Special arrangements will be made with a supply hatchery to ensure the proper sizes at the test times (to adequately represent the size of fish in the wild, hatchery fish may need to be grown at cooler temperatures and/or lower feed levels than at local production hatcheries). All test fish will be marked (e.g., coded fin clip). For these tests, an open container of at least 100 hatchery fish will be placed in each sampling cage immediately prior to its lowering into the sampling position. These fish will escape the container when the cage is submerged in the pump well and attached to the end of the intake pipe. After the regular sampling time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> the cage will be raised and the number of marked fish remaining in the cage will be counted. The sampling cage will be deployed for the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (as part of regular sampling) and any marked fish that appear (presumed to have moved into the intake pipe during the test of capture efficiency) will be added to the catch in the capture efficiency test. It is unlikely that either entrained fish or control fish will remain in the piping from the intake to the pump well due to the high water velocities in the pipe (velocities are about 3 ft/sec at the typical withdrawal volume for the total system of about 17,000 gpm; see table above). Although visual monitoring of escaped fish with video cameras or DIDSON has been suggested, mounting the equipment in the pump well would be physically difficult and unlikely to be allowed with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for existing water intakes. All regular capture data will be adjusted upward by the percentage of introduced fish not recaptured (i.e., if only 90% of the hatchery fish are recaptured in the efficacy tests, the number of fish in monitoring collections will be increased by 10%).

16

Task 2.C. Ancillary data will be collected hourly by CGS for each sampling period including river elevation and discharge, direction of change of river stage (rising or falling), river water temperature, number and duration of pumps operating, make-up-water volume pumped, weather, and any abnormal operating or riverine conditions. River stage is routinely monitored by the CGS; river temperature will be monitored at the City of Richlands Snyder Street potable water intake located about 3 miles downstream of the CGS with backup data from the USGS monitoring station 12514400 at the Hwy 395 bridge at Pasco, WA. Hourly and daily withdrawal volumes will be provided for the entire April-September period in order that the sampled entrainment can be extrapolated to total annual entrainment and per unit volume of water pumped.

Task 3--Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring Demonstration of any clogging of the screens by fish impingement or debris.

A separate Operations and Maintenance Plan for the CGS includes periodic observations to detect impinged fish and debris on the intake screens. In addition to these observations, there will be at least hourly comparison of water elevations of the river (Task 2.C.) and in the pump house well (routinely monitored; real time and historical data are available) to identify any abnormal differential that could be attributed to clogging of the intake screens. Significant clogging would likely influence the through-screen velocities by increasing velocities of non-clogged pores, which would affect likelihood of fish being entrained or impinged. This task would consist of making these O&M observations available for analysis and reporting with the entrainment data.

Task 4--Data Summaries and Analyses Raw data for each entrainment sampling event will be assembled in electronic logs using Microsoft Excel or equivalent spreadsheet suitable for sharing with agencies. Tabular summaries will be prepared that include total numbers and relative abundance by species, life stage and size class. Plant-supplied operating data will be summarized hourly for each entrainment-sampling event. Water-withdrawal volumes also will be summarized on a weekly basis for the April-June and biweekly for July-September. Data will be preserved on electronic media (e.g., external hard drive).

Depending on the final set of methods established with a fisheries contractor, additional detail will be necessary in the SOP to clearly describe how data will be processed and analyzed, and expanded or extrapolated to species and life stages of interest. Protocols are needed for sampling and analyses. The planned SOP will be reviewed for acceptable precision (e.g., are sample sizes large enough, what coefficients of variation are expected, statistical procedures). These details will be reviewed by Dr. McDonald.

Loss estimates from the entrainment sampling will be placed in the context with the prolific and well-studied Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon population. This will be done using recent redd counts, anticipated yield from each redd, and estimated numbers of Chinook salmon fry exposed to the CGS intake. Entrainment of other species will also be placed in the context of population sizes, to the extent possible.

17

Task 5--Reporting An Entrainment Characterization Report, due to EFSEC on or before May 1, 2019, will document the current entrainment of all life stages of fish and any fish species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species). Recognizing the general importance of the EPA §316(b) Rule for such studies, the report will [italics quote the Rule]:

• identify and document all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for data collection and data analysis;

• present and discuss all ancillary data, including the flows associated with the data collection;

• describe the fish composition in the entrainment samples, including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s);

• note the presence of any fish species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species, and in this case including the fall Chinook salmon),

including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and put loss estimates from entrainment into context with this presence and abundance;

• provide size (length) distributions for the commonly entrained species;

• provide entrainment estimates for all species combined and by species and life stage, and identify and document all assumptions and calculations used to determine the total entrainment;

• assume 100 percent mortality for all taxa entrained;

• characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment; and

• provide appendices with (or otherwise make available) all raw data, including plant operating and other ancillary data.

PERMITS Energy Northwest will request appropriate permits from regulatory agencies in a timely manner.

The following permit is expected to be required for the study plan: WDFW Transport Permit (for hatchery fish to be used for tests of capture efficiency of the sampling baskets).

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL Quality Assurance (QA) is an integrated system of management activities that involves planning, implementation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that data are of the type and quality necessary for application to their intended use. Quality control (QC) is the 18

system of activities that measures the QA program activities to verify that they meet project specifications. In addition to requiring QA/QC procedures, the EPA Rule has set some objectives for data quality by stating that the sampling and analytical methods must be appropriate for a quantitative survey.

This study plan for CGS provides the site-specific document that presents the study design, methodologies, and guidance from sample collection and processing through data analysis and reporting, as well as the QA/QC activities and health and safety concerns. It provides the mechanism whereby EN, its contractors, peer reviewers and responsible agencies may raise and resolve questions and concerns pertaining to the study design (e.g., methodologies, gear specifications, data analysis, reporting content/format) prior to the start of the study, thereby minimizing the potential for disagreements and misunderstandings after the study is completed.

The SOP manual will be established prior to collecting entrainment and other samples. This study plan will form the basis of the SOP and will be augmented by the addition of project-specific checklists, datasheets, forms, and instructions on how to fill them out, review them, and store them. The SOP will also provide a more detailed (cookbook) approach for mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, QA/QC procedures and documentation, and health and safety. The SOP will be written in a concise, step-by-step, easy-to-read format. Information will be conveyed clearly and explicitly to remove any doubt as to what is required. The following sections provide general discussions of key components for the QA/QC section of the SOP.

All equipment used during the entrainment characterization study will be calibrated and/or maintained according to established procedures or manufacturers recommendations.

Calibrations will be appropriately documented and maintained in the project file. Equipment for this study that will require calibration includes, at least, the pump house fish monitoring facilities (see Task 2).

All sampling personnel, whether EN staff, contractors or participating agencies (e.g., NMFS or WDFW), will be expected to have read and have on hand at all times a copy of the SOP. The SOP will provide all sample collection procedures, and an equipment checklist so that the personnel have all the appropriate equipment needed for sampling. All sampling personnel and/or other visitors will be in the presence of ENs Operation and E&RP personnel who are required to brief on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions (see Health and Safety Section).

Data will be managed to avoid errors and loss. Hard copy field and in-plant data sheets will be entered into an appropriate (e.g., Microsoft Access) database and then imported into a statistical (e.g., SAS) database if needed. SAS (or equivalent) programs will be used to create proof sets that will be double checked against the hard copy field and laboratory data sheets. This process will be documented on a data processing log sheet and kept as part of the project file. Only documented programs will be used to generate tabular summaries that will be imported into a Microsoft Office (Excel) product to produce tables and figures for the report.

A senior scientist familiar with entrainment characterization will write the Entrainment Characterization Report. This will be an EN contractor. The report will undergo a three-step 19

review process before being provided to the EFSEC: 1) contractor senior technical review, 2) at least two external peer reviewers (if available, the same reviewers who reviewed the study plan),

and 3) EN technical and management review.

HEALTH AND SAFTY EN and contractor personnel may potentially be exposed to a variety of hazards because of the industrialized nature of the study area. Safety is of the utmost importance to EN, therefore no personnel will be required to or instructed to work in surroundings or under conditions that are unsafe or dangerous to his or her health. At least one EN staff member will be present for all sampling/data collection events. All EN employees and contractor personnel will be responsible for complying with ENs applicable safety requirements, wearing prescribed safety equipment such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and preventing avoidable accidents. In particular, when personnel are on plant property, appropriate safety gear (e.g., hard hats, safety glasses, ear protection) will be used as prescribed by EN.

Any chemicals brought into the study areas (e.g., formalin, alcohol) will be handled in accordance with ENs Chemical Management procedures and their respective material safety data sheet (MSDS), which will be included in an appendix of the SOP. Work will not be conducted or will be suspended if a chemical spill occurs that contaminates the work area.

All personnel will be expected to follow all safety procedures applicable to CGS. Applicable requirements in EN Industrial Safety Program Manual (ISPM) will be incorporated specifically or by reference in the SOP. Additionally all sampling personnel and/or other visitors will be in the presence of ENs Operation and E&RP personnel for each sampling visit and will be briefed on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions.

20

REFERENCES ASA and NAI (ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc., and Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2012.

2012 Wedgewire Screen In-River Efficacy Study at Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center.

Atkinson, D. K. 2014. Letter to S. Posner of EFSEC with attachments. Energy Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Beak (Beak Consultants, Inc.) 1980. Preoperational Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, -2 and -4.

August 1978 Through March 1980. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Vol. 7.

Portland, Oregon.

Becker, C. D. 1970. Temperature, timing, and seaward migration of juvenile Chinook salmon from the central Columbia River. Technical Report BNWL-1472. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 4095432.

Becker, C. D. 1973. Aquatic bioenvironmental studies in the Columbia River at Hanford, 1945-1971. A bibliography with abstracts. Technical Report BNWL1734, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 4467175.

Becker, C. D. 1985. Anadromous salmonids of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River: 1984 status.

Technical Report PNL-5371, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland. Washington. OSTI No. 5222130.

Becker, C. D., and R. H. Gray. 1989. Abstracted publications related to the Hanford environment, 1980-1988. Technical Report PNL-6905, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 6039963.

Becker, C. D. 1990. Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies: The Hanford Experience 1944-1984.

Studies in Environmental Science 39. Elsevier, New York.

Bell, M. C. 1990. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria.

Prepared for the North Pacific Division of the U.S. Army corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

Coutant, C. C. 2014a. Why Cylindrical Screens in Flowing Water Impinge and Entrain Few Fish and Its Importance for the Columbia Generating Stations Intake. Prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Coutant, C. C. 2014b. Comments on NMFS letter of December 12, 2013 to Shannon Khounnala of Energy Northwest by Michael P. Tehan of NMFS, with its Attached Memo and Appendix A. Review of Fish Screen Evaluation References Cited by NMFS: Relevance to the Columbia Generating Station In-River Intake Screens.

Dauble, D. D., T. L. Page, and R. W. Hanf, Jr. 1989. Spatial distribution of juvenile salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87:775-790.

Dauble, D.D., and D. G. Watson. 1997. Status of fall Chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:283-300.

Dauble, D. D., R. Moursund, and M. Bleich. 2006. Swimming behavior of juvenile Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentate. Environmental Biology of Fishes 75:169-172.

Dauble, D. D. 2009. Fishes of the Columbia Basin. Keokee Books, Sandpoint, Idaho. ISBN 978-1-879628-34-2.

Energy Northwest. 2010. Columbia Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Environmental Report. Docket No. 50-397.

21

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Peer Review Handbook. 3rd ed. Science Policy Council, Washington, DC. EPA/100/B-06/002.

Evans, D. R. January 14, 1983, National Marine Fisheries Service letter to K. R. Wise, WNP-2 Operational Monitoring Program.

Geist, D. R, and D. D. Dauble. 1998. Redd site selection and spawning habitat use by fall Chinook salmon: the importance of geomorphic features in large rivers. Environmental Management 22:655-669.

Geist, D. R., J Jones, C. J. Murray, and D. D. Dauble. 2000. Suitability criteria analyzed at the spatial scale of red clusters improved estimates of fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Canadian Journal of fisheries and Aquatic sciences 57:1636-1646. 10.1139/f00-101.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1976. Synecology of the fish community near Hanford Generating Project and assessment of plant operations. Pages 5.1-5.56. In: T. L. Page, R.

H. Gray, and E.G. Wolf. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 1.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977a. Checklist and relative abundance of fish species from he Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Northwest Science 51:208-215.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977b. Synecology of the fish community near WNP-1, 2, and 4 and assessment of suitability of plant area for salmonid spawning. Pages 5.1-5.71, In:

Gray, R. H., T. L. Page, and E.G. Wolf. . Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted near WNP 1, 2, and 4, September 1974 through September 1975. WPPSS Columbia River Ecological Studies Vol. 2. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977c. Fish community studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4: October 1975 though February 1976. Pages 5.1-5.45. In Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, October 1975 through February 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 3. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1978. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4: March through December 1976. Pages 5.1-5.74. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, March through December 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 4. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1979a. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4; January through December 1977. Pages 5.1-5.64. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, January through December 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 5. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1979b. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4; January through August 1978. Pages 5.1-5.52. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, January through August 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 6. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 2001. Some life history characteristics of cyprinids in the Hanford Reach, mid-Columbia River. Northwest Science 75:122-136.

Harnish, R. A., R. Sharma, G. A. McMichael, R. B. Langshaw, and T. N. Pearsons. 2014. Effect of hydroelectric dam operations on the freshwater productivity of a Columbia river fall 22

Chinook salmon population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 71:1-14.

Doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0276.

McMichael, G. A., C. L. Rakowski, B. B. James, and J. A. Lukas. 2005. Estimated fall Chinook salmon survival to emergence in dewatered redds in a shallow side channel of the Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:876-884.

McMichael, G. A., and B. B. James. 2015. Qualitative assessment of egg loss resulting from red superimposition due to high 2014 fall Chinook salmon escapement to the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Final report to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game under contract IHP-15-03. Available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277323687.

Moser, M. L., A. D. Jackson, M. C. Luca, and R. P. Mueller. 2015. Behavior and potential threats to survival of migrating lamprey ammocetes and macropthalmia. Reviews in Fish biology and Fisheries 25:103-116.

Mudge, J. E., G. S. Jeane II, K. P. Campbell, B. R. Eddy, and L. E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

NAI and ASA (Normandeau Associates, Inc. and ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc.)

2011a. 2010 IPEC Wedgewire Screen Laboratory Study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. Report R-21825.002.

NAI and ASA. 2011b. 2011 IPEC Wedgewire Screen Laboratory Study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. Report R-21825.004.

Nordlund, B. 2013a. Entrainment and Impingement Potential for Salmonids at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Intake Screens. Memorandum for Hydro Division files (July 31, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Nordlund, B. 2013b. Columbia Generating Station (CGS) - Intake Screens Assessment and Recommendations for Modifications. Memorandum for Hedro Division files (August 7, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Nordlund, B. 2013c. Review of Recent Info Regarding Columbia Generating Station.

Memorandum for Ritchie Graves (December 12, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. Columbia Generating Station License Renewal. Docket Number 50-397. Rockville, Maryland.

Page, T. L., E. G. Wolfe, R. H. Gray, and M. J. Schneider. 1974. Ecological comparison of the Hanford No. 1 and WNP-2 sites on the Columbia River. Battelle Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Sorensen, G. C. May 9, 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System letter to D. R. Evans, National Marine Fisheries Service, Supply System Project No. 2, Aquatic Operational Monitoring Program.

Visser, R., D. D. Dauble, and D. R. Geist. 2002. Use of aerial photography to monitor fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 1173-1179.

Wagner, O, J. Nugent, and C. Lindsey. 2014. Hanford site steelhead red monitoring report for calendar year 2013. HNF-56705. Mission Support Alliance, Richland Washington.

23

WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System) 1985. Operational Ecological Monitoring Program for Nuclear Plant 2. 1985 Annual Report. Environmental Programs Department, Richland, Washington.

Wydoski, S., and R. R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. Second Edition. American Fisheries Society and University of Washington Press, Seattle.

24

FIGURES 25

Figure 1 Location of CGS, 50-mi (80-km) Region (Source: EN, 2010)

Figure 2 Location of CGS, 6-mi (10-km) Region (Source: EN, 2010)

Figure 3 Intake system plan and profile Figure 4. Artists rendering of the cooling-water intake system of the Columbia Generating Station from the in-river intake screens to the pump house.

Figure 5 Perforated intake plan and section Source: (WPPSS, 1980)

Figure 6 Spare perforated pipe for the intake screen at CGS. A side view; B close up of outer sleeve; and C end view showing inner sleeve of perforated pipe.

Figure 7 Location of pumphouse, pipelines, intakes, and outfalls showing historical steelhead and fall Chinook salmon spawning locations Source: (Gambhir, 2010), (Poston, et al., 2008)

FISH MONITORING ACCESS PLATFORM 890476.298LT JUNE C

Figure 8--Diagram of fish entrainment monitoring cages in CGS pumphouse.

Fish sampling cages attached to the terminal ends of the buried pipes carrying water from the in-river intake structures and are raised to a monitoring platform above the water surface for fish counting.

APPENDIX A. EPA §316(b) RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The final EPA Rule for implementing Clean Water Act Section 316(a) contains a number of requirements for an Entrainment Characterization Study (§122.21(r)(9)) that inform the CGS study plan (although not required due to lower water withdrawal by the closed-cycle cooling system):

[t]he owner or operator of an existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 mgd AIF

[actual intake flow], where the withdrawal of cooling water is measured at a location within the cooling water intake structure that the Director deems appropriate, must develop for submission to the Director an Entrainment Characterization Study that includes a minimum of two years of entrainment data collection. The Entrainment Characterization Study must include the following components:

(i) Entrainment Data Collection Method. The study should identify and document the data collection period and frequency. The study should identify and document organisms collected to the lowest taxon possible of all life stages of fish and shellfish that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and are susceptible to entrainment, including any organisms identified by the Director, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law, including threatened or endangered species with a habitat range that includes waters in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. Biological data collection must be representative of the entrainment at the intakes subject to this provision. The owner or operator of the facility must identify and document how the location of the cooling water intake structure in the waterbody and the water column are accounted for by the data collection locations; (ii) Biological Entrainment Characterization. Characterization of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species), including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s), based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment, including but not limited to variations related to climate and weather differences, spawning, feeding, and water column migration. This characterization may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site. Identification of all life stages of fish and shellfish must include identification of any surrogate species used, and identification of data representing both motile and non-motile life-stages of organisms; (iii) Analysis and Supporting Documentation. Documentation of the current entrainment of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species). The documentation may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site. Entrainment data to support the facilitys calculations must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure, and the flows associated with the data collection must be documented. The method used to determine latent mortality along with data for specific 27

organism mortality or survival that is applied to other life-stages or species must be identified. The owner or operator of the facility must identify and document all assumptions and calculations used to determine the total entrainment for that facility together with all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for data collection and data analysis. The proposed data collection and data analysis methods must be appropriate for a quantitative survey.

28

APPENDIX B. AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT STUDY PLAN 29

Appendix B Sampling and Analysis Protocol

March 2018 Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Investigation Sampling Analysis Protocol Prepared for Energy Northwest

March 2018 Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Investigation Sampling Analysis Protocol Prepared for Prepared by Energy Northwest Anchor QEA, LLC 76 North Power Plant Loop 23 South Wenatchee Avenue Richland, Washington 99354 Wenatchee WA, 98801 Project Number: 171376-01.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Sampling Design and Methods .............................................................................................. 2 2.1 Fish Entrainment Sampling.............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Routine Entrainment Sampling ...................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Contingency Sampling ................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Cage Efficacy Sampling .................................................................................................................. 11 3 Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring ........................................................................ 15 4 Data Summaries and Analyses ............................................................................................. 17 4.1 Data Management and QA/QC .................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Data Summaries................................................................................................................................................ 17 4.3 Analyses ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Entrainment ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4.3.2 Entrainment Impact on Hanford Reach Fall Chinook ......................................................... 23 4.3.3 Characterizing Screen Pore Velocity at Different Intake Volumes ................................ 24 5 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 25 6 Project Schedule...................................................................................................................... 26 7 References ................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLES Table 1 2017-18 Proposed Sampling Schedule ............................................................................................. 6 Table 2 Fish Identification Hierarchy ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Project Representative Contact Information ................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Data Sources Used for Entrainment Analyses and Data Summaries ................................ 17 FIGURES Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Sampling Analysis Protocol i March 2018

Figure 2 Detail of Sampling Cage in Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Depicting the Relative Location of Cages to Intake Pipes .............................. 4 Figure 3 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform ........................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Image of the Cage Locking Pin Securely Placed ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Diagram of Extendable Sampling Net ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 Cut-away Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating the Approximate Placement of Holding Boxes on the Cage Floor ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating Transfer of Fish from 5-gallon Bucket to Holding Box........................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8 Simplified Diagram of Expected Differential between Pumphouse Water Elevation and Columbia River Elevation when Screens are Blocked ................................. 15 Figure 9 Generalized Relationship Between Screen Blockage and Entrance Velocity at Constant Intake Volume........................................................................................................................ 16 APPENDICES Appendix A Health and Safety Plan Appendix B Data Forms Appendix C Safety Data Sheets Sampling Analysis Protocol ii March 2018

ABBREVIATIONS CGS Columbia Generating Station ISPM Industrial Safety Program Manual m 2 square meter m3 cubic meter m/s meter per second mm millimeter MS-222 Tricaine Methanesulfonate O&M Operations and Maintenance QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control SAP Sampling and Analysis Protocol definition USGS U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Analysis Protocol iii March 2018

1 Introduction The Sampling and Analysis Protocol (SAP) is intended to provide a detailed (cookbook) approach for mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures and documentation, and health and safety associated with entrainment monitoring and other sampling at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS). The SAP is organized to address these topics.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 1 March 2018

2 Sampling Design and Methods Sampling and design methods were developed to be consistent with those described in Coutant (2014) and build upon entrainment studies conducted for CGSs commissioning in 1979-1980 (Mudge et al. 1981) and in 1985 (WPPSS 1985).

2.1 Fish Entrainment Sampling The SAP covers three different sampling protocols (1) Routine Entrainment Sampling, which provides raw weekly and biweekly capture data to estimate entrainment rates; (2) Contingency Sampling, which provides an expanded characterization of diel entrainment patterns; and (3) Cage Efficacy Sampling, which is used to generate a correction factor for entrainment rates based on the retention efficiency of the cages. These three protocols and related analyses are described below.

2.1.1 Routine Entrainment Sampling Entrainment sampling will be conducted at the CGS make-up water pumphouse building, located at River Mile 352 on the Columbia River. The pumphouse building has two levels: an upper level, referred to here as the Entry Level; and a lower level where sampling occurs, referred to here as the Sampling Platform. The general layout of the pumphouse, intake pipes, and screens is depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 2 March 2018

Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Building Notes:

Drawings are not to scale and are intended to highlight the general orientation of the facility relative to intakes and screens.

Large blue arrows depict the direction of pumped water conveyed through the pumphouse building.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 3 March 2018

Figure 2 Detail of Sampling Cage in Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Depicting the Relative Location of Cages to Intake Pipes Methods Two sampling cages will be used for entrainment sampling. Cages will be lowered and raised (Figure 2) with electric motors; the door to each cage will be raised and lowered via a rope connected to the top of the door. The cages will be designated as Cage 1 and Cage 2 based on the orientation depicted in Figure 3.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 4 March 2018

Figure 3 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform South North Schedule Routine entrainment sampling in 2018 will occur once per week during the early-April to mid-June period; during the July to early September period, sampling will occur once every other week. CGS staff will deploy the cages on Wednesday mornings (approximately 9 a.m.), with cage retrieval to occur 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> later on Thursday mornings. In the event more than 20 fish are captured in any sampling event (based on the combined count from both cages) additional contingency sampling will commence (Section 2.1.2).

Three separate cage efficacy tests will be conducted concurrently with routine sampling on dates that span the typical fall-Chinook emergence period (Table 1). The methods for cage efficacy sampling are described in Section 2.1.3 below.

Routine Entrainment and Cage Efficacy sampling in 2019 will occur during the mid-March to September period at the same weekly/biweekly frequency; however, specific dates will be identified closer to the 2019 sampling period to align with CGS operations.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 5 March 2018

Table 1 2018 Proposed Sampling Schedule Sampling Datesa Start Finish Notes Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Thursday, April 5, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, April 5, 2018 Friday, April 6, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Thursday, April 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Thursday, April 19, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Thursday, April 26, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, April 26, 2018 Friday, April 27, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Thursday, May 3, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Thursday, May 10, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Thursday, May 17, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, May 17, 2018 Friday, May 18, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Thursday, May 24, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Thursday, June 7, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Thursday, June 28, 2018 Routine Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Thursday, July 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Thursday, July 26, 2018 Routine Wednesday, August 8, 2018 Thursday, August 9, 2018 Routine Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Thursday, August 23, 2018 Routine Wednesday, September 5, 2018 Thursday, September 6, 2018 Routine Note:

a. Contingency sampling will occur if more than 20 individual fish are captured during a routine sampling session.

Cage Deployment and Retrieval On the Wednesday morning of a sampling event, CGS staff will lower both sampling cages from the Sampling Platform approximately 35 feet into the pumphouse sump directly in alignment with the openings of the inlet pipes. The cage doors will then be opened to allow access for any fish entrained in the intake pipes. A clipboard will be located on the Entry Level adjacent to the ladder that accesses the Sampling Platform to record the date and time that each cage is lowered (see data forms in Appendix B) into the pumphouse sump.

After a 24-hour sampling period (i.e., Thursday morning), Anchor QEA staff will meet with CGS staff at the pumphouse to conduct fish retrieval and sampling activities. Prior to retrieving the sampling cages, Anchor QEA and CGS staff will set up a small sampling station on the Entry Level of the Sampling Analysis Protocol 6 March 2018

pumphouse where fish identification and other sampling activities will be conducted. Sampling at this location will minimize the risk of having fish or sampling materials fall through the grated floor of the Sampling Platform.

After the sampling station is set up on the Entry Level of the pumphouse, CGS and Anchor QEA staff will descend to the Sampling Platform (Figure 3) to retrieve fish from the cages.

Accessing the Sampling Platform will require walking on surfaces that may be wet or uneven. Special care should be taken to ensure solid footing. In addition, there is a ladder that is used to climb down from the Entry Level to Sampling Platform. Special caution should be used to ensure hand and foot placement during travel up or down the ladder. A visual inspection of travel routes inside the pumphouse will be important to avoid any tripping hazards or colliding with low hanging pipes. The transport of any gear up and down the ladder will be planned in advance and discussed with CGS operators to ensure that the gear is secured properly and doesnt interfere with hand or foot placement.

All personnel will empty pockets and remove loose items from their person such as jewelry, wallets, keys, cell phones, and other items not necessary to perform the job, and leave in a tray at the sampling station. In addition to the required personal protective equipment (work boots, hard hat, gloves, eye protection, and hearing protection), the ear plug type hearing protection must have attached lanyards to prevent the ear plug from becoming foreign material. The lanyards are not to be cut or removed. Clear plastic or glass items are not to be taken down to the Sampling Platform unless deemed necessary to perform the work. Items are to be conspicuously marked so they can be clearly seen in the area, including if submerged in water. A CGS supplied floor covering will be spread across the deck of the Sampling Platform near the cages so that nothing will fall through the grating.

One sampling cage at a time will be raised to inspect the interior and retrieve any fish that are present. After the cage is pulled to the surface, Anchor QEA and CGS personnel will verify that the cage locking pin is in place (Figure 4). This is a critical step to ensure that the cage does not unexpectedly drop while fish are being sampled.

Fish will be retrieved from the cages with sweeping, vacuum, or grabbing tools mounted on extension poles (Figure 5). Cages will be sprayed down with pressurized water or air to dislodge debris and move fish into areas within the cage that are accessible. The purpose of this approach is to maximize safety by minimizing the need to physically bring hands, arms or clothing into the cage.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 7 March 2018

Figure 4 Image of the Cage Locking Pin Securely Placed Figure 5 Diagram of Extendable Fish Retrieval Tool All fish retrieved from the cages will be placed in a 5-gallon bucket and transported to the sampling station on the Entry Level of the pumphouse. Fish will be processed from one cage at a time. If no fish are observed in Cage 1 or counting has been completed for Cage 1, Cage 2 will be raised and Sampling Analysis Protocol 8 March 2018

the identical protocol will be followed. Once sampling is completed, Anchor QEA and CGS staff will visually inspect the cages to ensure trap integrity and the cages will be stored in place until the next test date.

Data Collection Fish retrieved from the sampling cages will be transferred from a 5-gallon bucket to a container with Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS-222) to be euthanized. Anchor QEA staff will collect the following measurements on the Fish Entrainment Form (Appendix B):

• Identification of species and life stage

• Weight (grams) for the first 50 of a species

• Fork Length (mm) for the first 50 of a species

• Notation of any outward signs of damage or disease and a description Fish identification will follow a hierarchical approach where focal taxa are always identified to the species level and other fish are identified to genus level (Table 2).

Table 2 Fish Identification Hierarchy Fish Encountered Identification Level Focal Species Species Level

• Bull trout

• Steelhead

• Chinook salmon

• Lamprey

• Sturgeon

• All other salmonids Other fish species Genus Level Any fish of questionable identity will be photographed and then preserved in 70% ethanol and subsequently examined in a lab setting for distinguishing morphological or meristic characteristics using regional fish identification keys (e.g., Pollard et al. 1997 or PSMFC 2009).

Fish that are not retained for further identification will be disposed of as organic waste through the CGS Sanitary Waste Treatment or garbage disposal systems.

Equipment Required The following equipment will be located on the Sampling Platform for fish sampling:

• Five-gallon buckets Sampling Analysis Protocol 9 March 2018

• A rope or chain for fastening the bucket to the rail and preventing the bucket from being dropped in the sump

• Long-handled tools to remove the fish from the sampling cages

• Floor cover to prevent fish or material from falling through the grating into the vault The following equipment will be used on the Entry Level of the pumphouse for sampling:

• Sampling station (table)

• MS-222

• Small mesh aquarium nets for transferring fish

• Sampling tubs for anesthetic and fresh water

• Measuring boards

• Weighing scales Communication All sampling activities will be coordinated between Anchor QEA staff and Energy Northwest Staff.

Anchor QEA will provide a weekly email update on routine sampling activities and will contact Energy Northwest directly if there are any changes or deviations from the regular sampling schedule or activities. The project representatives and contact information is described in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Project Representative Contact Information Organization Representative Contact Information Work Phone: (509) 377- 8639 Shannon Khounnala Cell phone: (509) 619-8338 Department Manager Email: sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com Energy Northwest Work Phone: (509) 377-8794 Wayde (Kip) Whitehead Cell phone: (801) 989-1844 Project Manager Email: wkwhitehead@energy-northwest.com Larissa Rohrbach Cell Phone: (253) 820-3467 Project Manager Email: lrohrbach@anchorqea.com Kristi Geris Cell Phone: (360) 220-3988 Anchor QEA Field Lead Email: kgeris@anchorqea.com Arial Evans Cell Phone: (747 242-0951 Field Biologist Email: aevans@anchorqea.com 2.1.2 Contingency Sampling If more than twenty fish total are captured in a 24-hour routine sampling event, contingency sampling will occur. Immediately after the fish are processed as in Section 2.1.1, the sampling cages Sampling Analysis Protocol 10 March 2018

will be redeployed. Instead of a 24-hour sampling period, however, fish will be collected in two sequential 12-hour shifts representing a day period and night period to identify any diel variation in entrainment. The purpose is to determine if there are diel differences in entrainment rates.

Sampling would correspond to the following time periods, and most likely occur from Thursday morning until Friday morning:

• Day Period: Dawn to dusk (approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; cages will be raised, sampled, and redeployed)

• Night Period: Dusk to dawn (approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; cages will be raised, sampled, inspected, and stored until the next sampling event)

• Sampling methods will be identical to those described in Section 2.1.1, with the exception of sampling timing 2.1.3 Cage Efficacy Sampling The efficacy of the sampling cages for capturing and retaining fish will be evaluated with juvenile hatchery fish during three trials conducted during each sampling year (2018 and 2019). The purpose of this sampling is to create a correction factor that can be applied to the seasonal entrainment estimate (Section 4).

Methods Cage efficacy trials will be conducted during the period between March and June when wild juvenile fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are expected to be abundant in the Hanford Reach.

Individual trials will occur concurrently with scheduled routine entrainment sampling events (Table 1).

Anchor QEA will coordinate with the hatchery supplying the trial fish in 2018-19 and it is anticipated that the Ringold or Columbia Basin Hatchery, operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be the primary source. Juvenile salmonids of similar size to juvenile fall Chinook salmon found concurrently in the Columbia River will be used for the trials. Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are expected to be available and small enough to appropriately represent the size of juvenile fall Chinook salmon expected to be in the study area.

The size of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in the vicinity of the CGS intake can be inferred by examining previous studies. Work conducted by Harnish et al. (2014), Hoffarth et al. (2003) Dauble et al. (1989) collected juvenile fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach in nearshore areas using a variety of sampling approaches including seines. Dauble et al. (1989) also collected juveniles in deeper, mid-river areas using fyke nets. Each of these studies had an implicit goal of documenting the representative size of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach to support analyses concerning broader population-based questions. Additionally, these studies temporally overlapped with the focal period of the current proposed CGS entrainment study where post emergent fall Chinook salmon are expected to be present (March to June).

Sampling Analysis Protocol 11 March 2018

Based on a review of these literature sources, the average size of natural fall Chinook salmon in the study area is expected to be less than 50 millimeters (mm). These results were observed in both nearshore and deeper portions of the Hanford Reach. For the purpose of testing the efficacy of the CGS traps, fish at or below 50 mm best represent the size of fish expected to present near the CGS intake.

In 2018, juvenile salmonids 1 that are 40 to 50 mm in length will be obtained from Ringold Hatchery for implementation of the cage efficacy trials. Juveniles will be marked at the Hatchery with Bismark brown dye prior to conducting cage efficacy trials. Anchor QEA staff will coordinate with the staff at the hatchery to ensure that fish are thermally tempered based on the estimated water temperature in the pumphouse. The temperature in the pumphouse will be estimated by reviewing the water temperature at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Monitoring Station 12472800 at the Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam. In addition, after the fish are delivered to the CGS facility, the water temperature will be checked in the transport container and the pumphouse and any differences between the two water sources will be recorded. If necessary, on-site tempering will be performed through the serial addition of pumphouse water to the fish transport container water until the temperatures are within 2°C. Tempering will reduce the likelihood of shock or mortality occurring when fish are placed in the cages and introduced to the intake water.

Following tempering, fish will be counted into and transported via 5-gallon buckets from the transport container to the Sampling Platform. Each cage will be outfitted with one holding box placed on the floor of the cage (Figure 6). A total of 100 marked salmonids will be transferred to the holding box within each cage using a water-to-water conveyance system that consists of a large diameter funnel and hose (Figure 7). The cage door will be closed at this time and will remain closed until the cage is lowered the approximate 35 feet into the sump area and attached to the ends of the intake pipes, when the cage door will be opened. The date, time, cage number, and number of marked fish will be recorded. Once the first cage is deployed, the process will be repeated for the second sampling cage. Identical information will be recorded for the second cage as it is deployed.

1 Rainbow trout or Chinook salmon are expected to be available and in the size range needed to support the cage efficacy trials Sampling Analysis Protocol 12 March 2018

Figure 6 Cut-away Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating the Approximate Placement of Holding Boxes on the Cage Floor Notes:

Holding box volume = 1728 cubic inches = 7.48 gallons Figure 7 Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating Transfer of Fish from 5-gallon Bucket to Holding Box Sampling Analysis Protocol 13 March 2018

After being deployed for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the cages will be retrieved and the remaining marked fish will be enumerated. Fish will be retrieved from each cage and transported to the Entry Level for counting and data recording. All of the marked fish used in the cage efficacy trial will be euthanized. No salmonids will be released into the Columbia River.

The sampling cages will be re-deployed for the next 24-hours as part of routine weekly sampling and any marked fish that appear may be added to the catch of the cage efficacy test (presumed to have moved into the intake pipe during the test of capture efficiency).

The results of the three cage efficacy trials conducted each year will be used to confirm adequate

(>80%) and equivalent cage efficacy rates between the two replicate cages and to develop a single averaged correction factor (C) that will be applied to calculations of entrainment (Section 4.3.1).

Sampling Analysis Protocol 14 March 2018

3 Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring A separate Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for CGS includes periodic observations to detect impinged fish and debris at the intake screens. Data to be collected include, at a minimum, real time and historical hourly comparisons of water surface elevations in the Columbia River and the pumphouse well. Differences in elevations (Figure 8) could indicate intake screen clogging, which could result in higher velocities in unclogged areas.

Figure 8 Simplified Diagram of Expected Differential between Pumphouse Water Elevation and Columbia River Elevation when Screens are Blocked The estimated blockage of the screen will be characterized using the observations from the separate CGS debris monitoring study and differentials in water elevations between the pumphouse and Columbia River. The interaction between assumed screen blockage and estimated pore velocity at the screen at an observed intake flow will be graphed relative to NOAA Fisheries-screening criteria.

Figure 9 depicts this hypothetical relationship based on Equation 1.

A qualitative log of the amount of debris retained on cages over the 24-hour sampling events will be kept.

As part of the fish impingement study, the Columbia Generating Station also evaluates the intake structure twice per year for evidence of impinged fish, algae growth and accumulated debris on the intake structures screens located in the Columbia River. This information will be obtained as an aid to evaluate the amount of debris accumulated on the intake screens.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 15 March 2018

Equation 1

=

(1 )

where:

Aeff = effective screen area (square meters [m2])

b = proportion screen area blockage Q = intake flow (cubic meters per second [m3/s])

Vent = entrance velocity (meters per second [m/s])

Figure 9 Generalized Relationship Between Screen Blockage and Entrance Velocity at Constant Intake Volume Water Velocity at Intake Screen 0.35 0.30 Entrance Velocity (m/s) 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 NMFS required entrance velocity 0.05 for fry (NMFS 2011) 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Blocked Screen Notes:

m/s: meters per second Sampling Analysis Protocol 16 March 2018

4 Data Summaries and Analyses This section of the SAP describes the data summaries and analyses that will be provided to characterize entrainment and the operating conditions and environmental variables that may interact with entrainment.

4.1 Data Management and QA/QC Spreadsheet forms for entering data collected during fish entrainment sampling will be designed prior to the start of field work and will include field validation to enforce data integrity rules (e.g.,

enforce correct data types and values). Field personnel will be instructed in correct data entry protocols and data entries will be checked for quality control after each field event. Once checked the field forms will be stored on a server on Anchor QEAs network that is backed up daily to protect against data loss due to file corruption or disk failure. Operational and environmental data provided by CGS or obtained from the USGS website will be obtained in spreadsheet or delineated text file (e.g., CSV) format. Once these files are acquired, they will also be stored on a secured location on Anchor QEAs network. At the end of each field season project data will be compiled in a Microsoft Access relational database. Reporting queries will be developed to extract data from the database in tabular format for analysis and reporting (Table 4).

4.2 Data Summaries In addition to fish sampling data, other operational and environmental data will be collected and characterized to provide data summaries and analyses related to entrainment. These data and their sources and applications are described in Table 4. Operational and environmental data summaries will be provided for each sampling event.

Table 4 Data Sources Used for Entrainment Analyses and Data Summaries Data Data Source Application Weekly/biweekly fish sampling data Anchor QEA Daily, weekly, and seasonal entrainment estimates (species capture information) (fish/m3)

Pump operation (number of pumps CGS Cross reference with make-up water volume pumped running out of 3 pumps, 2 on is typical) and use to calculate screen velocity Make-up water volume pumped CGS Expansion of daily, weekly, and seasonal entrainment (cfs and m3) estimates (fish/m3)

Pumphouse water elevation at well CGS Estimate screen blockage by calculating the (feet and meters) differential between pumphouse water elevation and Columbia River water elevation at pumphouse Columbia river water elevation at CGS Estimate screen blockage by calculating the pumphouse intake (feet and meters) differential between pumphouse water elevation and Columbia River water elevation near pumphouse Sampling Analysis Protocol 17 March 2018

Data Data Source Application Qualitative debris observations CGS Correlate with screen blockage estimate Anchor QEA Qualitative description of the amount of debris held by fish cages during each weekly/bi-weekly sampling session.

Columbia River discharge USGSa Characterize patterns of expected fish (kcfs and m3) presence/distribution related to flow Columbia River stage CGS Derive from river elevation at pumphouse intake.

(feet and meters; hourly) Characterize patterns of expected fish presence/distribution related to stage Change in river stage CGS Derive from change in river elevation at pumphouse (feet and meters; hourly derived) intake. Characterize patterns of expected fish presence/distribution River temperature Grant County Characterize patterns of expected fish

(°F and °C) PUD Priest presence/distribution related to temperature Rapids Dam tailraceb Abnormal operational conditions CGS Correlate with observed entrainment data Weather CGS Correlate with observed entrainment data Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon WDFW Estimate the number of fry produced in the Hanford Spawning Escapement Reach to estimate entrainment impacts Notes:

a. USGS Monitoring Station 12472800 at Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam, Washington

b. Grant County PUD CGS: Columbia Generating Station cfs: cubic feet per second fish/m3: number of fish per cubic meter kcfs: kilo cubic feet per second m3: cubic meters USGS: U.S. Geological Survey WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3 Analyses 4.3.1 Entrainment Entrainment rate estimates will be performed for each sampling session (week) and these results will be used to estimate average entrainment rates for a season and total entrainment for a season. The specific equations that will be used to make the estimates are described below.

Average cage efficacy For each trial, cage efficacy, CEj, is the number of test fish recovered divided by the number of test fish released in trial j, where j = 1,2,.,m and m=6 trials (3 trials per year with 2 replicate cages) as described in section 2.1.3.1. The average cage efficacy, , can be computed as the average of the Sampling Analysis Protocol 18 March 2018

trial capture efficiencies (Equation 2). The sample variance, sCE2, of the m values are calculated as shown in Equation 3 and the variance, ( ), and standard error,

, of average cage efficacy are estimated by Equations 4 and 5.

Equation 2

=

Equation 3 2

( )

2

=

1 Equation 4 2

) =

(

Equation 5

= ( )

where:

= average cage efficacy CEj = number of test fish recovered/number of test fish released in trial j in each cage m = number of trials per cage (6 trials) s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Unadjusted Entrainment Rates for 24-Hour Sampling Events The entrainment rate (ERi) for one 24-hour sampling event (one per week) will be calculated using Equation 6. Fish captured in both cages will be pooled into a single sample for each 24-hour event. The calculation will incorporate flow (Q), time (t), and entrainment rate. Results will be presented as numbers of fish per cubic meter. ERi is not corrected for cage efficacy in this step.

For each sampling season (2018 and 2019) the entrainment rate is (ERi) for week i =1, 2, , n, where n is the number of weeks in the sampling season of interest.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 19 March 2018

Equation 6

( ) .

3 where:

Ni = number of fish caught in the two cages for either a 24-hour sampling period in week i.

Qi = 60-100% of pump capacity flow rate, 56.8-94.6 m3/minute (15,000-25,000 gallons per minute) t = 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of sampling (24 hr x 60 min/hr = 1,440 min)

The average unadjusted entrainment rate ( ), will be calculated as the average of the weekly entrainment rates (Equation 7). The variance, sER2, of the n weekly values are calculated as shown in Equation 8 and the variance, ( ), and standard error, , of average entrainment rate are estimated by Equations 9 and 10.

Equation 7

=

Equation 8 2

( )

2

=

1 Equation 9 2

) =

(

Equation 10

= ( )

where:

= average entrainment rate n = number of weekly values s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Sampling Analysis Protocol 20 March 2018

Seasonal Entrainment Rate Adjusted for Average Cage Efficacy The seasonal entrainment rate adjusted for average cage efficacy, ERadj, is computed by Equation 11 and its variance, , is approximated by the formula in Equation 12 and its standard error, , by Equation 13 (Stuart and Ord 1998).

Equation 11

= .

Equation 12 2 2 2

= (

)2

+ (

)2 Equation 13

= ( )

where:

= average entrainment rate

= average cage efficacy s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Total Seasonal Entrainment Total entrainment for each sampling season will be calculated using Equation 14. The calculation for TSE will multiply the adjusted seasonal entrainment rate (ERadj) by average intake flow () and the number of weeks in a season (n) to yield the total number of fish entrained in a season. The average intake flow (), will be calculated as the average of the weekly intake flow rates, Qi (Equation 15). The sample variance, sQ2, of the n weekly values are calculated as shown in Equation 16 and the variance,

(), and standard error, , of average flow rate are estimated by Equations 17 and 18.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 21 March 2018

Equation 14

= ( )()().

Equation 15

=

Equation 16 2

( )

2 =

1 Equation 17 2

() =

Equation 18

= ().

where:

= seasonal entrainment rate Qi = weekly intake flow rates n = number of weekly Qi values

= average intake flow s 2

= sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Precision of Total Seasonal Entrainment Precision of the estimated total entrainment for each season can be expressed as the limits of an approximate 90% confidence interval, assuming an approximate normal distribution for the statistic TSE 2. The variance, (), standard error, SETSE, and coefficient of variation, COVTSE, of total entrainment for each season are calculated using Equations 19-21 and the 90% confidence interval, 2

Depending on the distribution of the entrainment data, a more robust method of estimating precision of total seasonal entrainment may be proposed at the end of the study using a resampling method such as bootstrapping.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 22 March 2018

CI90, is applied by Equation 22. An approximate 95% confidence interval on TSE can be obtained by replacing 1.645 with 1.96 in Equation 15.

Equation 19 3

() = ()2 ()2 Equation 20

= ()

Equation 21

=

Equation 22 90 = +/- 1.645 4.3.2 Entrainment Impact on Hanford Reach Fall Chinook The seasonal impact of entrainment on the total production of Hanford Reach Fall Chinook salmon will be estimated by dividing the total seasonal entrainment estimate, TSE, by the modeled number of presmolts (Harnish et al. 2014b).

Equation 23

% Entrainment =

where:

TSE = total seasonal entrainment R = modeled total number of pre-smolts given estimated egg escapement The modeled number of presmolts (R) from Equation 5 is calculated from Equation 6 which was obtained from Harnish et al. (2014b).

3 The method for estimating the variance of TSE will be re-evaluated at the end of the season. If Qi, and therefore , varies randomly, 2

variance of TSE may be estimated by the equation () = ()2 + () + () ()2 if is treated as a random variable.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 23 March 2018

Equation 24 From Harnish et al. 2014b, Table 3 and Figure 6:

= = ( + ) + = .244 4.98 x 109 (SE = 0.234, Adj. R2 = 0.341, p = 0.024) where:

R = total number of pre-smolts in a year S = egg escapement in a year

= natural log of presmolts produced per egg

+ = non-density dependent productivity accounting for modeled time period

= linear slope for most recent modeled time period (1999-2004,4.98 x 109 )

1/ represents the estimate of spawners associated with max recruitment ln( + ) = linear intercept of line for most recent modeled time period (1999-2004, .244) 4.3.3 Characterizing Screen Pore Velocity at Different Intake Volumes To determine the potential impact of different pumping rates (e.g., intake volumes) on entrainment, the pore velocity at the observed pumping rate (i.e., during sampling) will be characterized using Equation 25.

Equation 25

( )

where:

Ascreen = total area of screen (m2)

L = length (meters) n = number of screens OD = outer diameter (meters)

Q = volumetric flow rate (m3/s)

Vent = pore entrance velocity (m/s)

Sampling Analysis Protocol 24 March 2018

5 Health and Safety All personnel will be expected to follow all safety procedures applicable to CGS. Applicable requirements in Energy Northwests Industrial Safety Program Manual (ISPM) will be incorporated specifically or by reference in the SAP. In addition, all sampling personnel and visitors will be in the presence of Energy Northwests Operation personnel for each sampling visit and will be briefed on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions.

Anchor QEA staff will adhere to all CGS health and safety requirements. Additionally, Anchor QEA staff will comply with the internal Health and Safety Plan (Appendix A), but will defer to CGS protocols where there is overlap.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 25 March 2018

6 Project Schedule Task Date Sample Analysis Protocol Final Mar. 21, 2018 Test Run Sampling Dec. 2017 - Mar. 2018 2018 Entrainment Sampling Mar. 14 - Sept. 5, 2018 2019 Entrainment Sampling Mar. - Aug. 2019 Preliminary Report May 2019 Final Entrainment Report Dec. 2020 Sampling Analysis Protocol 26 March 2018

7 References Coutant, C.C. 2014. Entrainment characterization study plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, WA. For National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.

WA002515-1. Effective November 1, 2014. Submitted to Energy Northwest, Attn: Shannon E.

Khounnala.

Dauble, D.D., Page, T.L., Hanf Jr, R.W., 1989. Spatial distribution of juvenile salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 87, 775-790.

Harnish, R.A., Li, H., Green, E.D., Rayamajhi, B., Deters, K.A., Jung, K.W., Ham, K.D., McMichael, G.A.,

2014. Survival of Wild Hanford Reach and Priest Rapids Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon Juveniles in the Columbia River: Predation Implications.

Harnish, R.A., Sharma, R., McMichael, G.A., Langshaw, R.B., Pearsons, T.N., 2014b. Effect of hydroelectric dam operations on the freshwater productivity of a Columbia River fall Chinook salmon population. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 602-615. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0276.

Hoffarth, P., A. Fowler, W. Brock. 2003. Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Mudge, J.E., G.S. Jeane II, K.P. Campbell, B.R. Eddy, and L.E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2009. Columbia River Basin Juvenile Fish Field Guide: Including Common Injuries, Diseases, Tags, and Invertebrates. 5th edition.

Pollard, W.R., G.F. Hartman, C. Groot and P. Edgell. 1997. Field identification of coastal juvenile salmonids. Harbour Publishing, BC Canada. 32p.

Stuart, A. and K. Ord. 1998. Kendalls Advanced Theory of Statistics, Arnold, London, 6th Edition, Volume 1.

WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System). 1985. Operational Ecological Monitoring Program for Nuclear Plant 2. 1985 Annual Report. Environmental Programs Department, Richland, Washington.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 27 March 2018

Appendix A Health and Safety Plan

Appendix B Data Forms

Cage Deployment and Retrieval Log CGS Cage Deployment and Retrieval Information Page _________

Deployment Retrieval Date Date Debris (MM/DD/YY) Time Notes (MM/DD/YY) Time Load Notes

Routine Fish Sampling Form CGS Fish Entrainment Sampling Page _______

Deployed Retrieved Cage 1 (check)

Date Date Time Time Cage 2 (check)

Length Weight Fish No. Species Life Stage (mm) (g) Survival Health Injury Comment 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 - Alive 0 - No injuries 1 - Dead 1 - Injuries 2 - Disease

Appendix C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Transport Application/Permit

Shannon E. Khounnala Columbia Generating Station P.O. Box 968, MD PE03 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Ph. 509-377-8639 sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com February 7, 2019 GO2-19-035 DIC 409.3 Sonia Bumpus Siting and Compliance Manager Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL ONLY P.O. Box 47250 Olympia, WA 98504-7250

Subject:

COLUMBIA GENERATING STATION FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY INTERIM REPORT

References:

GI2-18-096, dated November 19, 2018, from S. Bumpus (EFSEC) to S.

Khounnala (Energy Northwest), Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest (EN), Fish Entrainment Study Updated Schedule, National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA002515-1 As per the above reference, the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is required to submit an interim fish entrainment study report by May 1, 2019, to satisfy Condition S12.B of the facilitys National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit (No.

WA002515-1). The entrainment characterization study was delayed one year due to mechanical problems with the fish cages. Therefore, the submittal of the final fish entrainment characterization study will also be delayed by one year to May 1, 2020.

Attached for you review is the interim fish entrainment characterization study report. This report will also be submitted electronically to the State of Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) via Ecologys WQWebPortal.

The approved Study Plan for the fish entrainment characterization effort was prepared by Dr. Charles Coutant. Dr. Coutant conducted a peer review and provided comments during the preparation of this interim report.

Energy Northwest is not requesting agency comments on the information provided in this report. If comments are received on the interim report, they will be incorporated into the final report, which is due by May 1, 2020.

I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel gathered and evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

Please contact WK Whitehead at (509) 377-8794 or wkwhitehead@energy-northwest.com if you require any additional information regarding this submittal.

Sincerely, 07/02/19 11:56:21 -08:00 X

Khounnala, Shannon E. , Environme Shannon E. Khounnala Environmental and Regulatory Programs Manager SEK/nb

Attachment:

CGS Entrainment Study Interim Report - FINAL.pdf cc: Amy Moon (EFSEC)

Ellie Ott (Ecology)

Ritchie Graves (NMFS) Ritchie.graves@noaa.gov Lynne Krasnow (NOAA) lynne.krasnow@noaa.gov Briana Grange (NRC) briana.grange@nrc.gov NRC Document Control Desk endangeredspecies.resources@nrc.gov Larissa Rohrbach (Anchor QEA) lrohrbach@anchorqea.com Charles Coutant ccoutant3@comcast.net INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: FILE COPY SEK/lb M. Ramos (PE03) Columbia Files 964Y M. Schmitt (PE03) C. ODonnell (PE03) Docket File PE20

January 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report Prepared for Energy Northwest

January 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Interim Report Prepared for Prepared by Energy Northwest Anchor QEA, LLC P.O. Box 989 23 South Wenatchee Avenue, Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 Wenatchee, Washington 98801 Project Number: 171376-01.01

\\wenatchee1\wenatchee\Projects\Energy_Northwest\04-Deliverables\2018 Preliminary Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Description .................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.2 Study Objectives .................................................................................................................................................. 7 1.3 Study Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 7 1.4 Study Schedule..................................................................................................................................................... 9 2 Historical Fish Occurrence ..................................................................................................... 13 3 Fish Entrainment Sampling ................................................................................................... 16 3.1 Cage Efficacy Testing ...................................................................................................................................... 16 3.2 Fish Impingement, Debris Monitoring, and Water Elevation Differential .................................. 17 4 Data Summaries and Analyses ............................................................................................ 22 4.1 Columbia River Flow Rate ............................................................................................................................. 25 4.1.1 Seasonal Climatic Trends............................................................................................................... 25 4.1.2 Priest Rapids Dam Total Discharge Flow ................................................................................. 25 4.2 Columbia River Temperature ....................................................................................................................... 29 4.3 Columbia Generating Station Tower Make-Up System Data.......................................................... 30 4.3.1 Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation: Pump 1A, Pump 1B, Pump 1C ..................... 30 4.3.2 Circulating Water Make-Up Flow ............................................................................................... 31 4.3.3 River Level at Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ......................................... 32 4.3.4 Change in River Elevation.............................................................................................................. 34 4.4 Columbia Generating Station Meteorological Data ........................................................................... 35 5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 38 6 References ................................................................................................................................ 39 TABLES Table 1 2018 Final Entrainment Sampling and Cage Efficacy Schedule........................................... 10 Table 2 2019 Anticipated Sampling Schedule ............................................................................................. 12 Table 3 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month ........................................................................ 15 Table 4 Entrained Fish Summary, 2018 ........................................................................................................... 16 Interim Report i January 2019

Table 5 2018 Cage Efficacy Testing Summary ............................................................................................. 17 Table 6 Entrained Debris Summary .................................................................................................................. 18 Table 7 Differences in Pumphouse to Columbia River Water Depth ................................................ 21 Table 8 2018 Entrainment Sampling Event Summary .............................................................................. 23 Table 9 Priest Rapids Dam Flow and Water Temperature Data in 2018, Summarized by Study Week ................................................................................................................................................. 27 Table 10 Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Requirements for Priest Rapids Dam Flow Operations 2017 to 2018.................................................................... 29 Table 11 Minimum Priest Rapids Dam Flow Pertaining to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Section C.3.b.6 ........................................................................ 29 Table 12 Summary of Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation, 2018............................................. 31 Table 13 Weekly Summary of Columbia Generating Station Circulating Water System Make-Up Flow............................................................................................................................................ 32 Table 14 Monthly Average Water Depth Above Columbia Generating Station Intakes ............. 34 Table 15 Meteorological Data at Columbia Generating Station in 2018, Summarized by Study Week ................................................................................................................................................. 36 FIGURES Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 4 Figure 2 Schematic of the Fish Entrainment Sampling Cage and Platform at the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse......................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Sampling Cage with Gap-Bridging Insert ......................................................................................... 6 Figure 4 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge............................................................................................................ 14 Figure 6 Water Elevation Differential Between the Columbia River and Tower Make-Up System Pumphouse, 2018 .................................................................................................................... 19 Figure 7 Hourly Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Flow Volume, 2018 ................................ 20 Figure 8 Priest Rapids Dam Discharge and Temperature with Entrainment Sampling Dates and Fall Chinook Salmon Life Stages .............................................................................................. 26 Figure 9 Columbia River Water Elevation and Clearance to Columbia Generating Station Intakes ........................................................................................................................................................... 33 Figure 10 Actual and Hypothetical Stage-Discharge for Columbia Generating Station Pumphouse Reach of Columbia River ............................................................................................ 35 Interim Report ii January 2019

APPENDICES Appendix A 2014 Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington Appendix B Sampling and Analysis Protocol Appendix C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Transport Application/Permit Appendix D Energy Northwests Request Letter to EFSEC for Updated Fish Entrainment Schedule and EFSEC Schedule Approval Letter Appendix E Fish Entrainment Study Raw Data Appendix F Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Interim Report iii January 2019

ABBREVIATIONS CGS Columbia Generating Station EFSEC Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council fps feet per second gpm gallons per minute HRFCPPA Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement kcfs thousand cubic feet per second m /s 3

cubic meters per second MGD million gallons per day mm millimeter mmHg millimeter of mercury NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Plan Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratory RKM river kilometer RM river mile SAP Sampling and Analysis Protocol SD standard deviation TMU Tower Make-Up System TSE Total Seasonal Entrainment WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Interim Report iv January 2019

Executive Summary Energy Northwests Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is located adjacent to the Columbia River near river mile (RM) 352 (river kilometer 566) approximately 5 miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington. The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches and The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1). The Hanford Reach is heavily used by spawning fall run of Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and some steelhead (O. mykiss).

A reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests CGS was published in 2014 by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council. During consultation for the reissuance of the NPDES permit, questions were raised about whether the CGSs water intake structure located in the Columbia River would impinge or entrain fish. To address concerns regarding fish entrainment, NPDES Condition S12.B was included requiring CGS to prepare an entrainment characterization study that includes a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study. A Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington (Plan; Coutant 2014; Appendix A) was developed to guide the implementation of the fish entrainment study.

The intent of this interim report is to describe the results for the first year of the fish entrainment study, which began in the spring of 2018. In addition to describing the methodology used to conduct the 2-year fish entrainment study in a Sampling Analysis Protocol, provided in Appendix B, a review of existing literature has been drafted to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement. The Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review of the Hanford Reach is briefly summarized in this interim report with the full literature review attached as Appendix F.

In addition to monitoring fish entrainment, the risks of fish impingement associated with the two 42-inch (107-centimeter)-diameter cylindrical T-screen intake units currently used to withdraw water from the Columbia River is under investigation. Of particular interest are the risks posed to downstream-migrating juvenile salmonids. Energy Northwest contracted Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., to analyze the physical flow patterns (i.e., velocity and pressure fields) around the intake screens using 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling reported in Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station (Alden 2018). The modeling provides supporting evidence that a bow wave at the upstream end of the cylindrical intake screens could hydraulically deflect fish and stimulate screen avoidance behavior by fish. Thus, there is low likelihood of impingement in nearly all of several river flow and direction cases due to the generally high ratio of tangential (sweeping) flow in the boundary layer very near the screen to normal (approach) flow toward the screen pores.

Interim Report ES-1 January 2019

Weekly fish entrainment sampling was conducted from early April to June and approximately every other week from July through mid-September in 2018. High river conditions during late May and early June 2018 prohibited routine entrainment sampling and postponed one cage efficacy test to late June 2018.

Across all 13 routine fish entrainment sampling events, a total of two fish were entrained and retrieved from the sampling cages. These included a fall run Chinook salmon fry recovered on May 3, 2018, and a Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) ammocoete recovered on June 22, 2018.

Cage efficacy testing confirmed that efficacy was high (greater than 80%). For 2018, each sampling event represented approximately a 24-hour sample period. Entrainment rates will be calculated at the end of the second year of study following the methods outlined in the Sampling and Analysis Protocol (Appendix B).

The Plan also calls for studies to demonstrate whether any clogging of the make-up water intake screens occurs by debris and associated fish impingement (Coutant 2014). The two CGS intake structures were visually inspected in-situ using underwater video on individual days in June 2016, October 2017, and September 2018. Algae biofouling was noted with greater than 50% of the screen area covered by algae or other debris in each event. No fish were observed in the vicinity of the intake structures and no impingement of fish or shellfish was observed during any of the events.

Clogging of screen pores can also cause a short-term draw down of water level in the Tower Make-Up System (TMU) pumphouse, observed as a differential in water elevation of the Columbia River at the intake screens compared to water level within the TMU system pumphouse. Hourly water elevation differential between the river and the pumphouse was variable during the 2018 fish entrainment monitoring period, but corresponded closely with the pattern of increasing and decreasing make-up flow, suggesting that head differential was closely related to changes in pump flow volume. There was no evidence in the hourly head differential data to suggest any blockage of the intake structure occurred during the study period.

Debris entrained in the sampling cages during fish entrainment testing in 2018 was routinely monitored. Debris type and volume varied throughout the season and included algae clumps, sediment, aquatic insect larvae, and sponge-like material. In general, light to medium amounts of debris were observed during the sampling.

Columbia River flow, water temperature, and meteorological data during the 2018 field season are summarized in this report along with CGS operational data.

Based on the Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review on entrainment risk, a conservative assumption is that some risk exists for some species, even though the CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish. Periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable Interim Report ES-2 January 2019

species are present in highest abundance from March through September. Though hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity year-round, risk of encountering the intake may increase late in the year when submergence depths may fail to meet National Marine Fisheries Service criteria of greater than one screen radius, or 1.75 feet.

Field studies conducted in 2018 represent the first of 2 years of study. The preliminary findings suggest that fish entrainment was extremely rare, and that biofouling of the intake screens had no effect on intake screen flow in ways that that would increase the risk of entrainment or impingement to fish. Complete fish entrainment rate results and conclusions based on 2 years of study will be developed for the final report following the 2019 field season.

Interim Report ES-3 January 2019

1 Introduction Energy Northwests Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is a boiling-water nuclear power plant located in south-central Washington State in Benton Country, approximately 5 miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington, that became operational in December 1984. The CGS is located adjacent to the Columbia River near river mile (RM) 352 (river kilometer 566). The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches.

The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1) is heavily used by spawning fall run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) and some steelhead (O. mykiss).

On September 30, 2014, the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) published a reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.

WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests CGS. The final permit, effective November 1, 2014, was the result of consultations between EFSEC and interested agencies, including the Washington Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Concerns were raised by NMFS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about potential entrainment and impingement of fish given the existing screens are not designed to their criteria. NMFS and WDFW were especially concerned about the potential risk to Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmonids. The existing intake screens were installed using a design developed prior to the formal development of NMFS engineering design criteria (NMFS 2011).

To address NMFS and WDFWs concerns regarding fish entrainment, NPDES Condition S12.B was included in the final permit that became effective on November 1, 2014, requiring CGS to prepare an entrainment characterization study design and submit it to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015.

The Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington (Plan; Coutant 2014; Appendix A) was submitted to EFSEC in October 2015. EFSEC approved the study plan in June 2016. The approved plan described the general methods for a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study. The study was scheduled to begin in the spring of 2017 and to be completed in the fall of 2018. As per NPDES Condition S12.B the final report was to be submitted to EFSEC by May 1, 2019. Due to unforeseen mechanical problems with the fish entrainment cages, fish retention in the cages (cage efficacy) was low and the start of the study was delayed 1 year. In 2017, EFSEC was informed of the delay and CGS staff spent several months throughout 2017 and early 2018 retrofitting the sampling equipment to ensure that cage efficacy rates of 80% or better were attained for both sampling cages. In January 2018, Energy Northwest requested from EFSEC that the fish entrainment schedule be updated so that the study could begin in the spring of 2018 and be completed in the fall of 2019, with the final study report to be submitted by May 1, 2020. EFSEC approved the updated entrainment study schedule in November Interim Report 1 January 2019

2018, with the stipulation that an interim report be submitted by May 1, 2019. The intent of this interim report is to describe the results for the first year of the fish entrainment study, which began in the spring of 2018. In addition to describing the methodology used to conduct the 2-year fish entrainment study, the Plan also outlined the need for a review of existing literature to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement. The Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review of the Hanford Reach is briefly summarized in this interim report with the full review attached as Appendix F.

To satisfy NMFS requirements, Energy Northwest agreed to investigate the risks of fish impingement associated with the two 42-inch (1.07 meter) diameter cylindrical T-screen intake units currently used to withdraw water from the Columbia River for cooling operations at CGS. Of particular interest are the risks posed to downstream-migrating juvenile salmonids. Energy Northwest contracted Alden Research Laboratory, Inc., to analyze the physical flow patterns (i.e., velocity and pressure fields) around the intake screens using 3D computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling. The modeling provides tentative biological interferences when the modeled velocity and pressure fields are compared to known responses of fish published in the scientific literature. The modelling effort used a two-phased approach in which the first phase focused on simulating larger-scale (screen body-scale) dynamics around the intake structures and the second phase focused on simulating smaller-scale (fish-scale) dynamics in the turbulent boundary layer over several individual holes of perforated screen areas. The two phases are referred to as global and near-field models, respectively. The global model supports evidence from other studies that a bow wave at the upstream end of the cylindrical intake screens could provide pressure and velocity changes that act hydraulically to divert fish away from the screen and as stimuli for fishs active screen avoidance behavior. The global model results also showed that oblique flow of the river (sweeping flow) compresses of the boundary layer to within a few inches of the screen on the up-current face and expands the layer on the leeward side to a few feet where the layer blends with the wake region. In terms of impingement risk, the up-current face of the upstream screen and the leeward face of the downstream screen are associated with the highest potential risk (due to high approach velocity and low sweeping velocity, respectively). However, the near-field model suggests low likelihood of entrainment or impingement in nearly all of multiple model-input cases due to the generally high ratio of tangential (sweeping) flow in the boundary layer to normal (approach) flow toward the screen pores and low approach velocities through the pores over most of the screen area for most river conditions. Concentrated inflow regions resulting from non-uniformity in through-screen flow produced some local minor exceedances of approach velocity thresholds given in NMFS guidelines (NMFS 2011). For details, see report entitled, Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station (Alden 2018).

This Interim Report for the Fish Entrainment Study describes the entrainment monitoring conducted at CGS in 2018. Sampling conducted in 2018 represent the first of 2 years of study. Because the Interim Report 2 January 2019

results are preliminary, the report provides no formal conclusions; these will be developed based on results of both years of monitoring. The report represents an interim progress report on entrainment and debris field monitoring, methods, and results to date including operations, flow, and other environmental data associated with field monitoring, per the requirements of NPDES Permit Condition S12.B.2.b. This report also includes a summary of the review of existing literature to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement (Section 2), the complete findings of which can be found in the Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review (Anchor QEA 2018; Appendix F).

1.1 Site Description Entrainment and cage efficacy sampling were conducted at the CGS make-up water pumphouse building, located at river kilometer (RKM) 566 (RM 352) on the Columbia River, approximately 300 feet (91 meters) shoreward of the rivers normal high-water mark. The general layout of the pumphouse, intake pipes, and intake screens is depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

The pumphouse houses three make-up water pumps situated in a pump well, with two pumps typically in use. Water is gravity-fed into the pump well via two intake structures consisting of two 36-inch (91-centimeter)-diameter buried pipes that extend 900 feet (274 meters) from the pumphouse to the river channel. Water is then pumped from the pump well by the 800-horsepower make-up water pumps designed to each supply 12,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (0.79 cubic meters per second [m3/s] or 9 million gallons per day [MGD]) or half the system capacity at design head.

Two pumps can supply make-up water to the plant with a withdrawal capacity of 25,000 gpm (1.58 m3/s or 36 MGD) but during normal operating periods, the average make-up-water withdrawal is about 17,000 gpm 1.1 m3/s or 24.48 MGD). Actual withdrawal rates vary seasonally and hourly.

An intake structure is located at the end of each of the buried pipes. The pipes make a 90-degree, upward bend and extend slightly above the surface of the riverbed (Figure 1). Attached to each of the pipes is a 30-foot (9-meter)-long, cylindrical screen housing mounted above the riverbed and approximately parallel to the river flow. Each cylinder is composed of two intake screens each 6.5-feet (2-meters)-long and mounted upstream and downstream of a central chamber attached to the buried pipe. Solid cones cap each end of the dual-screen structure. The screens consist of an outer and inner sleeve of perforated pipe. The outer sleeve (forming the wall of the cylinder) is 42 inches (107 centimeters) in diameter with 0.375-inch (9.5-millimeter [mm]) holes comprising 40%

of the surface area. The inner sleeve is a 36-inch (91-centimeter)-diameter cylinder with 0.75-inch (19-mm) holes comprising 7% of the surface area. The double-sleeve intake screens are designed to distribute water flow into the structure evenly along its outer surface.

Interim Report 3 January 2019

Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse Building Notes: Drawings are not to scale and are intended to highlight the general orientation of the facility relative to the intakes and screens.

Large blue arrows depict the direction of pumped water conveyed through the pumphouse building.

Interim Report 4 January 2019

Figure 2 Schematic of the Fish Entrainment Sampling Cage and Platform at the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Pumphouse The pumphouse building has two levels: an upper level, referred to here as the Entry Level; and a lower level where sampling occurs, referred to here as the Sampling Platform (Figure 2). Fish entrainment sampling occurs on the sampling platform. Two identical sampling cages are suspended in the intake pump well at the termination of the buried pipes leading from the intake structures in the river (Figures 1 and 2) (Mudge et al. 1981). Each cage is approximately 5.8-feet (1.5-meters) long, 5-feet (1.52 meters) high, and 3.5-feet (1.07-meters) wide. Each cage has a 11.5-square foot (1.07-square meter) door for coupling with the 36-inch intake pipe openings. The cages have an aluminum frame and door, while the remainder is made of woven stainless-steel wire mesh with 2.0-mm square Interim Report 5 January 2019

openings. Initial investigations in 2017 identified gaps between the cage door openings and the sluice gates at the end of intake pipes, allowing fish to escape the cages. Cages were retrofitted with engineered inserts that extend out from the cages doors to bridge the gap between the cage doors and intake pipe outlets and provide a close seal with the incoming pipe from the river (Figure 3).

Inserts are configured to rest inside the cage doors while they are being lowered or raised. Each cage insert is equipped with brushes around the outer edge of the insert that adjoin to the uneven surface of the sluice gate when the insert is extended.

Figure 3 Sampling Cage with Gap-Bridging Insert Note: Cage is shown with door removed. Added gap-bridging insert provides a close seal with incoming pipe from the river.

The cages are lowered individually approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) into the water of the pumphouse sump using electric winches to the sampling position in direct alignment with the sluice Interim Report 6 January 2019

gates of the intake pipes. As the cage nears the intake pipe sluice gates the cage door abuts against a fixed stop-block that causes the door to automatically open as the body of the cage continues to descend into position. Once cages are in position at the termination of the intake pipes and cage doors are fully open, the inserts are immediately extended by manually pulling a cable attached to the insert, bridging the gap between the cage doors and sluice gates. A separate cable is used to retract the cage insert immediately prior to closing the doors and raising the cage to the surface. As the cage is raised from the vault, the cage door automatically closes.

1.2 Study Objectives The objective of this study is to quantify fish entrainment through the CGS intake structures over 2 years of monitoring. The 9.5-mm (0.375-inch) openings of the outer screens of the intake structures are potentially large enough to entrain early life stages of several fish species including fall Chinook salmon and Pacific lamprey (Anchor QEA 2018; Appendix F). The environmental conditions that may influence fish entrainment, such as river flow in the adjacent Columbia River, are also monitored in coordination with fish entrainment sampling.

1.3 Study Methodology The Sampling and Analysis Protocol (SAP; Appendix B) provides detailed descriptions of the mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control procedures and documentation, and health and safety protocols associated with the entrainment monitoring and other sampling conducted at CGS in 2018. Further details for safe and effective handing of sampled fish is described in Tower Make-Up System (TMU) Fish Cages - Operational Considerations (EN 2018). A short summary of the sampling methods used is provided below.

Two sampling cages were used during entrainment sampling. The cages were individually lowered and raised into position in front of the intake pipes. The cages were designated as Cage 1 and Cage 2 based on the south-north orientation depicted in Figure 4.

Interim Report 7 January 2019

Figure 4 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform South North According to the studys sampling schedule, CGS staff lowered both sampling cages from the Sampling Platform approximately 35 feet into the pumphouse sump directly in alignment with the openings of the inlet pipes. The cage doors automatically opened to allow access to the cages for any fish entrained in the intake pipes. A field data form located on the Entry Level was used to record the date and time that each cage was lowered into the pumphouse sump. Field data for the first year of the study are provided in Appendix E.

After a 24-hour sampling period, Anchor QEA staff met with CGS staff at the pumphouse to conduct fish retrieval and sampling activities. Fish identification and other sampling activities were conducted at a sampling station on the Entry Level of the pumphouse. One sampling cage at a time was raised to retrieve any fish present. If no fish were observed in Cage 1 or when counting was completed for Cage 1, Cage 2 was raised and the identical protocol was followed. Once sampling was completed, Anchor QEA and CGS staff visually inspected the cages to ensure cage integrity for the next test date.

Fish retrieved from the sampling cages were transferred from a 5-gallon bucket to a container with Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS-222) to be euthanized and the following data were recorded:

• Identification of species and life stage

• Weight (grams)

• Fork Length (mm)

• Description of any outward signs of damage or disease Interim Report 8 January 2019

In addition to monitoring fish entrainment, the Plan calls for studies to demonstrate any clogging of the water intake screens by debris and associated fish impingement (Coutant 2014). CFD modelling suggests low likelihood of impingement due to the generally high ratio of sweeping flow in the boundary layer to approach flow toward screen pores (Alden 2018). There is, however, variation in this ratio among modeled locations on the screen unit and with angle of incident river flow that suggest variations in impingement risk across the screen units.

To demonstrate whether the clogging of pores could affect through-screen (approach) velocities of non-clogged pores in a way that influences fish impingement, the intake screens were periodically inspected and water level elevation in the pumphouse was constantly monitored for evidence of a sudden drawdown that could result from clogged pores. The two CGS intake structures were inspected in situ by Mainstem Fish Research, LLC, along with Energy Northwest Environmental Services personnel using a GoPro digital camera. The structures were then cleaned and re-inspected in accordance with NPDES permit condition S12.A.3 and in support of permit condition S12.B.

Cleaning was conducted using a 2,500-psi pressure washer fitted with a 6-foot wand. CGS Operations personnel isolated one intake structure at a time before the perforated sections were cleaned and videoed. The Plan also specifies the need to compare hourly water elevations of the river and in the pumphouse well to identify any abnormal differential that could be attributed to clogging of the intake screens.

Throughout this report, environmental data such as water elevations are depicted in plots of the hourly data or as mean weekly or monthly conditions, where appropriate. Standard deviation (SD) is reported to illustrate the spread in the data, reported as one SD around the mean, which represents the majority (68.2%) of the data points, assuming the data are normally distributed.

1.4 Study Schedule As discussed with the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Energy Northwest began the fish entrainment characterization study in spring 2017; however, mechanical issues associated with the operation of the fish cages caused concern about capture efficiency (the efficacy of the cages for capturing and retaining fish). It was discovered that there was a gap between each fish entrainment cage and the sluice gate at the outlet of the intake pipe that was wide enough for entrained fish or any fish placed in a cage during an efficacy test to easily escape into the TMU vault. To address this issue, Energy Northwest spent several months in 2017 observing the operation of the fish cages and engineering cage retrofits. Successful trials were conducted to ensure that fish capture and retention was adequate for both cages. The first year of the 2-year entrainment characterization study then began in spring 2018 (Table 1).

Interim Report 9 January 2019

Table 1 2018 Final Entrainment Sampling and Cage Efficacy Schedule Sampling Dates Start Finish Notes Tuesday, April 3, 2018 Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Thursday, April 5, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Thursday, April 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Thursday, April 19, 2018 Routine Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Thursday, April 26, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Thursday, May 3, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Thursday, May 10, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Thursday, May 17, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Thursday, May 17, 2018 Friday, May 18, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Thursday, May 24, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Thursday, June 7, 2018 Unable to Sample Due to High Water Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 20, 2018 Thursday, June 21, 2018 Routine Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Cage Efficacy (Make-Up) + Routine Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Thursday, June 28, 2018 Efficacy Follow-Up (Make-Up) + Routine Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Thursday, July 12, 2018 Routine Cage Efficacy (Cage 2 Only) + Routine Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Wednesday, July 18, 2018 (Make-Up)

Efficacy Follow-Up (Cage 2 Only) + Routine Wednesday, July 18, 2018 Thursday, July 19, 2018 (Make-Up)

Wednesday, August 1, 2018 Thursday, August 2, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, August 15, 2018 Thursday, August 16, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, August 29, 2018 Thursday, August 30, 2018 Adjusted Routine Wednesday, September 12, 2018 Thursday, September 13, 2018 Adjusted Routine From early-April to mid-June 2018, routine entrainment sampling was scheduled to occur once per week. Additionally, three separate cage efficacy tests were scheduled to be conducted concurrently with routine sampling on dates that span the typical fall-Chinook salmon emergence period.

However, high river conditions during late May and early June 2018 prohibited routine entrainment sampling and postponed one cage efficacy test to late June 2018 due to the pumphouse sampling platform being underwater (Table 1).

Interim Report 10 January 2019

In 2018, water elevation in the river and pumphouse exceeded the capacity of CGS gauges during the extremely high spring run-off conditions experienced from early-May to early-June, resulting in a period from May 6 to June 6 during which water elevation data may be inaccurate for the pumphouse vault and the river adjacent to the site. Water elevation data are reported here to illustrate the severity of the environmental conditions; however, the potential inaccuracy above the gauge threshold is noted.

In addition, at approximately 7 AM on May 18, 2018, CGS was disconnected from the power grid (SCRAM) due to a problem with the No. 1 transformer. The plant was offline for 6 days and synched back with the grid at approximately 11 AM on May 24, 2018, at 65% power output. At the request of the Bonneville Power Administration, the plant operated at 65% power until June 10, 2018, due to surplus power production at nearby hydropower dams caused by the high river water levels. This period of reduced power output corresponds with reduced demand for make-up flow.

From July to early-September 2018, routine entrainment sampling was scheduled to occur once every other week; however, additional sample dates were added, and the routine sampling schedule was adjusted to compensate for the sample dates that were not conducted from May 16 to June 6, 2018, due to the high river conditions. Additionally, a follow-up cage efficacy test on Cage 2 was conducted from July 17, to 19, 2018, to confirm that cage efficacy was adequate.

For all sampling, CGS staff deployed the cages on Wednesday mornings at approximately 9:00 AM and cage retrieval occurred 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> later on Thursday mornings.

In 2019, routine entrainment and cage efficacy sampling will occur from mid-March to September; mid-March through June sampling will be weekly whereas during the July to early September period, sampling will occur once every other week. Anticipated sampling dates are listed in Table 2. There will be no field sampling activities from approximately May 11 to June 15, 2019, to accommodate a planned maintenance outage. Every 2 years CGS shuts down to conduct routine maintenance throughout the facility. During the maintenance outage, the cooling towers are taken out of service and the amount of water pumped from the river is drastically reduced to a flow level that would make sampling impossible. Exact outage dates are subject to change, and specific sampling dates will be identified closer to the 2019 sampling period to align with CGS operations.

Interim Report 11 January 2019

Table 2 2019 Anticipated Sampling Schedule Sampling Dates1 Start Finish Notes Tuesday, March 12, 2019 Wednesday, March 13, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, March 13, 2019 Thursday, March 14, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, March 20, 2019 Thursday, March 21, 2019 Routine Wednesday, March 27, 2019 Thursday, March 28, 2019 Routine Tuesday, April 2, 2019 Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 3, 2019 Thursday, April 4, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, April 10, 2019 Thursday, April 11, 2019 Routine Wednesday, April 17, 2019 Thursday, April 18, 2019 Routine Tuesday, April 23, 2019 Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Cage Efficacy Wednesday, April 24, 2019 Thursday, April 25, 2019 Efficacy Follow-Up + Routine Wednesday, May 1, 2019 Thursday, May 2, 2019 Routine Wednesday, May 8, 2019 Thursday, May 9, 2019 Routine Wednesday, May 15, 2019 Thursday, May 16, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, May 22, 2019 Thursday, May 23, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, May 29, 2019 Thursday, May 30, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 5, 2019 Thursday, June 6, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 12, 2019 Thursday, June 13, 2019 Outage; No Sampling2 Wednesday, June 26, 2019 Thursday, June 27, 2019 Routine Wednesday, July 10, 2019 Thursday, July 11, 2019 Routine Wednesday, July 24, 2019 Thursday, July 25, 2019 Routine Wednesday, August 7, 2019 Thursday, August 8, 2019 Routine Wednesday, August 21, 2019 Thursday, August 22, 2019 Routine Wednesday, September 4, 2019 Thursday, September 5, 2019 Routine Wednesday, September 18, 2019 Thursday, September 19, 2019 Routine Note:

1. Contingency sampling will occur if more than 20 individual fish are captured during a routine sampling session. Contingency sampling consists of immediate redeployment of the sampling cages for two sequential 12-hour day and night periods and is meant to identify any diel variation in entrainment.

2. The sampling schedule is contingent on plant operation and subject to change. Sampling will be suspended from mid-May to mid-June of 2019 for a scheduled reactor outage.

Interim Report 12 January 2019

2 Historical Fish Occurrence Per the Plan (Coutant 2014), a Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review (Anchor QEA 2018) was prepared that provides a literature review on fish species present in the Hanford Reach, factors that determine fish entrainment, entrainment risk at CGS, and a review of historical spring river elevations and discharges.

Figure 5 shows the seasonal presence of the species identified to be at highest risk of encountering the CGS intake based on overlapping habitat preference for mid-channel or benthic habitat with river conditions and fish size. A conservative assumption is that some risk exists for these species even though the CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish. Periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable species are present in highest abundance from March through September, highlighted in yellow in Figure 5. Though hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity year-round, risk of encountering the intake may also increase late in the year when submergence depths may fail to meet NMFS criteria of greater than one screen radius, or 1.75 feet, highlighted in orange in Figure 5.

Concerns were raised by NMFS and WDFW about risk of entrainment and impingement to Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmonids. Those migrating from upstream spawning and nursery areas include the upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (Endangered), upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened), Wenatchee and Okanogan sockeye salmon (O. nerka; not listed), and coho salmon (O. kisutch; coho salmon are unlisted, but currently a reintroduction effort exists to reverse historical extirpation from the middle and upper Columbia River Basin). Typically, migratory smolts originating from the upper Columbia River Basin (upstream of Hanford Reach) are a size that would exclude them from becoming entrained through the CGS intake screens (greater than 75 mm). In addition, smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin tend to behave in ways that greatly minimize their risk of impingement: their peak emigration timing is in spring and summer, concurrent with peak sweeping velocities (shown in Figure 5); they tend to migrate near the surface, placing them approximately 7 to 12 feet from the intake screens at this time of year; and they would have burst swimming capacities greater than 2.5 feet per second (fps; Taylor and McPhail 1985),

which greatly exceed the bulk flow approach velocities of 0.07 fps through the CGS intakes. Based on these biological factors, the risk of entrainment or impingement to migrating smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin is negligible for the CGS intake structures.

Salmon and steelhead that emerge and rear within the Hanford Reach have higher potential risk due to their small size and potential exposure to the intake during early development. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook salmon are the salmonid species at highest risk due to their proximity and abundance near the CGS intakes. Table 3 shows determining factors of entrainment that are evaluated individually relative to the biological characteristics of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon (discussed in detail in Interim Report 13 January 2019

of the Historical Occurrence report, Appendix F) to characterize the level of risk created by each individual factor. The entrainment factors that create the most risk for fall Chinook salmon are their presence in proximity to the intake structure, their habitat preference that causes them to move away from nearshore areas as they grow, and their small size relative to the external screen pore size.

These characteristics put fall Chinook salmon at relatively higher risk in April and May when large numbers of fry are both small in size and starting to move away from nearshore areas.

Entrainment factors that effectively minimize the risk to fall Chinook salmon are facilitated by orientation of the intake in a relatively high-velocity, mid-channel location, parallel to flow that creates sweeping velocities that exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 10. It can also be assumed that fall Chinook salmon can effectively avoid entrainment given their ability to sense rapid changes in acceleration and burst swimming capacity that also exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 10.

Figure 5 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge Notes:

• Eggs may drift, or larvae have a drifting pelagic phase vulnerable to entrainment by the CGS intake Mean Daily Discharge shows the daily mean discharge below Priest Rapids Dam with each day represented by a black dot and the overall seasonal trend represented by the blue line. Data were collected from January 1975 through January 2016.

Interim Report 14 January 2019

Table 3 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month Risk Level Created by Each Determining Factor of Entrainment by Month Entrainment Factor Review of Literature Summary Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Presence in Hanford Fry emerge from mid-March through mid-May, redistribute to shallow Reach nearshore areas through early summer, and migrate downstream from early M H H H H M L June through mid-August.

Habitat Preference Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet L L H H H H H and velocities between 0.6 to 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas, but can be found across the entire river channel and water column.

Fish Size 37 to 44 mm at emergence, 70 to 110 mm by early June, and 105 to 125 mm H H H M M L L by mid-August Hydraulic Bypass Mean sweeping velocity ranges from 4 to 5 fps during the months that emerging fry and subyearlings are present and exceeds the typical bulk flow L L L L L L L approach velocity of 0.07 fps by at least a factor of 50.

Behavioral Avoidance Burst swimming capacity of 3.5 fps exceeds the typical approach velocity of L L L L L L L 0.07 fps by a factor of 50.

Exclusion Salmon larger than approximately 75 mm excluded from outer screen pores H H H M L L L that are 9.5 mm in diameter. Most subyearlings reach 75 mm by June.

Sweep-Off or Sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocities contribute to sweep-off.

Impingement Blocked screen pores may contribute to higher and uneven approach velocities L L L L M M M and increase the potential for impingement; river debris is likely to be swept off; however, biofouling of screen pores may increase across the summer.

Combination of All Low risk for one factor negates the risk posed by subsequent factors L L L L L L L Entrainment Factors Note:

Each entrainment risk factor and relevant biological characteristic is briefly summarized on the left-hand side of the table, and the relative level of risk is shown on the right side of the table, by month, as red, yellow, and green, representing the range from high (H), to moderate (M), to low (L) risk. The overall risk created by the combination of entrainment factors is depicted in the bottom row, representing the outcome of the sequence of entrainment factors.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 15 January 2019

3 Fish Entrainment Sampling Fish entrainment sampling conducted from early April to mid-September in 2018 resulted in a total of two fish being entrained and retrieved from the sampling cages. These included a Chinook salmon fry recovered during the 24-hour sampling event that occurred from May 2, to May 3, 2018, and a Pacific lamprey ammocoete recovered during the June 21 to June 22 sampling event (Table 4).

The Chinook salmon fry was of a size consistent with the fall-run stock that originates from the Hanford Reach. Fall-run Chinook salmon are known to be abundant near the CGS intake structure from mid-March to mid-July (Anchor QEA 2018). Based on the most recent available data, WDFW estimated the number of Hanford Reach fry to be approximately 56.4 million in 2017. Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet, and velocities between 0.6 and 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas, but can be found across the entire river channel and water column. Fall-run Chinook salmon are not a listed species but are native in origin and are a species of interest for this study.

Pacific lamprey ammocoetes are present in the reach year-round and prefer mid-channel benthic habitat for rearing. Pacific lamprey are a native fish and are federally listed as a Species of Concern (WDFW 2008).

Table 4 Entrained Fish Summary, 2018 Sampling Length Weight Protected Abundance and Habitat Event Date Species Life Stage (mm) (gram) Status Description May 2-3 Chinook salmon Juvenile 37 0.4 Species of Abundant near the CGS intake (Oncorhynchus (Age 0) interest to structure from mid-March to tshawytscha) the study mid-July and use mid-channel and nearshore habitat for rearing June 20-21 Pacific Lamprey Ammocoete 129 3.7 Species of Potentially common near the (Lampetra Concern CGS intake structure year-tridentata) (Federal) round and make use of mid-channel and benthic habitat for rearing 3.1 Cage Efficacy Testing Three trials were conducted in 2018 to evaluate the efficacy of the sampling cages for capturing and retaining fish (Table 5). The purpose of these trials is to create a correction factor that can be applied to the seasonal entrainment estimate to account for less than 100% fish retention. Hatchery reared juvenile steelhead (O. mykiss) placed in sampling cages and the percent remaining after 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> was recorded, following protocols described in the SAP. Test fish were obtained from Interim Report 16 January 2019

Ringold/Meseberg Hatchery in Mesa, Washington, per WDFW Fish Transport Application/Permit No.

7675-01-05-18 (Appendix C).

Table 5 2018 Cage Efficacy Testing Summary Start Date End Date Cage Efficacy Percent 1 (South) 91 Tuesday, April 3, 2018 Wednesday, April 4, 2018 2 (North) 88 1 (South) 94 Tuesday, April 24, 2018 Wednesday, April 25, 2018 2 (North) 94 1 (South) 86 Tuesday, June 26, 2018 Wednesday, June 27, 2018 2 (North) 49 1 (South) Not Tested Tuesday, July 17, 2018 Wednesday, July 18, 2018 2 (North) 86 Seven cage efficacy values were obtained in 2018 (Table 5). The cage efficacy testing confirmed that cage efficacy was generally high (greater than 80%). Also, efficacy rates between the two replicate cages were similar except for June 27. The low efficacy of Cage 2 on June 27 followed 5 weeks of high water that submerged the sampling cages. The efficacy of Cage 2 was restored by modifying cable attachments following the high-water event.

Three additional cage efficacy trials will occur during the 2019 sampling effort. Each trial will include an efficacy test for both the north and south cages for a total of six cage efficacy values.

3.2 Fish Impingement, Debris Monitoring, and Water Elevation Differential Visual inspection of the CGS intake for debris and signs of fish and shellfish impingement occurred on June 16, 2016, October 13, 2017, and September 17, 2018. A GoPro digital camera was used to record underwater video of both outer intake screens and structures. Algae biofouling was noted in the perforated and non-perforated areas of both intake structures during each inspection event.

Visual estimation of the perforated area covered by algae was greater than 50% based on a post-monitoring visual assessment of images taken of the perforated areas. No fish were observed in the vicinity of the intake structures, and no impingement of fish or shellfish was observed during any inspection event.

Debris entrained in the sampling cages during fish entrainment testing was routinely monitored.

Debris type and volume varied throughout the season and included algae clumps, sediment, larval Interim Report 17 January 2019

aquatic insects, and sponge-like material (Table 6). In general, light to medium amounts of debris were observed during the sampling.

Table 6 Entrained Debris Summary Field Effort Date Description Cage Efficacy 4/6/2017 Debris (algae clumps) sorted and thoroughly inspected Cage Efficacy 5/12/2017 Debris (algae clumps) sorted and thoroughly inspected Cage Efficacy 7/27/2017 Light algae debris was found inside both cages Cage Efficacy 4/5/2018 Light debris in cages Routine 4/11/2018 Light debris in cages Routine 4/19/2018 Light debris, light sand Cage Efficacy 4/26/2018 Light debris Routine 5/3/2018 Light debris Routine 5/10/2018 Medium debris, high water Routine 6/15/2018 Heavy debris Routine 6/21/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, light to medium debris Cage Efficacy 6/28/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, medium to heavy debris Routine 7/12/2018 Aquatic insect larvae, light to medium debris Cage Efficacy 7/19/2018 Medium amount of debris in cages Routine 8/2/2018 Light debris Routine 8/16/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, light other debris Routine 8/30/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, medium other debris Routine 9/13/2018 Sponge-like material entrained, medium other debris Clogging of screen pores can also cause a short-term drawdown of water level in the TMU system pumphouse, observed as a differential in water elevation of the Columbia River at the intake screens compared to water level within the TMU system pumphouse vault. A sudden change or excessive increase in water elevation differential is an indication that the intake structure screens are clogged or are becoming clogged. Water elevation differential between the Columbia River and the TMU pumphouse was variable during the 2018 fish entrainment monitoring period (Figure 6). Water elevation differential was at its minimum in late May when there was flooding of the pumphouse vault and surrounding area and approximately no difference between the river and pumphouse; however, gauges were submerged and accurate data are unavailable for that time period. Maximum water elevation differential was greater than 2 feet in August 2018. Differential varied within days across the sampling period; for the entire sampling period for which reliable data exist, the mean change in height over a 24-hour period was 0.92 feet. The maximum monthly standard deviation in Interim Report 18 January 2019

depth differential was approximately 0.5 feet or less, suggesting that changes in differential were generally stable.

Figure 6 Water Elevation Differential Between the Columbia River and Tower Make-Up System Pumphouse, 2018 Note: The gray line is the hourly data, the black line is the rolling 24-hour mean, and the red line is the modeled trendline for illustration of the linear trend associated with the ascending and descending limbs during summer. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet). Data are also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet). Hourly data for the entire unreliable period from May 06 00:00:00 to June 06 00:00:00 are shown in light blue. The rolling 24-hour mean during the unreliable period is shown as a dashed line.

One overall pattern in the data was that water elevation differential during CGS operational periods trended higher during summer until early August 2018. After approximately August 1, 2018, the pattern in water elevation differential reversed and differential levels decreased (Figure 6). The pattern of increasing summer differential (June 15 to August 1, 2018) and decreasing late-summer differential (August 1, 2018, onward) corresponds closely with the pattern of increasing and decreasing make-up flow in these same periods (Figure 7).

Interim Report 19 January 2019

Figure 7 Hourly Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Flow Volume, 2018 Note: The gray line is the hourly data, the black line is the rolling 24-hour mean, and the red line is the modeled trendline for illustration of the linear trend associated with the ascending and descending limbs during summer. The make-up flow status gauge indicates that data are unreliable for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on May 17 and continuously from May 20 00:00:00 to May 22 06:00 and June 03 02:00 to June 04 10:00. Unreliable data are shown as light blue circles.

The similarity in trends between the water elevation differential and CGS make-up water flow suggests that water elevation differential patterns were related to make-up water flow volume. The increased water elevation differential during summer is also apparent in the increase in mean weekly differential in the July to September period compared to the March to June period (Table 7). Overall, there was no evidence in the hourly water elevation differential data to suggest that a blockage of the intake structure occurred to cause a sudden drawdown of water level in the TMU pumphouse.

Interim Report 20 January 2019

Table 7 Differences in Pumphouse to Columbia River Water Depth Median Minimum Maximum Week Mean Difference SD Difference Difference Difference Difference of (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) 11-Mar 0.46 0.19 0.47 -0.05 0.86 18-Mar 0.49 0.22 0.47 -0.03 1.06 25-Mar 0.50 0.24 0.52 -0.09 1.04 1-Apr 0.49 0.19 0.50 -0.02 0.91 8-Apr 0.54 0.18 0.55 0.01 0.97 15-Apr 0.53 0.21 0.53 0.02 0.95 22-Apr 0.59 0.30 0.59 -0.01 1.35 29-Apr 0.60 0.27 0.64 -0.03 1.41 6-May1 0.68 0.26 0.67 -0.06 1.35 13-May1 0.96 0.51 0.94 -0.05 1.87 20-May1 0.20 0.26 0.10 -0.10 0.89 27-May1 0.10 0.23 0.05 -0.10 1.57 3-Jun2 0.12 0.22 0.06 -0.10 1.05 3-Jun2 0.07 0.16 0.02 -0.11 0.49 10-Jun 0.64 0.39 0.71 -0.10 1.72 17-Jun 1.00 0.39 0.95 -0.07 1.72 24-Jun 0.90 0.23 0.90 0.16 1.50 1-Jul 0.96 0.54 0.98 -0.11 2.24 8-Jul 1.09 0.34 1.08 0.14 2.13 15-Jul 1.30 0.51 1.15 0.32 2.13 22-Jul 1.33 0.40 1.29 0.30 1.89 29-Jul 1.37 0.51 1.37 0.28 2.28 5-Aug 1.41 0.58 1.42 0.26 2.33 12-Aug 1.20 0.39 1.30 -0.05 1.90 19-Aug 1.10 0.42 1.04 0.37 2.22 26-Aug 0.97 0.25 1.01 -0.11 1.58 2-Sep 1.07 0.40 1.08 -0.11 1.80 9-Sep 0.93 0.33 0.94 -0.10 1.55 Notes:

1. Indicates weeks for which data accuracy is affected by high water levels. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet).

Data are also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet).

2. This week is shown in two lines because data for June 03 to June 06 00:00 were unreliable, while data for June 06 01:00:00 to June 09 were reliable.

Interim Report 21 January 2019

4 Data Summaries and Analyses A summary of fish entrainment sampling events and associated make-up flow conditions is provided in Table 8. Two fish were entrained across all 19 sampling events, which included 16 routine fish entrainment monitoring events and four cage efficacy trials. Species-specific entrainment rates will be calculated following the methods outlined in the SAP at the end of the second year of the study in 2019.

Interim Report 22 January 2019

Table 8 2018 Entrainment Sampling Event Summary Average Average Hourly Hourly CGS CGS Make-Up Flow Number Total Number Sample Deployment Retrieval Make-Up Flow (cubic meter per of Cages Minutes of Fish Species Event Event Type Day Day (gpm) minute) Deployed Deployed Entrained Entrained 1 Cage Efficacy 4/3/2018 4/4/2018 15,610.75 59.09 2 1,440 0 None Efficacy Follow-Up +

2 4/4/2018 4/5/2018 15,521.39 58.75 2 1,380 0 None Routine 3 Routine 4/11/2018 4/12/2018 15,366.22 58.17 2 1,440 0 None 4 Routine 4/18/2018 4/19/2018 15,975.15 60.47 2 1,440 0 None 5 Cage Efficacy 4/24/2018 4/25/2018 16,772.73 63.49 2 1,440 0 None Efficacy Follow-Up +

6 4/25/2018 4/26/2018 17,076.17 64.64 2 1,440 0 None Routine Fall 7 Routine 5/2/2018 5/3/2018 17,017.28 64.42 2 1,440 1 Chinook 8 Routine 5/9/2018 5/10/2018 15,345.30 58.09 2 1,440 0 None 9 Routine 6/13/2018 6/14/2018 16,230.49 61.44 2 1,440 0 None Pacific 10 Routine 6/20/2018 6/21/2018 18,456.73 69.87 2 1,440 1 lamprey Cage Efficacy (Make-11 6/26/2018 6/27/2018 17,283.80 65.43 2 1,440 0 None Up) + Routine Efficacy Follow-Up 12 6/27/2018 6/28/2018 16,933.67 64.10 2 1,380 0 None (Make-Up) + Routine 13 Routine 7/11/2018 7/12/2018 17,609.09 66.66 2 1,440 0 None Cage Efficacy (Cage 2 14 Only) + Routine 7/17/2018 7/18/2018 20,325.08 76.94 1 1,440 0 None (Make-Up)

Interim Report 23 January 2019

Average Average Hourly Hourly CGS CGS Make-Up Flow Number Total Number Sample Deployment Retrieval Make-Up Flow (cubic meter per of Cages Minutes of Fish Species Event Event Type Day Day (gpm) minute) Deployed Deployed Entrained Entrained Efficacy Follow-Up 15 (Cage 2 Only) + 7/18/2018 7/19/2018 19,860.58 75.18 2 1,560 0 None Routine (Make-Up) 16 Adjusted Routine 8/1/2018 8/2/2018 19,231.70 72.80 2 1,440 0 None 17 Adjusted Routine 8/15/2018 8/16/2018 18,622.79 70.49 2 1,680 0 None 18 Adjusted Routine 8/29/2018 8/30/2018 17,642.05 66.78 2 1,440 0 None 19 Adjusted Routine 9/12/2018 9/13/2018 16,315.74 61.76 2 1,440 0 None Interim Report 24 January 2019

4.1 Columbia River Flow Rate 4.1.1 Seasonal Climatic Trends An unusually large snowpack during the 2017-2018 winter followed by rapid warming in May 2018 resulted in spring run-off flows that were well-above normal in the spring and summer of 2018 (Bowman and Lawson 2018). Spring precipitation events in the Idaho panhandle and western Montana also resulted in higher than normal downstream Columbia River elevations in central Washington in late May and June 2018 (Culverwell 2018).

4.1.2 Priest Rapids Dam Total Discharge Flow Mean daily discharge from Priest Rapids Dam for March 11 to September 9, 2018, was 162.8 kcfs (thousand cubic feet per second; SD = 80.8 kcfs) and mean river elevation at CGS pumphouse was 350.2 feet (SD = 4.2 feet). Spring and summer discharge for 2018 was approximately 19% higher than during the same period for the Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement (HRFCPPA) years 2008 to 2017, when mean daily discharge was 137.0 kcfs (SD = 60.8 kcfs). Mean river stage from 2008 to 2017 was 349.5 feet (SD = 4.6 feet). Discharge in 2018 was largely influenced by conditions in May, which was nearly 80% higher than the previous 10 years for an extended period of 35 days. A 12-hour rolling mean of Priest Rapids Dam discharge, water temperature, flow required by the HRFCPPA, and key fall Chinook salmon life stage time periods are shown in Figure 8, Panel A. Dates of fish entrainment and sampling are overlaid with discharge in Figure 8, Panel B to illustrate when sampling was suspended during peak flow events. Mean daily discharge ranged from 128.65 kcfs during the first study week to a maximum of 361.72 kcfs during the week of May 13, and a minimum of 67.5 kcfs during the last week of study starting September 9. (Table 9). Additional details of HRFCPPA requirements for Priest Rapids Dam discharge are summarized in Table 10. Other statistics that support decision making under sections C.3.b.1-5 of the HRFCPPA are summarized in Table 9, including mean daily minimum discharge, the delta in mean daily flow, and weekly mean water temperatures. Mean daily minimum flows for Monday through Thursday of each study week are shown in Table 11, as these values pertain to section C.3.b.6 of the HRFCPPA.

Total discharge from Priest Rapids Dam influences water velocity at the CGS intakes, which determines risk for entrainment. Based on Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) 2D MASS2 model simulation of the Columbia River reach centered at RM 352.13, water velocities at the intake likely ranged between 5 and 7 fps from March to mid-August 2018, dropping to about 4 fps in late August and early September. Higher river velocities passing the CGS intakes make it more likely that juvenile fish will be swept past the intakes without entrainment.

Interim Report 25 January 2019

Figure 8 Priest Rapids Dam Discharge and Temperature with Entrainment Sampling Dates and Fall Chinook Salmon Life Stages Notes:

Panel A: Water temperature data from Priest Rapids Dam tailrace is shown in red. Water temperature data from alternate sources are shown in blue (Priest Rapids forebay), purple (Wanapum Dam tailrace), and dark green (Rock Island Dam tailrace). Priest Rapids Dam discharge is shown in black as 12-hour rolling mean. Range of rearing flow is specified by HRFCPPA Sections C.3.b.5 to 6.

Panel B: Routine entrainment sampling dates are shown in light blue; dates when entrainment occurred are shown in orange.

Priest Rapids Dam discharge is shown in black as 12-hour rolling mean.

Interim Report 26 January 2019

Table 9 Priest Rapids Dam Flow and Water Temperature Data in 2018, Summarized by Study Week Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Mean Weekly SD Weekly Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Min Daily Flow Max Daily Flow Delta Flow Delta Flow Temperature Temperature Week of Flow (kcfs) Flow (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (°C) (°C) 11-Mar 117.57 13.57 99.73 130.74 12.29 5.59 4.55a 0.14a 18-Mar 110.93 13.66 99.32 134.56 16.10 10.65 5.04 0.16 25-Mar 111.33 13.80 86.65 125.23 15.15 11.17 5.13 0.23 1-Apr 128.65 10.03 110.24 138.42 6.02 3.42 5.50 0.07 8-Apr 130.94 11.23 115.77 142.62 6.47 5.44 5.98 0.32 15-Apr 165.89 14.73 143.75 179.15 7.83 7.69 6.92 0.24 22-Apr 184.94 10.07 169.81 198.41 8.09 2.39 8.01 0.42 29-Apr 226.93 22.19 192.07 266.14 19.66 14.36 9.09 0.22 6-May 286.28 32.24 240.83 344.53 21.11 14.43 9.99 0.36 13-May 361.73 19.43 335.31 387.62 20.39 7.56 11.44 0.44 20-May 339.64 17.08 314.32 352.40 10.33 10.74 12.42 0.38 27-May 278.60 24.21 241.87 308.98 18.92 11.86 13.18 0.19 3-Jun 227.34 18.39 205.93 254.08 9.32 5.43 13.61 0.36 10-Jun 179.78 18.37 164.40 206.77 9.93 9.14 14.26 0.30 17-Jun 150.77 6.97 139.60 160.93 10.85 8.15 15.64 0.57 24-Jun 189.32 14.47 170.51 209.98 12.92 6.99 16.57 0.20 1-Jul 126.28 15.69 110.86 152.38 14.61 12.38 16.28 0.39 8-Jul 132.53 16.41 101.81 150.71 13.15 17.24 17.62 0.40 15-Jul 132.84 6.46 125.05 140.89 6.08 4.49 18.63 0.14 22-Jul 130.29 14.19 104.20 147.38 16.33 14.72 19.23 0.34 29-Jul 110.44 26.00 63.47 132.77 18.24 19.10 19.57 0.18 5-Aug 110.52 15.37 80.05 123.85 11.00 15.11 20.29 0.35 Interim Report 27 January 2019

Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Mean Weekly SD Weekly Mean Daily SD Mean Daily Min Daily Flow Max Daily Flow Delta Flow Delta Flow Temperature Temperature Week of Flow (kcfs) Flow (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (kcfs) (°C) (°C) 12-Aug 98.06 14.01 75.63 117.17 12.95 5.91 19.88 0.22 19-Aug 112.20 14.75 85.46 128.29 13.73 12.92 19.54 0.37 26-Aug 89.85 20.15 66.05 120.10 25.79 12.27 18.87 0.18 2-Sep 76.18 13.12 50.98 88.98 12.42 7.16 18.99 0.16 9-Sep 67.50 7.53 56.88 77.13 11.11 6.69 18.75 0.16 Notes:

a. Indicates temperature data are from Priest Rapids Dam forebay instead of tailrace gauges.

Interim Report 28 January 2019

Table 10 Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Requirements for Priest Rapids Dam Flow Operations 2017 to 2018 Typical Time Life Stage Required Flow (kcfs) Description Period Mid-March to Section C.2.b Maintains protection level flow at or above Emergence 60 mid-May the critical elevation set by the monitoring team Section C.3.b.1-4 Controls the variation in flow within a Mid-March to day (delta) depending on the previous days (a) weekday Rearing 20-60 per day mid-July inflow from Wanapum Dam or (b) weekend outflow from Chief Joseph Dam Section C.3.b.5 Requires minimum daily flow when Mid-March to previous days (a) weekday inflow from Wanapum Dam Rearing 150 mid-July or (b) weekend outflow from Chief Joseph Dam is greater than 170 kcfs Average of daily hourly Section C.3.b.6 Requires minimum daily flow for 4 Mid-March to minimum flow from consecutive weekends after 800 Accumulated Rearing mid-July Monday to Thursday of Temperature Units have accumulated from the end of the current week the spawning period Table 11 Minimum Priest Rapids Dam Flow Pertaining to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement Section C.3.b.6 Study Week Average of daily hourly minimum flow from Monday to Thursday (kcfs) 13-May 323.70 20-May 323.55 27-May 254.55 3-Jun 199.30 10-Jun 161.43 17-Jun 131.23 24-Jun 169.08 1-Jul 88.30 8-Jul 102.43 15-Jul 106.00 4.2 Columbia River Temperature In 2018, mean weekly Columbia River temperatures for the fall Chinook salmon emergence period (mid-March to mid-May) ranged between 4.5 and 10°C, with a mean of 6.7°C (SD = 1.9°C) (Table 9).

Interim Report 29 January 2019

Water temperatures during the subsequent rearing period (mid-May to mid-July) ranged between 11.4°C and 17.6°C, with a mean of 14.6°C (SD = 2.0°C) (Table 9). Water temperature of discharge from Priest Rapids Dam in 2018 is shown in Figure 8, Panel A and summarized in Table 9. Water temperature is driven by climate and flow regulation from upstream dams and is important for driving transitions between fish life history stages, behavior, and occurrence near the TMU intake structures. The effect of temperature on early fish development is typically described in Accumulated Temperature Units representing the cumulative effect of temperature over time, defined as one degree of temperature for a 24-hour period. Emergence and rearing periods are defined in the HRFCPPA specifically for the purpose of maintaining adequate flows for juvenile fall Chinook salmon.

Emergence is defined as the point at which the water over eggs in Redds at Vernita Bar or other areas

[in the Hanford Reach] have accumulated 1,000 (°C) Temperature Units after the Initiation of Spawning (HRFCPPA 2004)

Similarly, Rearing Period is defined as the time period beginning with the start of the Emergence Period and continuing thereafter until 400 (°C) Temperature Units have been accumulated at Vernita Bar after the end of Emergence Period (HRFCPPA 2004) 4.3 Columbia Generating Station Tower Make-Up System Data 4.3.1 Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation: Pump 1A, Pump 1B, Pump 1C CGS operated with two TMU flow pumps in March, April, and September 2018. TMU pump operation is monitored by tracking the electrical current (amperage) flow to each of the three pumps (1A, 1B, and 1C). For the remainder of the season, all three TMU flow pumps operated on loads ranging from 20.9 to 77.4 amps. Pump operations in 2018 are summarized in Table 12.

Interim Report 30 January 2019

Table 12 Summary of Tower Make-Up System Pump Operation, 2018 Percent of Operation Total Hours Hours (Status OK/In Use) Average Amps Month for Study Pump 1A Pump 1B Pump 1C Pump 1A Pump 1B Pump 1C March 432 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 75.2 81.5 April 720 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 76.4 82.4 May 744 100/34.8 100/87.37 100/57.66 25.6 67.2 48.4 June 720 100/100 100/100 100/27.22 71.6 74.1 20.9 July 744 100/100 100/100 100/100 69.3 72.1 78.6 August 744 100/89.7 100/100 100/97.31 62.4 72.9 77.4 September 360 100/0 100/100 100/100 0.0* 77.7 86.2 Note:

A single asterisk (*) on zero amperage indicates that the pump was available for operation but was not in use.

4.3.2 Circulating Water Make-Up Flow Circulating water make-up flow will be used to extrapolate season-wide entrainment rates at the conclusion of the entrainment sampling study at the end of 2019. Season-wide entrainment rates will be based on the number of fish entrained and flow that occurred while sampling cages were in the water.

Throughout most of the 2018 season, circulating water make-up flow to the cooling towers from the Columbia River operated at approximately 60% to 80% of maximum intake flow of 25,000 gpm.

During the period of high flow on the Columbia River from mid-May to late-June, make-up water flow to the circulating water system was approximately 40% of maximum operating conditions, corresponding with the period of 65% power output from the plant (Figure 7). Weekly mean make-up water flow to the circulating water system ranged from 8,516.34 gpm the week of May 13, 2018, during peak Columbia River flow to 19,624.64 gpm the week of July 22, 2018 (Table 13). Both intake pipes were in use throughout the 2018 study period.

Interim Report 31 January 2019

Table 13 Weekly Summary of Columbia Generating Station Circulating Water System Make-Up Flow Flow (gpm)

Week of Season Mean SD Min Max 11-Mar 15,282.55 1,447.56 11,075.83 18,069.45 18-Mar 15,461.00 1,591.13 11198.96 19,208.37 25-Mar 15,571.74 1,829.36 9,645.387 19,119.32 1-Apr 15,532.05 1,381.20 11,501.58 18,144.89 8-Apr 15,756.75 1,308.20 11,669.32 18,656.83 15-Apr 15,792.98 1,489.93 11,941.43 18,591.99 22-Apr 16,120.17 2,127.01 8,370.834 20,885.00 29-Apr 16,396.68 1,931.37 11,419.46 21,259.24 6-May 16,714.12 2,152.16 537.31 20,760.97 13-May1 15,108.98 5,182.61 0.80 22,271.13 20-May1 8,516.34 3,912.07 412.32 14,298.14 27-May 11,287.39 1,995.47 4,927.44 20,674.12 3-Jun1 11,264.29 1,643.17 7,816.51 15,008.25 10-Jun 15,298.26 2,681.96 8,334.63 20,908.83 17-Jun 17,383.53 2,059.50 9,166.75 20,815.31 24-Jun 17,047.49 1,284.21 12,295.92 20,041.63 1-Jul 17,088.57 3,248.30 6,197.95 22,936.21 8-Jul 18,187.14 1,671.68 12,129.24 22,623.69 15-Jul 19,157.38 2,382.823 13,927.85 22,800.37 22-Jul 19,624.64 2,024.615 13,494.93 22,995.21 29-Jul 19,350.03 2,509.323 13,062.52 23,479.15 5-Aug 19,499.8 2,860.309 13,129.77 23,836.44 12-Aug 18,593.26 2,153.421 10,228.34 22,070.61 19-Aug 18,085.95 2,121.82 13,763.83 23,449.45 26-Aug 17,095.04 1,407.877 10,029.49 20,036.96 2-Sep 17,223.03 2,137.011 8,356.74 20,436.52 9-Sep 16,836.52 1,937.819 9,707.55 19,694.35 Note:

The make-up flow status gauge indicated that data are unreliable for 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> on May 17 and continuously from May 20 00:00:00 to May 22 06:00 and June 03 02:00 to June 04 10:00.

1. Indicates weeks that contain unreliable data.

4.3.3 River Level at Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Mean river elevation at CGS pumphouse was 350.2 feet (SD = 4.2 feet). Mean daily water elevations for the season are shown in Figure 9. During the periods of highest risk to fall Chinook salmon Interim Report 32 January 2019

juveniles during May and June (Anchor QEA 2018), the mean water depth clearance to the CGS intakes ranged from 7.74 to 13.25 feet (Table 14). During the 12-hour period between 1:00 p.m. and midnight on September 8, water depth above the CGS intakes fell below the 1.75 feet required by NMFS and reached a minimum depth of 1.12 feet (Table 14).

Figure 9 Columbia River Water Elevation and Clearance to Columbia Generating Station Intakes Note: Calculated Columbia River elevation based on pumphouse water depth, pumphouse elevation, and depth differential to river. Entrainment sampling dates are shown in light blue and dates when entrainment occurred are shown in orange. One or both of the pumphouse float gauge data points were flagged as continuously unreliable from May 07 08:00:00 to May 31 08:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse greater than 355 feet). Data is also unreliable from May 06 00:00:00 to May 06 17:00:00 and intermittently unreliable from May 31 to June 06 00:00:00 (River Level at Pumphouse 355 feet). The rolling 24-hour mean during the unreliable period is shown as a dashed line.

Interim Report 33 January 2019

Table 14 Monthly Average Water Depth Above Columbia Generating Station Intakes Month Mean (feet) SD (feet) Median (feet) Min (feet) Max (feet)

Mar 6.9 1.05 6.98 4.13 8.59 Apr 9.28 1.58 8.94 5.77 12.87 May 13.25 6.68 13.72 10.75 13.96 Jun 11.02 1.7 10.97 7.59 13.79 Jul 7.74 0.99 7.89 4.73 10.31 Aug 5.88 1.76 6 1.88 9.04 Sept 3.77 1.22 3.67 1.12 7 4.3.4 Change in River Elevation Hypothetical and observed river elevation data at the CGS pumphouse on the Columbia River are shown in Figure 10. Observed river elevation data closely follows hypothetical simulations developed by Niehus et al. (2014) for RM 352.13 until approximately 250 kcfs mean daily flow, at which point the elevation of the Columbia River at the pumphouse reaches an asymptote relative to discharge from Priest Rapids Dam. Based on conversations with CGS operators, the asymptote is indicative of a failure of pumphouse gauges to accurately measure river elevation above bank-full conditions of approximately 355 feet of river elevation.

Interim Report 34 January 2019

Figure 10 Actual and Hypothetical Stage-Discharge for Columbia Generating Station Pumphouse Reach of Columbia River Note: Hypothetical stage-discharge curve is based on modeling done by PNNL using their 2D MASS2 model. Grey points are daily mean river elevation and discharge data from the 2018 season. Color points represent data values on days entrainment occurred.

4.4 Columbia Generating Station Meteorological Data Seasonal data for air temperature, wind speed and direction, and barometric pressure in 2018 are summarized by study week in Table 15. The mean daily low and high air temperatures in May and July 2018 were approximately 5°F warmer than historical (1981 to 2010) published data for the Richland, Washington, area (U.S. Climate Data 2018). Winds generally blew from a west-southwesterly direction, occasionally blowing from the northwest. A maximum wind gust of 61 miles per hour (mph) was recorded in July, but average wind speeds were less than 12 mph throughout the season.

Interim Report 35 January 2019

Table 15 Meteorological Data at Columbia Generating Station in 2018, Summarized by Study Week Study Mean Low Mean High Mean Wind Min. Wind Max. Wind Median Wind Mean Pres. Min Pres. Max Pres.

Week Temp (°C) Temp (°C) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Dir. (0° N) (mmHg) (mmHg) (mmHg) 11-Mar 36.5 56.4 5.9 0.0 12.9 250.8 29.3 29.2 29.4 18-Mar 34.3 55.7 7.1 0.3 26.0 222.7 29.4 29.0 29.7 25-Mar 37.9 59.7 8.5 0.0 23.8 242.5 29.7 29.4 29.8 1-Apr 40.9 56.7 7.1 0.0 18.6 269.0 29.4 28.9 29.6 8-Apr 45.4 61.6 11.8 1.3 23.9 204.0 29.5 29.1 29.8 15-Apr 43.5 62.5 10.3 0.0 27.9 235.9 29.5 29.0 29.8 22-Apr 44.0 73.4 6.3 0.0 20.2 322.6 29.6 29.1 29.9 29-Apr 49.4 73.8 7.8 0.2 19.1 188.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 6-May 57.4 74.6 6.4 0.1 20.8 241.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 13-May 56.2 81.0 6.8 0.2 19.2 317.6 29.4 29.2 29.5 20-May 59.6 83.1 6.6 0.1 21.1 284.5 29.3 29.1 29.5 27-May 52.0 77.4 7.7 0.4 25.3 205.5 29.5 29.2 29.7 3-Jun 53.7 79.1 8.2 0.1 22.6 242.8 29.4 29.2 29.5 10-Jun 51.1 74.9 9.3 0.0 24.2 271.1 29.4 29.2 29.7 17-Jun 62.7 85.3 8.8 0.0 35.4 291.7 29.4 29.3 29.6 24-Jun 57.9 82.5 9.7 0.1 30.4 260.5 29.4 29.1 29.6 1-Jul 60.9 84.7 9.4 0.7 24.8 279.5 29.5 29.4 29.7 8-Jul 64.7 93.1 10.1 0.0 61.0 301.3 29.5 29.3 29.6 15-Jul 63.3 94.5 7.3 0.1 21.4 279.0 29.4 29.3 29.6 22-Jul 64.9 95.4 4.3 0.0 11.4 338.2 29.5 29.3 29.7 29-Jul 64.9 94.8 7.1 0.3 19.8 295.3 29.4 29.2 29.5 5-Aug 65.2 97.5 5.1 0.0 19.7 274.8 29.4 29.2 29.6 12-Aug 61.6 89.6 3.9 0.0 12.3 305.5 29.5 29.3 29.6 Interim Report 36 January 2019

Study Mean Low Mean High Mean Wind Min. Wind Max. Wind Median Wind Mean Pres. Min Pres. Max Pres.

Week Temp (°C) Temp (°C) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Speed (mph) Dir. (0° N) (mmHg) (mmHg) (mmHg) 19-Aug 59.2 85.4 7.7 0.0 17.8 308.4 29.4 29.3 29.6 26-Aug 56.6 79.7 6.4 0.0 20.2 250.8 29.4 29.2 29.6 2-Sep 57.5 82.8 7.3 0.0 23.0 319.8 29.5 29.3 29.6 9-Sep 55.2 75.1 6.9 0.0 18.0 209.0 29.4 29.3 29.5 Interim Report 37 January 2019

5 Conclusions Activities were undertaken in 2018 as the first year of a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study at Energy Northwests CGS intake following the EFSEC-approved study plan. Preliminary observations indicate that few fish were entrained over the observation season, with only two fish observed during thirteen 24-hour sampling events. The small number of fish entrained is consistent with the findings of previous monitoring (Mudge et al. 1981).

The modifications made to entrainment cages to reduce gaps between the intake pipes and cage openings resulted in fish retention rates that were generally high (greater than 80%). Visual inspections of the intake screens by video showed no fish impingement. Though some biofouling by algae was observed, monitoring of the water level differential between the Columbia River and the TMU system pumphouse vault showed no evidence of clogged screen pores, a condition that could increase the risk of fish impingement.

Discharge from the upper Columbia River Basin and Priest Rapids Dam was exceptionally high in 2018 and peak flows occurred in May, approximately 1 month earlier than average, causing an interruption in typical make-up flow and routine fish entrainment monitoring activities. Nonetheless, the fish entrainment monitoring that was undertaken in March and April prior to the high flows coincided with the typical peak emergence period for Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon, allowing for representative sampling during this key time of year.

In addition, a detailed literature review and evaluation of species and life stages potentially at risk indicated that listed salmonid stocks from the upper Columbia River Basin were not at risk of entrainment or impingement due to their large size and strong swimming ability on reaching the CGS intake. The primary vulnerable salmonid species and life stages are fall Chinook salmon and steelhead fry originating from the Hanford Reach, in relatively close proximity to the CGS intakes.

However, this risk is minimized by the hydraulic conditions around the intake structure. Overall, the published literature supports the observations from the first year of fish entrainment monitoring that a low probability of impingement and entrainment exists for the CGS intake in this reach of the Columbia River.

Complete results and conclusions based on 2 years of study will be developed for the final report following the 2019 field season.

Interim Report 38 January 2019

6 References Alden (Alden Research Laboratory, Inc.), 2018. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station. Revision 00, Alden Report No.: 1175ENWCGS.

Prepared for Energy Northwest. April 2018.

Anchor QEA (Anchor QEA, LLC), 2018. Historical Fish Occurrence Literature Review. Prepared for Energy Northwest Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study. November 21, 2018.

Bowman M., and G. Lawson, 2018. Columbia River electric generation in 2018 remains normal despite above-normal water flow. U.S. Energy Information Administration Today in Energy.

Last modified September 28, 2018; accessed November 13, 2018. Available at:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37152#.

Coutant, C. C., 2014. Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington. For NPDES Permit No. WA002515-1, Effective November 1, 2014.

Culverwell, W., 2018. Mother Nature Isnt Done with the Columbia River Yet. Tri-City Herald.

May 15, 2018; accessed November 13, 2018. Available at: https://www.tri-cityherald.com/news/local/article211193749.html.

EN (Energy Northwest), 2018. Tower Make Up System (TMU) Fish Cages - Operational Considerations.

Harnish, R. A., R. Sharma, G. A. McMichael, R. B. Langshaw, and T. N. Pearsons, 2014. Effect of Hydroelectric Dam Operations on the Freshwater Productivity of a Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon Population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71(4):602-15.

Mudge, J. E., G. S. Jeane II, K. P. Campbell, B. R. Eddy, and L. E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

Niehus, S. E., W. A. Perkins, and M. C. Richmond, 2014. Simulation of Columbia River Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature from 1917 through 2011 in the Hanford Reach. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA. Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County.

2014.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service), 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Interim Report 39 January 2019

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Modular Aquatic Simulation System 1D and 2D software, operated by Battelle, produced under funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

https://basin.pnnl.gov/Software/Details/16.

Taylor, E. B., and J., D., McPhail. 1985. Ontogeny of the startle response in young coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:552-557.

U.S. Climate Data, 2018. Climate Richland - Washington. Accessed November 13, 2108. Available at:

https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/richland/washington/united-states/uswa0373/2007/1.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List. Last modified June 2016. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/.

Interim Report 40 January 2019

Appendix A 2014 Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington

Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station Richland, Washington For National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA002515-1, Effective November 1, 2014 Energy Northwest P. O. Box 968 Richland, WA 99352 Attention: Shannon E. Khounnala sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com DRAFT Prepared by Charles C. Coutant, PhD ccoutant3@comcast.net 1

ABSTRACT This study plan for characterizing fish entrainment at the Columbia Generating Station was prepared in response to stipulation in the reissue of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit No. WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests (EN) Columbia Generating Station (CGS). This Permit includes operation of a water intake in the Columbia River for make-up water for the CGSs cooling, fire protection, and potable water systems. The Permit was issued September 30, 2014 (for implementation November 1, 2014) by the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) in coordination with the Washington Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies had questions about the water intake structure and its efficacy for excluding entrainment of fish, particularly early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead. Extensive consultations were conducted between EN and the NMFS as a consequence of the existing water intake not conforming to NMFS screening criteria, which were developed primarily from screening of irrigation canals and other intakes unlike the CGS intake. Two entrainment studies conducted at CGSs commissioning in the 1980s were deemed out of date and the present intake screens do not meet current NMFSs screening guidelines.

The proposed Study Plan provides an overview of the CGS; a general description and operating characteristics of the intake system for cooling tower makeup-water on the Columbia River upstream of Richland, Washington; general methods for conducting an updated entrainment characterization study; data management and analysis; and reporting. Methods include sampling period and frequency, general sample collection protocols, and ancillary data collection (e.g.,

river temperature, river elevation). The study plan includes characterization of the fish present in the area of influence of the intake structure based on a long history of fish studies in the Hanford Reach and near the intake location, and monitoring of entrainment into the cooling systems pump well. ENs standard health & safety, quality assurance, and quality control procedures will be followed for sampling in the CGS pump well. Detailed sampling, data management and analysis protocols will be developed by EN environmental staff and a fisheries contractor following approval of the overall Study Plan by the EFSEC. Although the water withdrawal rate by CGS is lower than the 125 MGD that requires existing power plants to conduct such an entrainment study, this Study Plan is informed by the requirements of the final EPA Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule published August 15, 2014 and follows relevant guidance in the Rule (quoted in Appendix A).

Keywords Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Columbia River Salmon Cooling Water Intake Structures NPDES Permit Study Plan 2

PEER REVIEW A draft of this Entrainment Study Plan was peer reviewed by three experts in biological monitoring and Columbia River fish in accordance with the EPA Peer Review Guidelines (EPA 2006). The reviewers were Dr. Dennis D. Dauble, Dr. Lyman L. McDonald and Mr. Goeff A.

McMichael, all who have had extensive experience with Columbia River salmon, including conduct of field studies in the Hanford Reach (Dauble, McMichael) and an internationally recognized biometrician with long tenure of membership on the Northwest Power and Conservation Councils Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (McDonald). A summary of their expertise follows. Comments relevant to this draft Study Plan have been incorporated. Following that peer review, a revised draft Study Plan was reviewed by relevant agencies, including the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, Washington Department of Ecology, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (and others as requested). As a result of that informal review, the scope of the Study has been narrowed to two main components: (1) a summary of fish species and life stage presence and vulnerability to entrainment, and (2) entrainment sampling in the water withdrawn from the intake. The final Study Plan will/does incorporate the formal agency comments on this draft, which will be/are included as Appendix B.

Dr. Dennis D. Dauble. Dr. Dauble retired in 2009 after a 35-year career as a fisheries scientist at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Washington where he focused on Endangered Species issues, fish passage and behavior and aquatic ecological monitoring. He has participated in and directed field studies of salmonids and other species in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. He is currently an adjunct professor at the Washington State University branch campus in the Tri-Cities. Since retirement, he has participated in expert science panels on issues relating to salmon survival and water export for the San Joaquin/Sacramento River delta; influence of flow fluctuations on productivity of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon; and impacts of potential mining activities on salmon ecosystems of Bristol Bay, Alaska. He is a member of the Independent Scientific Review Panel for the Northwest Power Planning Council and a member of the Monitoring Panel for the Salmon Recovery Board of Washington State.

Dr. Lyman L. McDonald. Dr. McDonald is an internationally known biometrician with over 40 years of experience in the application of statistical methods to design, conduct, and analyze field and laboratory studies. Initially on the faculty of the University of Wyoming, he was a founder and now Senior Biometrician of Western Ecosystems Technology, Inc. (WEST) environmental and statistical consultants. He designed and managed both large and small environmental impact assessments and monitoring programs in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems including marine environments. He had appointments to regional and national technical advisory and review committees including the Independent Scientific Advisory Board for the Northwest Power Planning Council, the Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, and NOAA Fisheries.

Mr. Goeff A. McMichael. Mr. McMichael is a consulting fishery biologist who was employed at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) between September 1999 and May 2014.

Prior to forming Mainstem Fish Research, Mr. McMichael worked on a wide variety of aquatics 3

projects at PNNL, most recently development and implementation of a new acoustic telemetry system for use on very small fish. Mr. McMichael has been a Project Manager and Principal Investigator for acoustic telemetry projects using the newly-developed Juvenile Salmon Acoustic Telemetry System (JSATS). These projects have addressed critical uncertainties regarding juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead survival and passage behavior in the Snake and Columbia rivers and in the near shore Pacific Ocean. He has also been Principal Investigator in comprehensive studies of the effects of hydropower operations on the fall Chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River. Extensive evaluations of fish screen performance criteria, and ADCP surveys of water velocities upstream of Grand Coulee Dam are particularly relevant to the CGS entrainment study. Geoff has also been active in other research areas including ecological interactions between hatchery and wild salmonids, behavioral ecology, fish population monitoring, fish capture methods development, input to Ecosystem Diagnosis and Treatment modeling efforts, predator-prey interactions, and electrofishing injury. He managed over $30M in research over the past 15 years and has published over 100 technical reports and papers, including the most cited paper in Fisheries for the past three years.

4

CONTENTS ABSTRACT PEER REVIEW INTRODUCTION Purpose Entrainment Studies Under Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

Previous Studies STUDY AREA Plant Description Make-up Water Intake Structure Entrainment Sampling Location and Operation STUDY TASKS AND METHODS Task 1: Historical Fish Occurrence Task 2: Fish Entrainment Sampling Task 3: Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring Task 4: Data Summaries and Analysis Task 5: Reporting PERMITS QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL HEALTH AND SAFETY REFERENCES FIGURES APPENDIX A. EPA §316(b) RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY APPENDIX B. AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT STUDY PLAN 5

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1. Location of the Columbia Generating Station (CGS; star at center) in relation to nearby features in the approximately 50-mi (80-km) radius. [After NRC 2011 Figure D-1-1, which is after EN 2010a]

Figure 2. Location of the CGS in relation to nearby features in the approximately 6-mi (10-km) radius. [After NRC 2011 Figure D-1-2, which is after EN 2010a]

Figure 3. The CGS intake system in plan (upper) and profile views. [after NRC 2011 Figure D 4]

Figure 4. Artists rendering of the cooling-water intake system of the CGS from the in-river intake screens to the pump house.

Figure 5. Cylindrical intake screens in plan (upper), section (middle) and side views. [after NRC Figure D-1-6, which is after WPPSS 1980]

Figure 6. Photographs of (A) side view of one section of the cylindrical, perforated-plate intake screen in storage, which would attach either upstream or downstream of the central housing located above the pipe to the pump house; (B) a close-up of the outer sleeve with 3/8th-in (9.5-mm) perforations; (C) a close-up of the inner sleeve with 3/4-in (19-mm) perforations. [after NRC Figure D-1-7]

Figure 7. Location of pump house, pipelines and intakes in relation to the Columbia River channels at about RM 352 showing historical fall Chinook salmon and potential steelhead spawning locations. [after NRC 2011 Figure D-1-5]

Figure 8. Facilities for fish entrainment monitoring in the CGS pumphouse. Fish sampling cages attach to the terminal ends of the buried pipes carrying water from the in-river intake structures and are raised to a monitoring platform above the water surface for fish counting.

6

INTRODUCTION Purpose This document presents an Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) in accordance with the requirements of a re-issued National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. On September 30, 2014 the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) published a reissuance of NPDES Permit No.

WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests (EN) Columbia Generating Station. The final Permit, effective November 1, 2014, was the result of consultations between EFSEC and interested agencies, including the Washington State Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administrations National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). These agencies had questions about the water intake structure and its efficacy for excluding entrainment (withdrawal) of fish, particularly early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead, through the intake screens (Atkinson 2014). Extensive consultations were conducted between EN and the NMFS through a physical meeting, letters, and e-mail as a consequence of the existing water intake not conforming to NMFS screening criteria, which were developed primarily from screening of irrigation canals and other intakes unlike the CGS intake (NMFS 2011; Coutant 2014b). Entrainment studies conducted at CGSs commissioning in 1979-80 (Mudge et al. 1981) and 1985 (WPPSS 1985) were considered by NMFS as out of date.

The Columbia River at the CGS site is a migratory pathway for salmonids that reproduce and rear in the upstream reaches. The Hanford Reach (the reach of river extending from the CGS vicinity to upstream Priest Rapids Dam at RM 397.1) is heavily used by spawning fall race of Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha and some Steelhead O. mykiss. The Hanford Reach is home to one of the most productive stocks of fall Chinook salmon anywhere (Harnish et al.

2014) and is so abundant that there is concern for density dependent limitations to population growth (McMichael and James 2015). These fall Chinook salmon spawn largely in October-November mostly in the upper reaches of the Hanford Reach although some spawn closer to CGS near Ringold (Dauble and Watson 1997; Annual monitoring reports available from the U.S.

Department of Energy, Mission Support Alliance Project). Early life stages occupy near-shore rearing areas throughout the Reach mostly April-June. Steelhead spawn in spring, primarily in the discharge of the Ringold hatchery and a nearby irrigation return canal (approximately 2.5 miles or 4 km upstream of the CGS intake and on the opposite shore), but rarely in the main river (Wagner et al. 2014). Early life stages after the emergent fry stage rear in the area in summer. No Steelhead spawning has been identified immediately upstream of the CGS intake. Bull trout Salvelinus confluentus occupy the river rarely, limited by the species requirement for especially cold water (Jeff Chen, USFWS, Section 10 permit unnecessary for Bull Trout per telecom to Shannon Khounnala, May 2012). Sockeye salmon O. nerka migrate past the CGS area to upriver hatcheries, spawning and rearing zones while yearling or older juvenile Sockeye salmon migrate downstream past it. Coho salmon O. kisutch also migrate past the area to hatchery release locations and habitats upstream of the CGS, with yearling or older smolts migrating downstream.

Of these species, three have been identified as federally Threatened (T) or Endangered (E):

Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (E), Upper Columbia River Steelhead (T), and bull trout (T) (NRC 2011). The abundant Hanford fall Chinook salmon are not a listed species.

7

The anadromous Pacific lamprey Entophenus tridentatus, with potentially entrainable juvenile stages, is known to spawn and rear in the Hanford Reach and migrate near the CGS intake (Dauble et al. 2006). It is not a listed species.

The reissued Permit requires EN to conduct an Entrainment Characterization Study of its existing cooling-water intake system, with emphasis on potential entrainment of early life stages of Chinook salmon and Steelhead and any threatened or endangered species. A related operational monitoring stipulation requires evaluation of impingement. An entrainment Study Plan is to be submitted to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015. Because the CGS uses a closed-cycle cooling system of mechanical draft cooling towers, it is assumed that any fish entrained in the intake structure will not survive in the cooling system. The re-issued NPDES Permit in its entirety is located at:

http://www.efsec.wa.gov/Columbia%20Generating%20Station/EFSEC/CGS-NPDESPermit-Final-ElectronicSignature.pdf The requirement for an Entrainment Characterization Study states (Page 26):

S12.B. Entrainment Characterization Study The Permittee must prepare and conduct an entrainment characterization study consistent with the content requirements in 40 CFR 122.21(r) (9).

1. Study design The Permittee must:

a. Prepare documentation of the proposed entrainment characterization study design and submit it to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015. The Permittee must submit a paper copy and an electronic copy (preferably in a portable document format (PDF)).

2. Study implementation The Permittee must:

a. Following EFSEC approval of the study design referenced in S12.B.1, conduct the entrainment characterization study according to the approved design.

b. Submit the final entrainment characterization study to EFSEC by May 1, 2019. The Permittee must submit a paper copy and an electronic copy (preferably in a portable document format (PDF)).

The results of the Entrainment Characterization Study will be taken into account by the EFSEC for review and possible revision of the existing permit or for application to the next NPDES permit cycle.

Entrainment Studies Under Clean Water Act Section 316(b)

At about the same time as the renewed Permit was being finalized the EPA published (August 15, 2014) the final Clean Water Act §316(b) Rule for cooling-system intake structures at existing power plants. The final Rule presents the compliance options EPA requires for impingement and entrainment control at cooling-water intake systems for existing power plants and other industrial facilities. One of the requirements is for an Entrainment Characterization Study (40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)). The EPA Rule applies to owners and operators of any existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 million gallons per day (MGD) of actual intake flow. This flow rate 8

is much greater than the maximum 36 MGD of cooling-tower make-up water that is withdrawn by the CGS. Also, legal challenges to the Rule can be expected. Nonetheless, the Rule can be taken as general guidance for any study of entrainment. The Rules study requirements thus inform the content of an entrainment study plan for the CGS. The EPAs requirements for an Entrainment Characterization Study (40 CFR 122.21(r)(9)) are provided in Appendix A. Details of the full final Rule are available at the EPA website located at http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/316b/index.cfm.

Salient points of the EPA Rule for this Entrainment Study Plan include:

• A minimum of two years of entrainment data collection;

• Documentation of data collection period and frequency;

• Identification of fish that occur in the vicinity of the cooling-water intake structure and are susceptible to entrainment, including any species protected under Federal, State or Tribal law with habitat ranges that include waters in the vicinity of the intake structure;

• Biological collections that are representative of the entrainment in the subject intake;

• Description of spatial and temporal characteristics of fish abundance in the vicinity of the intake (can be based on historical data);

• Description of annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment as related to climate, weather, spawning, feeding and water column migration;

• Entrainment collections that are representative of current operation of the facility (e.g.,

flows) and biological conditions at the site;

• Documentation of all assumptions and methods used to calculate the total entrainment for the facility;

• Documentation of all study methods and quality assurance/control procedures for data collection and analysis that are suitable for a quantitative survey.

Previous Studies Studies of salmon spawning, rearing and migration in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River have been conducted since the early 1950s by the U.S. Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies operating the Hanford Works (e.g., Becker 1970, 1973, 1985, 1990; Becker and Gray 1989; Dauble et al. 1989; Geist et al. 2000; Geist and Dauble 1998; Gray and Dauble 1977a, 2001; and annual monitoring reports available from the U.S. Department of Energy Mission Support Alliance Project, Richland Operations). These studies have documented a generally increasing density of fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Reach as nearly all other reaches of the river were impounded and natural riverine features were flooded (Dauble and Watson 1997; Visser et al. 2002). In the late 1970s, considerable effort was expended on characterizing the fish community, particularly in the vicinity of water intakes for the N Reactor, the adjacent power-production facility, and the site of the planned CGS intake (then called WNP-2; Gray and Dauble 1976, 1977b, 1977c, 1978, 1979a, 1979b; Page et al. 1974). Spatial and temporal distributions were identified, particularly for fall Chinook salmon. These studies also identified salmonids from upper reaches of the Columbia River basin that migrate through the Hanford Reach. These numerous reports have been catalogued and copies are publicly available. Many are cited in NRC 2011. Reports cited here are a partial listing of studies; the Study Plan includes synthesis of these and related documents for relevance to entrainment of fish at the CGS water intake.

9

Fish entrainment studies have been conducted previously at the CGS. Beak Consultants conducted entrainment studies in May 1979 to May 1980 as part of the Preoperational Environmental Monitoring Program for what was then called the Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Nuclear Project No. 2 (WNP-2) (Beak 1980; Mudge et al. 1981). No juvenile salmonids were entrained. As a result of review by the EFSEC, WPPSS was required to conduct additional studies during one spring (April-June) out-migration of naturally spawned juvenile salmon when the facility was at or above 75% power load (EFSEC Resolution 214 issued in 1982). Further review by NMFS (Evans 1983) established the study period would extend to September 15 (Sorensen 1983), although recent studies in the Hanford Reach indicate that entrainment sampling to this late date is not biologically relevant. The facility reached approximately 75% thermal (power) load in November 1984 and the studies were conducted in 1985 to fulfill the requirements set forth in EFSEC Resolution No. 214 and to address the concerns of NMFS. The entrainment sampling equipment for each study was the same as described in Mudge et al. (1981) and is largely the same for the current plan. During times when Chinook salmon juveniles were confirmed present in the vicinity by beach seining there were no fish, fish eggs or larvae collected during 294 hours0.0034 days <br />0.0817 hours <br />4.861111e-4 weeks <br />1.11867e-4 months <br /> of entrainment sampling with an average sampling period of just under 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> per sample (WPPSS 1985).

Fish impingement and biofouling at the intakes were also studied in 1985 using SCUBA divers (WPPSS 1985). On nine occasions between March 13 and December 3 (six of which took place in April-September when juvenile salmonids were likely present) divers inspected and reported any fish impingement on or interaction with the intake structure, the need for maintenance, accumulation of submerged debris and plugging of orifices by attached growths. Videotape logs were made in spring and fall. Although resident fish were seen around the intakes structures, there were no impinged fish found and no fouling by algae, insects, sponges or debris occurred that would impact proper operation of the intakes.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently prepared a combined biological assessment (BA) and essential fish habitat assessment (EFH) to address the effects of renewing the CGSs operation license on endangered or threatened species or their designated habitat (NRC 2011).

This assessment summarized relevant information for NRCs consultation with federal agencies as required by the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act as amended by the Sustainable Fisheries Act of 1996. The combined BA/EFH Assessment examined the potential impacts of the proposed re-licensing action by the NRC on federally listed aquatic species within the NMFS and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) jurisdictions as well as the designated and revised critical habitat and the EFH. It also described any proposed conservation measures to avoid, minimize or otherwise offset potential adverse effects on designated EFH resulting from the re-licensing. The reports conclusions for species under the Endangered Species Act were: Bull Trout- no effect; Upper Columbia River Spring Chinook Salmon and Upper Columbia River Steelhead - may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect. For other downstream-migrating juveniles from upstream hatcheries or habitats (Upper Columbia River Chinook Salmon and Coho Salmon), the report concluded that the CGS will have minimal adverse effect. Sockeye salmon and Pacific lamprey were not mentioned. The report considered the CGSs cooling tower system to be the most reasonable way to mitigate the number of aquatic organisms entrained and impinged in 10

comparison with other power plant cooling systems. The NRCs assessment provides valuable background for this Entrainment Study Plan.

This document presents the Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the CGS in accordance with the requirements of the NPDES Permit. The Study Plan provides an overview of the CGS; a general description and operating characteristics of the cooling-water make-up intake system on the Columbia River upstream of Richland, Washington; general methods for conducting the entrainment characterization study; data management and analysis; and reporting. Methods include sampling period and frequency, general data collection protocols, and ancillary data collection (e.g., river temperature, river elevation). Detailed sampling, data management and analysis protocols will be developed by a fisheries contractor and EN environmental staff following approval of the overall Study Plan by the EFSEC. The Study Plan includes characterization of the fish present in the area of influence of the intake structure, and monitoring of entrainment into the cooling systems pump well. ENs standard health & safety, quality assurance and quality control procedures will be implemented for sampling by EN operations staff and a fisheries contractor at the CGS pump well.

The entrainment monitoring study will concentrate on entrainment of fall Chinook salmon fry.

Through consultations with NMFS it is mutually recognized that newly emerged Chinook salmon derived from spawning beds in the Hanford Reach are the species and life stage most likely to be entrained. This is not an ESA-listed species but its populations proximity to CGS, its abundance and its seasonal sizes near the CGS intake make it a useful surrogate for all entrainable fish. It is also in NMFSs regulatory authority through the Magnuson-Stevens Act.

Although other species and life stages of fish occur in the vicinity of the CGS intake (as will be identified in the studys literature review), most salmonids including those with ESA listing are large enough that entrainment through the 3/8th-inch diameter pores of the intake would not be possible (Bell 1990; Nordlund 2013a). For example, downstream-migrating juveniles of Chinook (underyearlings >75 mm long and 12 mm deep), Steelhead (wild pre-smolt >125 mm long and 22 mm deep), Sockeye (89-127 mm long) and Coho salmon (yearling or older 89-114 mm) from populations spawning and rearing upstream in or upstream of the Hanford Reach would be excluded by a 3/8-inch mesh (for sizes sampled in the Hanford Reach see Dauble et al. 1989 and other Hanford reports cited above). The effective opening of a 3/8-inch pore that is positioned parallel with a high sweeping flow >1 m/s is likely less than 3/8-inch for passage of particles such as small fish.

STUDY AREA Plant Description The Columbia Generating Station is located in south-central Washington State in Benton County adjacent to the Columbia River near River Mile (RM) 352 approximately five miles upstream of the city limits of Richland, Washington (Figures 1 and 2). The site is located on leased land in the southeastern portion of the U.S. Department of Energys Hanford Site. The Columbia River bounds the CGS site on the east side.

11

The CGS is a single-unit, 1,170-megawatt boiling-water nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in December 1984 (EN 2010; NRC 2011). The reactor produces heat that boils water, producing steam for direct use in a steam turbine, which generates electricity for the Pacific Northwest grid. Steam that exits the turbine is condensed with cool water from a closed-cycle cooling system consisting of six mechanical-draft cooling towers that remove heat from the circulating water and transfer the heat to the atmosphere. A portion of the water in the circuit is lost by evaporation and drift of droplets entrained in air. The evaporative and drift losses lead to concentration of dissolved salts in the cooling circuit, necessitating a gradual replacement of water in the circuit by release of so-called blowdown water to the Columbia River. The combined losses from evaporation, drift and blowdown are replenished by so-called make-up water pumped from the Columbia River. It is the water intake for the make-up water that is the subject of this Entrainment Study Plan.

The make-up-water pump house is located 3 miles (5 km) east of the CGS reactor complex and approximately 300 ft. (91 meters) shoreward of the rivers normal high-water mark at RM 352 (Figures 3 and 4). It houses three 800-horsepower make-up water pumps situated in a pump well. The pump well is connected to intake structures in the river by two 36-inch (91-cm) diameter buried pipes that extend 900 ft. (274 m) from the pump house. Entrainment sampling will be conducted in this pump house.

The pumps are designed to each supply 12,500 gallons per minute (gpm) (0.79 m3/s or 9 million gallons per day [MGD]) or half the system capacity at design head. Two pumps can supply make-up water to the plant with a withdrawal capacity of 25,000 gpm (1.58 m3/s or 36 MGD) but during normal operating periods, the average make-up-water withdrawal is about 17,000 gpm (1.1 m3/s or 24.48 MGD). This contrasts with the average mean annual discharge of the Columbia River near the site of 117,823 cfs (3,336 m3/s or 76.2 BGD) and a minimum mean annual discharge of 80,650 cfs (2,284 m3/s or 52.1 BGD) (USGS 2010). The average make-up-water withdrawal of 17,000 gpm is thus about 0.03 percent of the average mean annual discharge and 0.05 percent of the minimum mean annual discharge of the river. The period of most concern, mid-March to mid-June when recently emerged Chinook salmon fry of entrainable size are present, is normally the period of highest river discharge, and thus the smallest percentage of river water withdrawn. At these times, 10-year average daily river flows downstream of Priest Rapids Dam (Hanford Reach; 2005-2014) rose fairly steadily from about 100 cfs near March 15 to 190-210 cfs in late May and early June (Columbia Basin Research query on July 23, 2015).

The average make-up water withdrawal of 17,000 gpm would have ranged from 0.036% in late March to 0.018-0.020 in late May and early June of this recent 10-year period.

Withdrawal rates actually vary seasonally and hourly. In the April-September period when juvenile fall Chinook salmon of progressively increasing sizes are present in the Hanford Reach, the 2014 monthly average withdrawal rates compared to CGSs maximum withdrawal capacity were: April- 63%, May- 62%, June- 69%, July 75%, August-60% and September- 66%. On a daily basis, water withdrawal rates are highest during the warm hours whereas downstream-migrating Chinook salmon juveniles pass mostly at night (Dauble et al. 1989).

12

Water velocities within the two 36-inch-diameter intake pipes, with which all make-up water is shared equally, vary with pumping rate. The calculated velocities inside each pipe at a range of flows are (http://irrigation.wsu.edu/Content/Calculators/General/Pipe-Velocity.php):

Flow Rate (GPM), Total System Flow rate (GPM), Per Pipe Water Velocity (feet per second) 10000 5000 1.64 15000 7500 2.47 20000 10000 3.29 25000 12500 4.11 Make-up Water Intake Structure An intake structure is located at the end of each of the buried pipes. The pipes make a 90-degree, upward bend and extend slightly above the surface of the riverbed (Figures 4 and 5). Attached to each of the pipes is a 30 ft. (9 m)-long, cylindrical screen housing mounted above the riverbed and approximately parallel to the river flow. Each cylinder is composed of two intake screens each 6.5 ft. (2 m) long and mounted upstream and downstream of a central chamber attached to the buried pipe. Solid cones cap each end of the dual-screen structure (Figure 6). The screens consist of an outer and inner sleeve of perforated pipe. The outer sleeve (forming the wall of the cylinder) is 42-in in diameter (107 cm) with 3/8-in (9.5 mm) holes comprising 40 percent of the surface area. The inner sleeve is a 36-in (91-cm)-diameter cylinder with 3/4-in (19-mm) holes comprising 7 percent of the surface area. The double-sleeve intake screens are designed to distribute water flow into the structure evenly along its outer surface.

The dual intake cylinders are located approximately in the main channel of the Columbia River, which is flowing north to south (Figure 7). The river at this point has a western main channel and an eastern side channel separated by an island. Upstream of this island the river flow shifts from an eastern channel to the western channel via an area of very swift water. This zone is a minor spawning area for the fall race of Chinook salmon (Dauble and Watson 1997). A small area of suitable habitat for Steelhead spawning has been identified but no spawning activity has been documented there (G. McMichael, peer review comment). The nearest Steelhead spawning occurs in the outflow channel of the Ringold Springs fish hatchery, approximately 2.5 miles (4 km) upstream of the CGS intake and on the opposite shore.

The screens were designed for low through-screen velocities to minimize impingement and entrainment. Under maximum (abnormal) intake operating conditions of 25,000 gpm withdrawn through only one of the two intake structures there was a calculated entrance velocity at each screen pore of 0.50 to 1.1 ft./s (0.2 to 0.34 m/s) (WPPSS 1985). Under minimum operating conditions when 12,500 gpm would be withdrawn from both intake structures the entrance velocities were calculated to be 0.15 ft./s (0.05 m/s). These through-screen velocities compare to measured river velocities (sweeping velocities) of 4 to 5 ft/s (1.22 to 1.53 m/s) across the screen faces and perpendicular to flow into the screen pores.

13

Entrainment Sampling Location and Operation Entrainment sampling will be conducted in sampling cages suspended in the intake pump well at the termination of the buried pipes leading from the intake structures in the river (Figure 8)

(Mudge et al. 1981). Two sampling cages are available, each 1.5 m (5.8 ft.) long, 1.52 m (5 ft.)

high and 1.07 m (3.5 ft.) wide. Each cage has a 1.07 m2 door for coupling with the pipe outlets.

The cages have an aluminum frame and door, while the remainder is made of woven stainless steel wire mesh with 2.0-mm square openings. The existing sampling cages will be thoroughly refurbished, as needed, for this study. The cages will be lowered approximately 35 ft. (10.7 m) into the water of the pumphouse sump to the sampling position in direct alignment with the openings of the 36-inch inlet pipes. The cage door automatically opens as it nears the inlet pipe and closes upon initiation of cage retrieval. After the designated sampling time, the cages will be raised the approximately 35 ft. to a Fish Monitoring Access Platform in the pump well where the contents are processed. Tests for the apparatus effectiveness for capturing entrained fish will be conducted with hatchery fish of approximately the same size as concurrently found in the river that will be added experimentally to the sampling cage and retrieved after the designated sampling interval (as was done in previous studies; Mudge et al. 1981). There is no provision for testing latent mortality (as prescribed in EPA rule for 316(b) entrainment studies) because it is assumed any fish entering the closed-cycle cooling tower system would not survive.

STUDY TASKS AND METHODS This study plan outlines the tasks and general methods for a 2-year monitoring study focusing on early juvenile Chinook salmon but documenting other entrainable species and life stages, as well.

A literature review of abundant prior research in the Hanford Reach will lay the background for the presence and abundance of entrainable fish species and life stages. Samples of entrained fish will be taken weekly mid March through mid June (the risk window for early juvenile Chinook salmon) in the intake pump well and biweekly from July-September in each of two years when the power station is operating at >90% load (intake pumps are generally operating at 60% of the 25,000 gpm capacity or greater at these loads based on recent historical data). One of the two years may exclude a period of reactor outage, which usually occurs from early May through mid June. An independent contractor will conduct the literature review; entrainment sampling will be conducted by ENs Operations personnel (operation of sampling baskets) and an independent fisheries contractor (fish handling and data collection) with oversight and potential participation by staffs of NMFS, and relevant state agencies such as WDFW. The general approach and methods presented here will be augmented by a detailed sampling and analysis protocol (Standard Operating Procedure; SOP) to be developed by EN and its selected study contractor.

That protocol will receive additional peer review focusing on statistical issues for sampling and analysis.

Task 1--Historical Fish Occurrence Identification of fish that are, or likely to be, in the vicinity of the cooling-water intake structure and susceptible to entrainment.

14

Task 1.A. Using all existing and relevant literature resources and historical data that are reasonably obtainable, document the species, life stages, size classes, seasonal occurrence and general habitat preference of all fish species that do, or likely would, occur in the general vicinity of the CGS intake, including all ESA listed species and all salmonids. Although the monitoring will focus on juvenile fall Chinook salmon, this synthesis will not be as limited. The seasonal and diel abundance and size classes of juvenile Chinook salmon and many other species have been demonstrated in numerous prior studies, so this would be strictly a literature synthesis directed specifically at fishes in the CGS intake vicinity. Suggested sources: field research in the Hanford Reach and near CGS (as referenced above), a compendium of fishes in the Columbia Basin (Dauble 2009) and Washington State (Wydoski and Whitney 2003), and Moser et al.

(2015) on lamprey.

Task 1.B. Based on life-stage sizes and proximity to the CGS intake and the physical structure of the intake in relation to river morphology (e.g., vertical and horizontal placement of the intake in the river, hydraulics of flow around a cylinder such as the CGS intakes, pore size of the CGS screens, flow velocities into the CGS screen pores, sweeping river flows at the intakes) identify the species, life stages, size classes, and timing of fish susceptible or vulnerable to entrainment through the outer screen pores. Although not strictly part of the Entrainment Study Plan, identify risks from fish impingement on the screens, also. Published habitat-utilization data from the Hanford Reach and elsewhere can be used to estimate whether fall Chinook fry or parr would be expected to be found in the water flowing 1-3 m/s at the intake. Suggested sources: Bell 1990; NMFS 2011; Nordlund 2013a, b, c; Coutant 2014a including references therein. Particular attention should be given to recent laboratory studies of hydraulic bypass of juvenile (larval) fish around a cylindrical screen oriented parallel to rapidly flowing water (NAI and ASA 2011a, b; ASA and NAI 2012). Recent studies of capped fall Chinook spawning beds in the Hanford Reach showed that fry emerged at sizes of 36 to 42 mm fork length (McMichael et al. 2005; McMichael reviewer).

Task 1.C. Obtain and summarize, via table or figure, the historical water surface elevations and river discharges during the March-June period of potential juvenile Chinook salmon vulnerability to define the occurrence and frequency of extreme low water elevations that could affect entrainment (part of NMFS screen criteria).

Task 2--Fish Entrainment Sampling Demonstration of the species, life stages and numbers of fish entrained.

The following study features are expected, pending completion of a detailed SOP by a selected fisheries contractor and EN staff.

Task 2.A. Samples of entrained fish will be taken weekly mid March through mid June and biweekly from July-September in each of two years when the intake pumps are operating at 60%

capacity or greater (although previous studies required >75% power load, this study uses >60%

of maximum pumping capacity since it is water withdrawal rate that influences entrainment).

One of the two years may exclude a period of reactor outage, which usually occurs for a few 15

weeks in May and early June. Each sampling will include both collection cages (as near to concurrent as possible), with data maintained separately for each cage. A sample will consist of a 24-hour collection. Starting and ending times will be coordinated with the facilitys shift times, but maintained consistent throughout the study. Following processing (defined below), live fish will be allowed to recover from anesthesia and then returned to the river. Dead fish will be disposed of as organic waste through the CGS Sanitary Waste Treatment system or garbage disposal system. Any identifiable parts of dead fish will be tallied.

Additionally, two sequential 12-hour samples will be taken during normal sampling weeks when there are >20 fish appearing in the entrainment samples. This will identify any differences between daylight and dark entrainment (diel variation). Starting and stopping times will be at approximately dawn and dusk.

Fish collected will be anesthetized and then processed with the following information recorded:

• identification to species and life stage (fish of questionable identity will be preserved in 70% alcohol and referred to a qualified taxonomist for verification)

• lengths of individual fish to nearest mm (if >50 of a species, then a sample of 50 can be taken)

• weights of individual fish to nearest gram (if >50 of a species, then a sample of 50 can be taken)

• any outward signs of damage or disease, which should be described Task 2.B. The efficacy of the cages for capturing and retaining fish (capture efficiency) is to be established by tests with juvenile hatchery fish twice during each annual sampling period (also see section on Quality Control and Quality Assurance). Juvenile Chinook salmon of the sizes found concurrently in the river will be used. Special arrangements will be made with a supply hatchery to ensure the proper sizes at the test times (to adequately represent the size of fish in the wild, hatchery fish may need to be grown at cooler temperatures and/or lower feed levels than at local production hatcheries). All test fish will be marked (e.g., coded fin clip). For these tests, an open container of at least 100 hatchery fish will be placed in each sampling cage immediately prior to its lowering into the sampling position. These fish will escape the container when the cage is submerged in the pump well and attached to the end of the intake pipe. After the regular sampling time of 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> the cage will be raised and the number of marked fish remaining in the cage will be counted. The sampling cage will be deployed for the next 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> (as part of regular sampling) and any marked fish that appear (presumed to have moved into the intake pipe during the test of capture efficiency) will be added to the catch in the capture efficiency test. It is unlikely that either entrained fish or control fish will remain in the piping from the intake to the pump well due to the high water velocities in the pipe (velocities are about 3 ft/sec at the typical withdrawal volume for the total system of about 17,000 gpm; see table above). Although visual monitoring of escaped fish with video cameras or DIDSON has been suggested, mounting the equipment in the pump well would be physically difficult and unlikely to be allowed with Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations for existing water intakes. All regular capture data will be adjusted upward by the percentage of introduced fish not recaptured (i.e., if only 90% of the hatchery fish are recaptured in the efficacy tests, the number of fish in monitoring collections will be increased by 10%).

16

Task 2.C. Ancillary data will be collected hourly by CGS for each sampling period including river elevation and discharge, direction of change of river stage (rising or falling), river water temperature, number and duration of pumps operating, make-up-water volume pumped, weather, and any abnormal operating or riverine conditions. River stage is routinely monitored by the CGS; river temperature will be monitored at the City of Richlands Snyder Street potable water intake located about 3 miles downstream of the CGS with backup data from the USGS monitoring station 12514400 at the Hwy 395 bridge at Pasco, WA. Hourly and daily withdrawal volumes will be provided for the entire April-September period in order that the sampled entrainment can be extrapolated to total annual entrainment and per unit volume of water pumped.

Task 3--Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring Demonstration of any clogging of the screens by fish impingement or debris.

A separate Operations and Maintenance Plan for the CGS includes periodic observations to detect impinged fish and debris on the intake screens. In addition to these observations, there will be at least hourly comparison of water elevations of the river (Task 2.C.) and in the pump house well (routinely monitored; real time and historical data are available) to identify any abnormal differential that could be attributed to clogging of the intake screens. Significant clogging would likely influence the through-screen velocities by increasing velocities of non-clogged pores, which would affect likelihood of fish being entrained or impinged. This task would consist of making these O&M observations available for analysis and reporting with the entrainment data.

Task 4--Data Summaries and Analyses Raw data for each entrainment sampling event will be assembled in electronic logs using Microsoft Excel or equivalent spreadsheet suitable for sharing with agencies. Tabular summaries will be prepared that include total numbers and relative abundance by species, life stage and size class. Plant-supplied operating data will be summarized hourly for each entrainment-sampling event. Water-withdrawal volumes also will be summarized on a weekly basis for the April-June and biweekly for July-September. Data will be preserved on electronic media (e.g., external hard drive).

Depending on the final set of methods established with a fisheries contractor, additional detail will be necessary in the SOP to clearly describe how data will be processed and analyzed, and expanded or extrapolated to species and life stages of interest. Protocols are needed for sampling and analyses. The planned SOP will be reviewed for acceptable precision (e.g., are sample sizes large enough, what coefficients of variation are expected, statistical procedures). These details will be reviewed by Dr. McDonald.

Loss estimates from the entrainment sampling will be placed in the context with the prolific and well-studied Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon population. This will be done using recent redd counts, anticipated yield from each redd, and estimated numbers of Chinook salmon fry exposed to the CGS intake. Entrainment of other species will also be placed in the context of population sizes, to the extent possible.

17

Task 5--Reporting An Entrainment Characterization Report, due to EFSEC on or before May 1, 2019, will document the current entrainment of all life stages of fish and any fish species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species). Recognizing the general importance of the EPA §316(b) Rule for such studies, the report will [italics quote the Rule]:

• identify and document all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for data collection and data analysis;

• present and discuss all ancillary data, including the flows associated with the data collection;

• describe the fish composition in the entrainment samples, including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s);

• note the presence of any fish species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species, and in this case including the fall Chinook salmon),

including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and put loss estimates from entrainment into context with this presence and abundance;

• provide size (length) distributions for the commonly entrained species;

• provide entrainment estimates for all species combined and by species and life stage, and identify and document all assumptions and calculations used to determine the total entrainment;

• assume 100 percent mortality for all taxa entrained;

• characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment; and

• provide appendices with (or otherwise make available) all raw data, including plant operating and other ancillary data.

PERMITS Energy Northwest will request appropriate permits from regulatory agencies in a timely manner.

The following permit is expected to be required for the study plan: WDFW Transport Permit (for hatchery fish to be used for tests of capture efficiency of the sampling baskets).

QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL Quality Assurance (QA) is an integrated system of management activities that involves planning, implementation, assessment, reporting, and quality improvement to ensure that data are of the type and quality necessary for application to their intended use. Quality control (QC) is the 18

system of activities that measures the QA program activities to verify that they meet project specifications. In addition to requiring QA/QC procedures, the EPA Rule has set some objectives for data quality by stating that the sampling and analytical methods must be appropriate for a quantitative survey.

This study plan for CGS provides the site-specific document that presents the study design, methodologies, and guidance from sample collection and processing through data analysis and reporting, as well as the QA/QC activities and health and safety concerns. It provides the mechanism whereby EN, its contractors, peer reviewers and responsible agencies may raise and resolve questions and concerns pertaining to the study design (e.g., methodologies, gear specifications, data analysis, reporting content/format) prior to the start of the study, thereby minimizing the potential for disagreements and misunderstandings after the study is completed.

The SOP manual will be established prior to collecting entrainment and other samples. This study plan will form the basis of the SOP and will be augmented by the addition of project-specific checklists, datasheets, forms, and instructions on how to fill them out, review them, and store them. The SOP will also provide a more detailed (cookbook) approach for mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, QA/QC procedures and documentation, and health and safety. The SOP will be written in a concise, step-by-step, easy-to-read format. Information will be conveyed clearly and explicitly to remove any doubt as to what is required. The following sections provide general discussions of key components for the QA/QC section of the SOP.

All equipment used during the entrainment characterization study will be calibrated and/or maintained according to established procedures or manufacturers recommendations.

Calibrations will be appropriately documented and maintained in the project file. Equipment for this study that will require calibration includes, at least, the pump house fish monitoring facilities (see Task 2).

All sampling personnel, whether EN staff, contractors or participating agencies (e.g., NMFS or WDFW), will be expected to have read and have on hand at all times a copy of the SOP. The SOP will provide all sample collection procedures, and an equipment checklist so that the personnel have all the appropriate equipment needed for sampling. All sampling personnel and/or other visitors will be in the presence of ENs Operation and E&RP personnel who are required to brief on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions (see Health and Safety Section).

Data will be managed to avoid errors and loss. Hard copy field and in-plant data sheets will be entered into an appropriate (e.g., Microsoft Access) database and then imported into a statistical (e.g., SAS) database if needed. SAS (or equivalent) programs will be used to create proof sets that will be double checked against the hard copy field and laboratory data sheets. This process will be documented on a data processing log sheet and kept as part of the project file. Only documented programs will be used to generate tabular summaries that will be imported into a Microsoft Office (Excel) product to produce tables and figures for the report.

A senior scientist familiar with entrainment characterization will write the Entrainment Characterization Report. This will be an EN contractor. The report will undergo a three-step 19

review process before being provided to the EFSEC: 1) contractor senior technical review, 2) at least two external peer reviewers (if available, the same reviewers who reviewed the study plan),

and 3) EN technical and management review.

HEALTH AND SAFTY EN and contractor personnel may potentially be exposed to a variety of hazards because of the industrialized nature of the study area. Safety is of the utmost importance to EN, therefore no personnel will be required to or instructed to work in surroundings or under conditions that are unsafe or dangerous to his or her health. At least one EN staff member will be present for all sampling/data collection events. All EN employees and contractor personnel will be responsible for complying with ENs applicable safety requirements, wearing prescribed safety equipment such as Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), and preventing avoidable accidents. In particular, when personnel are on plant property, appropriate safety gear (e.g., hard hats, safety glasses, ear protection) will be used as prescribed by EN.

Any chemicals brought into the study areas (e.g., formalin, alcohol) will be handled in accordance with ENs Chemical Management procedures and their respective material safety data sheet (MSDS), which will be included in an appendix of the SOP. Work will not be conducted or will be suspended if a chemical spill occurs that contaminates the work area.

All personnel will be expected to follow all safety procedures applicable to CGS. Applicable requirements in EN Industrial Safety Program Manual (ISPM) will be incorporated specifically or by reference in the SOP. Additionally all sampling personnel and/or other visitors will be in the presence of ENs Operation and E&RP personnel for each sampling visit and will be briefed on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions.

20

REFERENCES ASA and NAI (ASA Analysis & Communication, Inc., and Normandeau Associates, Inc.). 2012.

2012 Wedgewire Screen In-River Efficacy Study at Indian Point Energy Center. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center.

Atkinson, D. K. 2014. Letter to S. Posner of EFSEC with attachments. Energy Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Beak (Beak Consultants, Inc.) 1980. Preoperational Monitoring Studies Near WNP-1, -2 and -4.

August 1978 Through March 1980. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies, Vol. 7.

Portland, Oregon.

Becker, C. D. 1970. Temperature, timing, and seaward migration of juvenile Chinook salmon from the central Columbia River. Technical Report BNWL-1472. Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 4095432.

Becker, C. D. 1973. Aquatic bioenvironmental studies in the Columbia River at Hanford, 1945-1971. A bibliography with abstracts. Technical Report BNWL1734, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 4467175.

Becker, C. D. 1985. Anadromous salmonids of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River: 1984 status.

Technical Report PNL-5371, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland. Washington. OSTI No. 5222130.

Becker, C. D., and R. H. Gray. 1989. Abstracted publications related to the Hanford environment, 1980-1988. Technical Report PNL-6905, Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. OSTI No. 6039963.

Becker, C. D. 1990. Aquatic Bioenvironmental Studies: The Hanford Experience 1944-1984.

Studies in Environmental Science 39. Elsevier, New York.

Bell, M. C. 1990. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria.

Prepared for the North Pacific Division of the U.S. Army corps of Engineers, Portland, Oregon.

Coutant, C. C. 2014a. Why Cylindrical Screens in Flowing Water Impinge and Entrain Few Fish and Its Importance for the Columbia Generating Stations Intake. Prepared for Energy Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Coutant, C. C. 2014b. Comments on NMFS letter of December 12, 2013 to Shannon Khounnala of Energy Northwest by Michael P. Tehan of NMFS, with its Attached Memo and Appendix A. Review of Fish Screen Evaluation References Cited by NMFS: Relevance to the Columbia Generating Station In-River Intake Screens.

Dauble, D. D., T. L. Page, and R. W. Hanf, Jr. 1989. Spatial distribution of juvenile salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin, U.S. 87:775-790.

Dauble, D.D., and D. G. Watson. 1997. Status of fall Chinook salmon populations in the mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17:283-300.

Dauble, D. D., R. Moursund, and M. Bleich. 2006. Swimming behavior of juvenile Pacific lamprey Lampetra tridentate. Environmental Biology of Fishes 75:169-172.

Dauble, D. D. 2009. Fishes of the Columbia Basin. Keokee Books, Sandpoint, Idaho. ISBN 978-1-879628-34-2.

Energy Northwest. 2010. Columbia Generating Station, License Renewal Application, Environmental Report. Docket No. 50-397.

21

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Peer Review Handbook. 3rd ed. Science Policy Council, Washington, DC. EPA/100/B-06/002.

Evans, D. R. January 14, 1983, National Marine Fisheries Service letter to K. R. Wise, WNP-2 Operational Monitoring Program.

Geist, D. R, and D. D. Dauble. 1998. Redd site selection and spawning habitat use by fall Chinook salmon: the importance of geomorphic features in large rivers. Environmental Management 22:655-669.

Geist, D. R., J Jones, C. J. Murray, and D. D. Dauble. 2000. Suitability criteria analyzed at the spatial scale of red clusters improved estimates of fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) spawning use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Canadian Journal of fisheries and Aquatic sciences 57:1636-1646. 10.1139/f00-101.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1976. Synecology of the fish community near Hanford Generating Project and assessment of plant operations. Pages 5.1-5.56. In: T. L. Page, R.

H. Gray, and E.G. Wolf. Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 1.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977a. Checklist and relative abundance of fish species from he Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Northwest Science 51:208-215.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977b. Synecology of the fish community near WNP-1, 2, and 4 and assessment of suitability of plant area for salmonid spawning. Pages 5.1-5.71, In:

Gray, R. H., T. L. Page, and E.G. Wolf. . Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted near WNP 1, 2, and 4, September 1974 through September 1975. WPPSS Columbia River Ecological Studies Vol. 2. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1977c. Fish community studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4: October 1975 though February 1976. Pages 5.1-5.45. In Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, October 1975 through February 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 3. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1978. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4: March through December 1976. Pages 5.1-5.74. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, March through December 1976, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 4. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1979a. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4; January through December 1977. Pages 5.1-5.64. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, January through December 1977, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 5. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 1979b. Fish studies near WNP-1, 2, and 4; January through August 1978. Pages 5.1-5.52. In: Gray, R. H., and T. L. Page. Aquatic Ecological Studies Near WNP-1, 2, and 4, January through August 1978, WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 6. Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories, Richland, Washington.

Gray, R. H., and D. D. Dauble. 2001. Some life history characteristics of cyprinids in the Hanford Reach, mid-Columbia River. Northwest Science 75:122-136.

Harnish, R. A., R. Sharma, G. A. McMichael, R. B. Langshaw, and T. N. Pearsons. 2014. Effect of hydroelectric dam operations on the freshwater productivity of a Columbia river fall 22

Chinook salmon population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic sciences 71:1-14.

Doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0276.

McMichael, G. A., C. L. Rakowski, B. B. James, and J. A. Lukas. 2005. Estimated fall Chinook salmon survival to emergence in dewatered redds in a shallow side channel of the Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25:876-884.

McMichael, G. A., and B. B. James. 2015. Qualitative assessment of egg loss resulting from red superimposition due to high 2014 fall Chinook salmon escapement to the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Final report to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game under contract IHP-15-03. Available on ResearchGate:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277323687.

Moser, M. L., A. D. Jackson, M. C. Luca, and R. P. Mueller. 2015. Behavior and potential threats to survival of migrating lamprey ammocetes and macropthalmia. Reviews in Fish biology and Fisheries 25:103-116.

Mudge, J. E., G. S. Jeane II, K. P. Campbell, B. R. Eddy, and L. E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

NAI and ASA (Normandeau Associates, Inc. and ASA Analysis & Communications, Inc.)

2011a. 2010 IPEC Wedgewire Screen Laboratory Study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. Report R-21825.002.

NAI and ASA. 2011b. 2011 IPEC Wedgewire Screen Laboratory Study. Prepared for Indian Point Energy Center. Report R-21825.004.

Nordlund, B. 2013a. Entrainment and Impingement Potential for Salmonids at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Intake Screens. Memorandum for Hydro Division files (July 31, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Nordlund, B. 2013b. Columbia Generating Station (CGS) - Intake Screens Assessment and Recommendations for Modifications. Memorandum for Hedro Division files (August 7, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

Nordlund, B. 2013c. Review of Recent Info Regarding Columbia Generating Station.

Memorandum for Ritchie Graves (December 12, 2013). National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS (U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service). 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. NMFS Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 2011. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment. Columbia Generating Station License Renewal. Docket Number 50-397. Rockville, Maryland.

Page, T. L., E. G. Wolfe, R. H. Gray, and M. J. Schneider. 1974. Ecological comparison of the Hanford No. 1 and WNP-2 sites on the Columbia River. Battelle Northwest, Richland, Washington.

Sorensen, G. C. May 9, 1983 Washington Public Power Supply System letter to D. R. Evans, National Marine Fisheries Service, Supply System Project No. 2, Aquatic Operational Monitoring Program.

Visser, R., D. D. Dauble, and D. R. Geist. 2002. Use of aerial photography to monitor fall Chinook salmon spawning in the Columbia River. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131: 1173-1179.

Wagner, O, J. Nugent, and C. Lindsey. 2014. Hanford site steelhead red monitoring report for calendar year 2013. HNF-56705. Mission Support Alliance, Richland Washington.

23

WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System) 1985. Operational Ecological Monitoring Program for Nuclear Plant 2. 1985 Annual Report. Environmental Programs Department, Richland, Washington.

Wydoski, S., and R. R. Whitney. 2003. Inland Fishes of Washington. Second Edition. American Fisheries Society and University of Washington Press, Seattle.

24

FIGURES 25

Figure 1 Location of CGS, 50-mi (80-km) Region (Source: EN, 2010)

Figure 2 Location of CGS, 6-mi (10-km) Region (Source: EN, 2010)

Figure 3 Intake system plan and profile Figure 4. Artists rendering of the cooling-water intake system of the Columbia Generating Station from the in-river intake screens to the pump house.

Figure 5 Perforated intake plan and section Source: (WPPSS, 1980)

Figure 6 Spare perforated pipe for the intake screen at CGS. A side view; B close up of outer sleeve; and C end view showing inner sleeve of perforated pipe.

Figure 7 Location of pumphouse, pipelines, intakes, and outfalls showing historical steelhead and fall Chinook salmon spawning locations Source: (Gambhir, 2010), (Poston, et al., 2008)

FISH MONITORING ACCESS PLATFORM 890476.298LT JUNE C

Figure 8--Diagram of fish entrainment monitoring cages in CGS pumphouse.

Fish sampling cages attached to the terminal ends of the buried pipes carrying water from the in-river intake structures and are raised to a monitoring platform above the water surface for fish counting.

APPENDIX A. EPA §316(b) RULE REQUIREMENTS FOR AN ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY The final EPA Rule for implementing Clean Water Act Section 316(a) contains a number of requirements for an Entrainment Characterization Study (§122.21(r)(9)) that inform the CGS study plan (although not required due to lower water withdrawal by the closed-cycle cooling system):

[t]he owner or operator of an existing facility that withdraws greater than 125 mgd AIF

[actual intake flow], where the withdrawal of cooling water is measured at a location within the cooling water intake structure that the Director deems appropriate, must develop for submission to the Director an Entrainment Characterization Study that includes a minimum of two years of entrainment data collection. The Entrainment Characterization Study must include the following components:

(i) Entrainment Data Collection Method. The study should identify and document the data collection period and frequency. The study should identify and document organisms collected to the lowest taxon possible of all life stages of fish and shellfish that are in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s) and are susceptible to entrainment, including any organisms identified by the Director, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law, including threatened or endangered species with a habitat range that includes waters in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure. Biological data collection must be representative of the entrainment at the intakes subject to this provision. The owner or operator of the facility must identify and document how the location of the cooling water intake structure in the waterbody and the water column are accounted for by the data collection locations; (ii) Biological Entrainment Characterization. Characterization of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species), including a description of their abundance and their temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the cooling water intake structure(s), based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal, and diel variations in entrainment, including but not limited to variations related to climate and weather differences, spawning, feeding, and water column migration. This characterization may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site. Identification of all life stages of fish and shellfish must include identification of any surrogate species used, and identification of data representing both motile and non-motile life-stages of organisms; (iii) Analysis and Supporting Documentation. Documentation of the current entrainment of all life stages of fish, shellfish, and any species protected under Federal, State, or Tribal law (including threatened or endangered species). The documentation may include historical data that are representative of the current operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site. Entrainment data to support the facilitys calculations must be collected during periods of representative operational flows for the cooling water intake structure, and the flows associated with the data collection must be documented. The method used to determine latent mortality along with data for specific 27

organism mortality or survival that is applied to other life-stages or species must be identified. The owner or operator of the facility must identify and document all assumptions and calculations used to determine the total entrainment for that facility together with all methods and quality assurance/quality control procedures for data collection and data analysis. The proposed data collection and data analysis methods must be appropriate for a quantitative survey.

28

APPENDIX B. AGENCY COMMENTS ON DRAFT STUDY PLAN 29

Appendix B Sampling and Analysis Protocol

March 2018 Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Investigation Sampling Analysis Protocol Prepared for Energy Northwest

March 2018 Columbia Generating Station Entrainment Investigation Sampling Analysis Protocol Prepared for Prepared by Energy Northwest Anchor QEA, LLC 76 North Power Plant Loop 23 South Wenatchee Avenue Richland, Washington 99354 Wenatchee WA, 98801 Project Number: 171376-01.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 2 Sampling Design and Methods .............................................................................................. 2 2.1 Fish Entrainment Sampling.............................................................................................................................. 2 2.1.1 Routine Entrainment Sampling ...................................................................................................... 2 2.1.2 Contingency Sampling ................................................................................................................... 10 2.1.3 Cage Efficacy Sampling .................................................................................................................. 11 3 Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring ........................................................................ 15 4 Data Summaries and Analyses ............................................................................................. 17 4.1 Data Management and QA/QC .................................................................................................................. 17 4.2 Data Summaries................................................................................................................................................ 17 4.3 Analyses ............................................................................................................................................................... 18 4.3.1 Entrainment ........................................................................................................................................ 18 4.3.2 Entrainment Impact on Hanford Reach Fall Chinook ......................................................... 23 4.3.3 Characterizing Screen Pore Velocity at Different Intake Volumes ................................ 24 5 Health and Safety ................................................................................................................... 25 6 Project Schedule...................................................................................................................... 26 7 References ................................................................................................................................ 27 TABLES Table 1 2017-18 Proposed Sampling Schedule ............................................................................................. 6 Table 2 Fish Identification Hierarchy ................................................................................................................... 9 Table 3 Project Representative Contact Information ................................................................................ 10 Table 4 Data Sources Used for Entrainment Analyses and Data Summaries ................................ 17 FIGURES Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Building ............................................................................................................................................................ 3 Sampling Analysis Protocol i March 2018

Figure 2 Detail of Sampling Cage in Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Depicting the Relative Location of Cages to Intake Pipes .............................. 4 Figure 3 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform ........................................................................... 5 Figure 4 Image of the Cage Locking Pin Securely Placed ........................................................................... 8 Figure 5 Diagram of Extendable Sampling Net ............................................................................................... 8 Figure 6 Cut-away Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating the Approximate Placement of Holding Boxes on the Cage Floor ............................................................................................... 13 Figure 7 Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating Transfer of Fish from 5-gallon Bucket to Holding Box........................................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 8 Simplified Diagram of Expected Differential between Pumphouse Water Elevation and Columbia River Elevation when Screens are Blocked ................................. 15 Figure 9 Generalized Relationship Between Screen Blockage and Entrance Velocity at Constant Intake Volume........................................................................................................................ 16 APPENDICES Appendix A Health and Safety Plan Appendix B Data Forms Appendix C Safety Data Sheets Sampling Analysis Protocol ii March 2018

ABBREVIATIONS CGS Columbia Generating Station ISPM Industrial Safety Program Manual m 2 square meter m3 cubic meter m/s meter per second mm millimeter MS-222 Tricaine Methanesulfonate O&M Operations and Maintenance QA/QC Quality Assurance and Quality Control SAP Sampling and Analysis Protocol definition USGS U.S. Geological Survey Sampling Analysis Protocol iii March 2018

1 Introduction The Sampling and Analysis Protocol (SAP) is intended to provide a detailed (cookbook) approach for mobilization, communication, sample collection, sample processing and identification, data management, Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) procedures and documentation, and health and safety associated with entrainment monitoring and other sampling at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS). The SAP is organized to address these topics.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 1 March 2018

2 Sampling Design and Methods Sampling and design methods were developed to be consistent with those described in Coutant (2014) and build upon entrainment studies conducted for CGSs commissioning in 1979-1980 (Mudge et al. 1981) and in 1985 (WPPSS 1985).

2.1 Fish Entrainment Sampling The SAP covers three different sampling protocols (1) Routine Entrainment Sampling, which provides raw weekly and biweekly capture data to estimate entrainment rates; (2) Contingency Sampling, which provides an expanded characterization of diel entrainment patterns; and (3) Cage Efficacy Sampling, which is used to generate a correction factor for entrainment rates based on the retention efficiency of the cages. These three protocols and related analyses are described below.

2.1.1 Routine Entrainment Sampling Entrainment sampling will be conducted at the CGS make-up water pumphouse building, located at River Mile 352 on the Columbia River. The pumphouse building has two levels: an upper level, referred to here as the Entry Level; and a lower level where sampling occurs, referred to here as the Sampling Platform. The general layout of the pumphouse, intake pipes, and screens is depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 2 March 2018

Figure 1 General Layout of Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Building Notes:

Drawings are not to scale and are intended to highlight the general orientation of the facility relative to intakes and screens.

Large blue arrows depict the direction of pumped water conveyed through the pumphouse building.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 3 March 2018

Figure 2 Detail of Sampling Cage in Columbia Generating Station Make-up Water Pumphouse Depicting the Relative Location of Cages to Intake Pipes Methods Two sampling cages will be used for entrainment sampling. Cages will be lowered and raised (Figure 2) with electric motors; the door to each cage will be raised and lowered via a rope connected to the top of the door. The cages will be designated as Cage 1 and Cage 2 based on the orientation depicted in Figure 3.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 4 March 2018

Figure 3 Sampling Cage Locations at Sampling Platform South North Schedule Routine entrainment sampling in 2018 will occur once per week during the early-April to mid-June period; during the July to early September period, sampling will occur once every other week. CGS staff will deploy the cages on Wednesday mornings (approximately 9 a.m.), with cage retrieval to occur 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> later on Thursday mornings. In the event more than 20 fish are captured in any sampling event (based on the combined count from both cages) additional contingency sampling will commence (Section 2.1.2).

Three separate cage efficacy tests will be conducted concurrently with routine sampling on dates that span the typical fall-Chinook emergence period (Table 1). The methods for cage efficacy sampling are described in Section 2.1.3 below.

Routine Entrainment and Cage Efficacy sampling in 2019 will occur during the mid-March to September period at the same weekly/biweekly frequency; however, specific dates will be identified closer to the 2019 sampling period to align with CGS operations.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 5 March 2018

Table 1 2018 Proposed Sampling Schedule Sampling Datesa Start Finish Notes Wednesday, April 4, 2018 Thursday, April 5, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, April 5, 2018 Friday, April 6, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, April 11, 2018 Thursday, April 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 18, 2018 Thursday, April 19, 2018 Routine Wednesday, April 25, 2018 Thursday, April 26, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, April 26, 2018 Friday, April 27, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, May 2, 2018 Thursday, May 3, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 9, 2018 Thursday, May 10, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 16, 2018 Thursday, May 17, 2018 Cage Efficacy Thursday, May 17, 2018 Friday, May 18, 2018 Efficacy Follow-up + Routine Wednesday, May 23, 2018 Thursday, May 24, 2018 Routine Wednesday, May 30, 2018 Thursday, May 31, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 6, 2018 Thursday, June 7, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 13, 2018 Thursday, June 14, 2018 Routine Wednesday, June 27, 2018 Thursday, June 28, 2018 Routine Wednesday, July 11, 2018 Thursday, July 12, 2018 Routine Wednesday, July 25, 2018 Thursday, July 26, 2018 Routine Wednesday, August 8, 2018 Thursday, August 9, 2018 Routine Wednesday, August 22, 2018 Thursday, August 23, 2018 Routine Wednesday, September 5, 2018 Thursday, September 6, 2018 Routine Note:

a. Contingency sampling will occur if more than 20 individual fish are captured during a routine sampling session.

Cage Deployment and Retrieval On the Wednesday morning of a sampling event, CGS staff will lower both sampling cages from the Sampling Platform approximately 35 feet into the pumphouse sump directly in alignment with the openings of the inlet pipes. The cage doors will then be opened to allow access for any fish entrained in the intake pipes. A clipboard will be located on the Entry Level adjacent to the ladder that accesses the Sampling Platform to record the date and time that each cage is lowered (see data forms in Appendix B) into the pumphouse sump.

After a 24-hour sampling period (i.e., Thursday morning), Anchor QEA staff will meet with CGS staff at the pumphouse to conduct fish retrieval and sampling activities. Prior to retrieving the sampling cages, Anchor QEA and CGS staff will set up a small sampling station on the Entry Level of the Sampling Analysis Protocol 6 March 2018

pumphouse where fish identification and other sampling activities will be conducted. Sampling at this location will minimize the risk of having fish or sampling materials fall through the grated floor of the Sampling Platform.

After the sampling station is set up on the Entry Level of the pumphouse, CGS and Anchor QEA staff will descend to the Sampling Platform (Figure 3) to retrieve fish from the cages.

Accessing the Sampling Platform will require walking on surfaces that may be wet or uneven. Special care should be taken to ensure solid footing. In addition, there is a ladder that is used to climb down from the Entry Level to Sampling Platform. Special caution should be used to ensure hand and foot placement during travel up or down the ladder. A visual inspection of travel routes inside the pumphouse will be important to avoid any tripping hazards or colliding with low hanging pipes. The transport of any gear up and down the ladder will be planned in advance and discussed with CGS operators to ensure that the gear is secured properly and doesnt interfere with hand or foot placement.

All personnel will empty pockets and remove loose items from their person such as jewelry, wallets, keys, cell phones, and other items not necessary to perform the job, and leave in a tray at the sampling station. In addition to the required personal protective equipment (work boots, hard hat, gloves, eye protection, and hearing protection), the ear plug type hearing protection must have attached lanyards to prevent the ear plug from becoming foreign material. The lanyards are not to be cut or removed. Clear plastic or glass items are not to be taken down to the Sampling Platform unless deemed necessary to perform the work. Items are to be conspicuously marked so they can be clearly seen in the area, including if submerged in water. A CGS supplied floor covering will be spread across the deck of the Sampling Platform near the cages so that nothing will fall through the grating.

One sampling cage at a time will be raised to inspect the interior and retrieve any fish that are present. After the cage is pulled to the surface, Anchor QEA and CGS personnel will verify that the cage locking pin is in place (Figure 4). This is a critical step to ensure that the cage does not unexpectedly drop while fish are being sampled.

Fish will be retrieved from the cages with sweeping, vacuum, or grabbing tools mounted on extension poles (Figure 5). Cages will be sprayed down with pressurized water or air to dislodge debris and move fish into areas within the cage that are accessible. The purpose of this approach is to maximize safety by minimizing the need to physically bring hands, arms or clothing into the cage.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 7 March 2018

Figure 4 Image of the Cage Locking Pin Securely Placed Figure 5 Diagram of Extendable Fish Retrieval Tool All fish retrieved from the cages will be placed in a 5-gallon bucket and transported to the sampling station on the Entry Level of the pumphouse. Fish will be processed from one cage at a time. If no fish are observed in Cage 1 or counting has been completed for Cage 1, Cage 2 will be raised and Sampling Analysis Protocol 8 March 2018

the identical protocol will be followed. Once sampling is completed, Anchor QEA and CGS staff will visually inspect the cages to ensure trap integrity and the cages will be stored in place until the next test date.

Data Collection Fish retrieved from the sampling cages will be transferred from a 5-gallon bucket to a container with Tricaine Methanesulfonate (MS-222) to be euthanized. Anchor QEA staff will collect the following measurements on the Fish Entrainment Form (Appendix B):

• Identification of species and life stage

• Weight (grams) for the first 50 of a species

• Fork Length (mm) for the first 50 of a species

• Notation of any outward signs of damage or disease and a description Fish identification will follow a hierarchical approach where focal taxa are always identified to the species level and other fish are identified to genus level (Table 2).

Table 2 Fish Identification Hierarchy Fish Encountered Identification Level Focal Species Species Level

• Bull trout

• Steelhead

• Chinook salmon

• Lamprey

• Sturgeon

• All other salmonids Other fish species Genus Level Any fish of questionable identity will be photographed and then preserved in 70% ethanol and subsequently examined in a lab setting for distinguishing morphological or meristic characteristics using regional fish identification keys (e.g., Pollard et al. 1997 or PSMFC 2009).

Fish that are not retained for further identification will be disposed of as organic waste through the CGS Sanitary Waste Treatment or garbage disposal systems.

Equipment Required The following equipment will be located on the Sampling Platform for fish sampling:

• Five-gallon buckets Sampling Analysis Protocol 9 March 2018

• A rope or chain for fastening the bucket to the rail and preventing the bucket from being dropped in the sump

• Long-handled tools to remove the fish from the sampling cages

• Floor cover to prevent fish or material from falling through the grating into the vault The following equipment will be used on the Entry Level of the pumphouse for sampling:

• Sampling station (table)

• MS-222

• Small mesh aquarium nets for transferring fish

• Sampling tubs for anesthetic and fresh water

• Measuring boards

• Weighing scales Communication All sampling activities will be coordinated between Anchor QEA staff and Energy Northwest Staff.

Anchor QEA will provide a weekly email update on routine sampling activities and will contact Energy Northwest directly if there are any changes or deviations from the regular sampling schedule or activities. The project representatives and contact information is described in Table 3 below.

Table 3 Project Representative Contact Information Organization Representative Contact Information Work Phone: (509) 377- 8639 Shannon Khounnala Cell phone: (509) 619-8338 Department Manager Email: sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com Energy Northwest Work Phone: (509) 377-8794 Wayde (Kip) Whitehead Cell phone: (801) 989-1844 Project Manager Email: wkwhitehead@energy-northwest.com Larissa Rohrbach Cell Phone: (253) 820-3467 Project Manager Email: lrohrbach@anchorqea.com Kristi Geris Cell Phone: (360) 220-3988 Anchor QEA Field Lead Email: kgeris@anchorqea.com Arial Evans Cell Phone: (747 242-0951 Field Biologist Email: aevans@anchorqea.com 2.1.2 Contingency Sampling If more than twenty fish total are captured in a 24-hour routine sampling event, contingency sampling will occur. Immediately after the fish are processed as in Section 2.1.1, the sampling cages Sampling Analysis Protocol 10 March 2018

will be redeployed. Instead of a 24-hour sampling period, however, fish will be collected in two sequential 12-hour shifts representing a day period and night period to identify any diel variation in entrainment. The purpose is to determine if there are diel differences in entrainment rates.

Sampling would correspond to the following time periods, and most likely occur from Thursday morning until Friday morning:

• Day Period: Dawn to dusk (approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; cages will be raised, sampled, and redeployed)

• Night Period: Dusk to dawn (approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br />; cages will be raised, sampled, inspected, and stored until the next sampling event)

• Sampling methods will be identical to those described in Section 2.1.1, with the exception of sampling timing 2.1.3 Cage Efficacy Sampling The efficacy of the sampling cages for capturing and retaining fish will be evaluated with juvenile hatchery fish during three trials conducted during each sampling year (2018 and 2019). The purpose of this sampling is to create a correction factor that can be applied to the seasonal entrainment estimate (Section 4).

Methods Cage efficacy trials will be conducted during the period between March and June when wild juvenile fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) are expected to be abundant in the Hanford Reach.

Individual trials will occur concurrently with scheduled routine entrainment sampling events (Table 1).

Anchor QEA will coordinate with the hatchery supplying the trial fish in 2018-19 and it is anticipated that the Ringold or Columbia Basin Hatchery, operated by the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, will be the primary source. Juvenile salmonids of similar size to juvenile fall Chinook salmon found concurrently in the Columbia River will be used for the trials. Rainbow trout (O. mykiss) and Chinook salmon (O. tshawytscha) are expected to be available and small enough to appropriately represent the size of juvenile fall Chinook salmon expected to be in the study area.

The size of juvenile fall Chinook salmon in the vicinity of the CGS intake can be inferred by examining previous studies. Work conducted by Harnish et al. (2014), Hoffarth et al. (2003) Dauble et al. (1989) collected juvenile fall Chinook salmon from the Hanford Reach in nearshore areas using a variety of sampling approaches including seines. Dauble et al. (1989) also collected juveniles in deeper, mid-river areas using fyke nets. Each of these studies had an implicit goal of documenting the representative size of juvenile Chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach to support analyses concerning broader population-based questions. Additionally, these studies temporally overlapped with the focal period of the current proposed CGS entrainment study where post emergent fall Chinook salmon are expected to be present (March to June).

Sampling Analysis Protocol 11 March 2018

Based on a review of these literature sources, the average size of natural fall Chinook salmon in the study area is expected to be less than 50 millimeters (mm). These results were observed in both nearshore and deeper portions of the Hanford Reach. For the purpose of testing the efficacy of the CGS traps, fish at or below 50 mm best represent the size of fish expected to present near the CGS intake.

In 2018, juvenile salmonids 1 that are 40 to 50 mm in length will be obtained from Ringold Hatchery for implementation of the cage efficacy trials. Juveniles will be marked at the Hatchery with Bismark brown dye prior to conducting cage efficacy trials. Anchor QEA staff will coordinate with the staff at the hatchery to ensure that fish are thermally tempered based on the estimated water temperature in the pumphouse. The temperature in the pumphouse will be estimated by reviewing the water temperature at the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Monitoring Station 12472800 at the Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam. In addition, after the fish are delivered to the CGS facility, the water temperature will be checked in the transport container and the pumphouse and any differences between the two water sources will be recorded. If necessary, on-site tempering will be performed through the serial addition of pumphouse water to the fish transport container water until the temperatures are within 2°C. Tempering will reduce the likelihood of shock or mortality occurring when fish are placed in the cages and introduced to the intake water.

Following tempering, fish will be counted into and transported via 5-gallon buckets from the transport container to the Sampling Platform. Each cage will be outfitted with one holding box placed on the floor of the cage (Figure 6). A total of 100 marked salmonids will be transferred to the holding box within each cage using a water-to-water conveyance system that consists of a large diameter funnel and hose (Figure 7). The cage door will be closed at this time and will remain closed until the cage is lowered the approximate 35 feet into the sump area and attached to the ends of the intake pipes, when the cage door will be opened. The date, time, cage number, and number of marked fish will be recorded. Once the first cage is deployed, the process will be repeated for the second sampling cage. Identical information will be recorded for the second cage as it is deployed.

1 Rainbow trout or Chinook salmon are expected to be available and in the size range needed to support the cage efficacy trials Sampling Analysis Protocol 12 March 2018

Figure 6 Cut-away Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating the Approximate Placement of Holding Boxes on the Cage Floor Notes:

Holding box volume = 1728 cubic inches = 7.48 gallons Figure 7 Interior View of Sampling Cage Illustrating Transfer of Fish from 5-gallon Bucket to Holding Box Sampling Analysis Protocol 13 March 2018

After being deployed for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br />, the cages will be retrieved and the remaining marked fish will be enumerated. Fish will be retrieved from each cage and transported to the Entry Level for counting and data recording. All of the marked fish used in the cage efficacy trial will be euthanized. No salmonids will be released into the Columbia River.

The sampling cages will be re-deployed for the next 24-hours as part of routine weekly sampling and any marked fish that appear may be added to the catch of the cage efficacy test (presumed to have moved into the intake pipe during the test of capture efficiency).

The results of the three cage efficacy trials conducted each year will be used to confirm adequate

(>80%) and equivalent cage efficacy rates between the two replicate cages and to develop a single averaged correction factor (C) that will be applied to calculations of entrainment (Section 4.3.1).

Sampling Analysis Protocol 14 March 2018

3 Fish Impingement and Debris Monitoring A separate Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Plan for CGS includes periodic observations to detect impinged fish and debris at the intake screens. Data to be collected include, at a minimum, real time and historical hourly comparisons of water surface elevations in the Columbia River and the pumphouse well. Differences in elevations (Figure 8) could indicate intake screen clogging, which could result in higher velocities in unclogged areas.

Figure 8 Simplified Diagram of Expected Differential between Pumphouse Water Elevation and Columbia River Elevation when Screens are Blocked The estimated blockage of the screen will be characterized using the observations from the separate CGS debris monitoring study and differentials in water elevations between the pumphouse and Columbia River. The interaction between assumed screen blockage and estimated pore velocity at the screen at an observed intake flow will be graphed relative to NOAA Fisheries-screening criteria.

Figure 9 depicts this hypothetical relationship based on Equation 1.

A qualitative log of the amount of debris retained on cages over the 24-hour sampling events will be kept.

As part of the fish impingement study, the Columbia Generating Station also evaluates the intake structure twice per year for evidence of impinged fish, algae growth and accumulated debris on the intake structures screens located in the Columbia River. This information will be obtained as an aid to evaluate the amount of debris accumulated on the intake screens.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 15 March 2018

Equation 1

=

(1 )

where:

Aeff = effective screen area (square meters [m2])

b = proportion screen area blockage Q = intake flow (cubic meters per second [m3/s])

Vent = entrance velocity (meters per second [m/s])

Figure 9 Generalized Relationship Between Screen Blockage and Entrance Velocity at Constant Intake Volume Water Velocity at Intake Screen 0.35 0.30 Entrance Velocity (m/s) 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 NMFS required entrance velocity 0.05 for fry (NMFS 2011) 0.00 0 20 40 60 80 100 Percent Blocked Screen Notes:

m/s: meters per second Sampling Analysis Protocol 16 March 2018

4 Data Summaries and Analyses This section of the SAP describes the data summaries and analyses that will be provided to characterize entrainment and the operating conditions and environmental variables that may interact with entrainment.

4.1 Data Management and QA/QC Spreadsheet forms for entering data collected during fish entrainment sampling will be designed prior to the start of field work and will include field validation to enforce data integrity rules (e.g.,

enforce correct data types and values). Field personnel will be instructed in correct data entry protocols and data entries will be checked for quality control after each field event. Once checked the field forms will be stored on a server on Anchor QEAs network that is backed up daily to protect against data loss due to file corruption or disk failure. Operational and environmental data provided by CGS or obtained from the USGS website will be obtained in spreadsheet or delineated text file (e.g., CSV) format. Once these files are acquired, they will also be stored on a secured location on Anchor QEAs network. At the end of each field season project data will be compiled in a Microsoft Access relational database. Reporting queries will be developed to extract data from the database in tabular format for analysis and reporting (Table 4).

4.2 Data Summaries In addition to fish sampling data, other operational and environmental data will be collected and characterized to provide data summaries and analyses related to entrainment. These data and their sources and applications are described in Table 4. Operational and environmental data summaries will be provided for each sampling event.

Table 4 Data Sources Used for Entrainment Analyses and Data Summaries Data Data Source Application Weekly/biweekly fish sampling data Anchor QEA Daily, weekly, and seasonal entrainment estimates (species capture information) (fish/m3)

Pump operation (number of pumps CGS Cross reference with make-up water volume pumped running out of 3 pumps, 2 on is typical) and use to calculate screen velocity Make-up water volume pumped CGS Expansion of daily, weekly, and seasonal entrainment (cfs and m3) estimates (fish/m3)

Pumphouse water elevation at well CGS Estimate screen blockage by calculating the (feet and meters) differential between pumphouse water elevation and Columbia River water elevation at pumphouse Columbia river water elevation at CGS Estimate screen blockage by calculating the pumphouse intake (feet and meters) differential between pumphouse water elevation and Columbia River water elevation near pumphouse Sampling Analysis Protocol 17 March 2018

Data Data Source Application Qualitative debris observations CGS Correlate with screen blockage estimate Anchor QEA Qualitative description of the amount of debris held by fish cages during each weekly/bi-weekly sampling session.

Columbia River discharge USGSa Characterize patterns of expected fish (kcfs and m3) presence/distribution related to flow Columbia River stage CGS Derive from river elevation at pumphouse intake.

(feet and meters; hourly) Characterize patterns of expected fish presence/distribution related to stage Change in river stage CGS Derive from change in river elevation at pumphouse (feet and meters; hourly derived) intake. Characterize patterns of expected fish presence/distribution River temperature Grant County Characterize patterns of expected fish

(°F and °C) PUD Priest presence/distribution related to temperature Rapids Dam tailraceb Abnormal operational conditions CGS Correlate with observed entrainment data Weather CGS Correlate with observed entrainment data Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon WDFW Estimate the number of fry produced in the Hanford Spawning Escapement Reach to estimate entrainment impacts Notes:

a. USGS Monitoring Station 12472800 at Columbia River below Priest Rapids Dam, Washington

b. Grant County PUD CGS: Columbia Generating Station cfs: cubic feet per second fish/m3: number of fish per cubic meter kcfs: kilo cubic feet per second m3: cubic meters USGS: U.S. Geological Survey WDFW: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 4.3 Analyses 4.3.1 Entrainment Entrainment rate estimates will be performed for each sampling session (week) and these results will be used to estimate average entrainment rates for a season and total entrainment for a season. The specific equations that will be used to make the estimates are described below.

Average cage efficacy For each trial, cage efficacy, CEj, is the number of test fish recovered divided by the number of test fish released in trial j, where j = 1,2,.,m and m=6 trials (3 trials per year with 2 replicate cages) as described in section 2.1.3.1. The average cage efficacy, , can be computed as the average of the Sampling Analysis Protocol 18 March 2018

trial capture efficiencies (Equation 2). The sample variance, sCE2, of the m values are calculated as shown in Equation 3 and the variance, ( ), and standard error,

, of average cage efficacy are estimated by Equations 4 and 5.

Equation 2

=

Equation 3 2

( )

2

=

1 Equation 4 2

) =

(

Equation 5

= ( )

where:

= average cage efficacy CEj = number of test fish recovered/number of test fish released in trial j in each cage m = number of trials per cage (6 trials) s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Unadjusted Entrainment Rates for 24-Hour Sampling Events The entrainment rate (ERi) for one 24-hour sampling event (one per week) will be calculated using Equation 6. Fish captured in both cages will be pooled into a single sample for each 24-hour event. The calculation will incorporate flow (Q), time (t), and entrainment rate. Results will be presented as numbers of fish per cubic meter. ERi is not corrected for cage efficacy in this step.

For each sampling season (2018 and 2019) the entrainment rate is (ERi) for week i =1, 2, , n, where n is the number of weeks in the sampling season of interest.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 19 March 2018

Equation 6

( ) .

3 where:

Ni = number of fish caught in the two cages for either a 24-hour sampling period in week i.

Qi = 60-100% of pump capacity flow rate, 56.8-94.6 m3/minute (15,000-25,000 gallons per minute) t = 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> of sampling (24 hr x 60 min/hr = 1,440 min)

The average unadjusted entrainment rate ( ), will be calculated as the average of the weekly entrainment rates (Equation 7). The variance, sER2, of the n weekly values are calculated as shown in Equation 8 and the variance, ( ), and standard error, , of average entrainment rate are estimated by Equations 9 and 10.

Equation 7

=

Equation 8 2

( )

2

=

1 Equation 9 2

) =

(

Equation 10

= ( )

where:

= average entrainment rate n = number of weekly values s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Sampling Analysis Protocol 20 March 2018

Seasonal Entrainment Rate Adjusted for Average Cage Efficacy The seasonal entrainment rate adjusted for average cage efficacy, ERadj, is computed by Equation 11 and its variance, , is approximated by the formula in Equation 12 and its standard error, , by Equation 13 (Stuart and Ord 1998).

Equation 11

= .

Equation 12 2 2 2

= (

)2

+ (

)2 Equation 13

= ( )

where:

= average entrainment rate

= average cage efficacy s2 = sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Total Seasonal Entrainment Total entrainment for each sampling season will be calculated using Equation 14. The calculation for TSE will multiply the adjusted seasonal entrainment rate (ERadj) by average intake flow () and the number of weeks in a season (n) to yield the total number of fish entrained in a season. The average intake flow (), will be calculated as the average of the weekly intake flow rates, Qi (Equation 15). The sample variance, sQ2, of the n weekly values are calculated as shown in Equation 16 and the variance,

(), and standard error, , of average flow rate are estimated by Equations 17 and 18.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 21 March 2018

Equation 14

= ( )()().

Equation 15

=

Equation 16 2

( )

2 =

1 Equation 17 2

() =

Equation 18

= ().

where:

= seasonal entrainment rate Qi = weekly intake flow rates n = number of weekly Qi values

= average intake flow s 2

= sample variance var = overall variance SE = standard error Precision of Total Seasonal Entrainment Precision of the estimated total entrainment for each season can be expressed as the limits of an approximate 90% confidence interval, assuming an approximate normal distribution for the statistic TSE 2. The variance, (), standard error, SETSE, and coefficient of variation, COVTSE, of total entrainment for each season are calculated using Equations 19-21 and the 90% confidence interval, 2

Depending on the distribution of the entrainment data, a more robust method of estimating precision of total seasonal entrainment may be proposed at the end of the study using a resampling method such as bootstrapping.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 22 March 2018

CI90, is applied by Equation 22. An approximate 95% confidence interval on TSE can be obtained by replacing 1.645 with 1.96 in Equation 15.

Equation 19 3

() = ()2 ()2 Equation 20

= ()

Equation 21

=

Equation 22 90 = +/- 1.645 4.3.2 Entrainment Impact on Hanford Reach Fall Chinook The seasonal impact of entrainment on the total production of Hanford Reach Fall Chinook salmon will be estimated by dividing the total seasonal entrainment estimate, TSE, by the modeled number of presmolts (Harnish et al. 2014b).

Equation 23

% Entrainment =

where:

TSE = total seasonal entrainment R = modeled total number of pre-smolts given estimated egg escapement The modeled number of presmolts (R) from Equation 5 is calculated from Equation 6 which was obtained from Harnish et al. (2014b).

3 The method for estimating the variance of TSE will be re-evaluated at the end of the season. If Qi, and therefore , varies randomly, 2

variance of TSE may be estimated by the equation () = ()2 + () + () ()2 if is treated as a random variable.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 23 March 2018

Equation 24 From Harnish et al. 2014b, Table 3 and Figure 6:

= = ( + ) + = .244 4.98 x 109 (SE = 0.234, Adj. R2 = 0.341, p = 0.024) where:

R = total number of pre-smolts in a year S = egg escapement in a year

= natural log of presmolts produced per egg

+ = non-density dependent productivity accounting for modeled time period

= linear slope for most recent modeled time period (1999-2004,4.98 x 109 )

1/ represents the estimate of spawners associated with max recruitment ln( + ) = linear intercept of line for most recent modeled time period (1999-2004, .244) 4.3.3 Characterizing Screen Pore Velocity at Different Intake Volumes To determine the potential impact of different pumping rates (e.g., intake volumes) on entrainment, the pore velocity at the observed pumping rate (i.e., during sampling) will be characterized using Equation 25.

Equation 25

( )

where:

Ascreen = total area of screen (m2)

L = length (meters) n = number of screens OD = outer diameter (meters)

Q = volumetric flow rate (m3/s)

Vent = pore entrance velocity (m/s)

Sampling Analysis Protocol 24 March 2018

5 Health and Safety All personnel will be expected to follow all safety procedures applicable to CGS. Applicable requirements in Energy Northwests Industrial Safety Program Manual (ISPM) will be incorporated specifically or by reference in the SAP. In addition, all sampling personnel and visitors will be in the presence of Energy Northwests Operation personnel for each sampling visit and will be briefed on relevant health and safety information, including emergency response actions.

Anchor QEA staff will adhere to all CGS health and safety requirements. Additionally, Anchor QEA staff will comply with the internal Health and Safety Plan (Appendix A), but will defer to CGS protocols where there is overlap.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 25 March 2018

6 Project Schedule Task Date Sample Analysis Protocol Final Mar. 21, 2018 Test Run Sampling Dec. 2017 - Mar. 2018 2018 Entrainment Sampling Mar. 14 - Sept. 5, 2018 2019 Entrainment Sampling Mar. - Aug. 2019 Preliminary Report May 2019 Final Entrainment Report Dec. 2020 Sampling Analysis Protocol 26 March 2018

7 References Coutant, C.C. 2014. Entrainment characterization study plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, WA. For National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.

WA002515-1. Effective November 1, 2014. Submitted to Energy Northwest, Attn: Shannon E.

Khounnala.

Dauble, D.D., Page, T.L., Hanf Jr, R.W., 1989. Spatial distribution of juvenile salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 87, 775-790.

Harnish, R.A., Li, H., Green, E.D., Rayamajhi, B., Deters, K.A., Jung, K.W., Ham, K.D., McMichael, G.A.,

2014. Survival of Wild Hanford Reach and Priest Rapids Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon Juveniles in the Columbia River: Predation Implications.

Harnish, R.A., Sharma, R., McMichael, G.A., Langshaw, R.B., Pearsons, T.N., 2014b. Effect of hydroelectric dam operations on the freshwater productivity of a Columbia River fall Chinook salmon population. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 71, 602-615. doi:10.1139/cjfas-2013-0276.

Hoffarth, P., A. Fowler, W. Brock. 2003. Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service) 2011. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design.

NMFS, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

Mudge, J.E., G.S. Jeane II, K.P. Campbell, B.R. Eddy, and L.E. Foster. 1981. Evaluation of a perforated pipe intake structure for fish protection. In: Advanced Intake Technology for Power Plant Cooling.

Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission (PSMFC). 2009. Columbia River Basin Juvenile Fish Field Guide: Including Common Injuries, Diseases, Tags, and Invertebrates. 5th edition.

Pollard, W.R., G.F. Hartman, C. Groot and P. Edgell. 1997. Field identification of coastal juvenile salmonids. Harbour Publishing, BC Canada. 32p.

Stuart, A. and K. Ord. 1998. Kendalls Advanced Theory of Statistics, Arnold, London, 6th Edition, Volume 1.

WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System). 1985. Operational Ecological Monitoring Program for Nuclear Plant 2. 1985 Annual Report. Environmental Programs Department, Richland, Washington.

Sampling Analysis Protocol 27 March 2018

Appendix A Health and Safety Plan

Appendix B Data Forms

Cage Deployment and Retrieval Log CGS Cage Deployment and Retrieval Information Page _________

Deployment Retrieval Date Date Debris (MM/DD/YY) Time Notes (MM/DD/YY) Time Load Notes

Routine Fish Sampling Form CGS Fish Entrainment Sampling Page _______

Deployed Retrieved Cage 1 (check)

Date Date Time Time Cage 2 (check)

Length Weight Fish No. Species Life Stage (mm) (g) Survival Health Injury Comment 1

2 3

4 5

6 7

8 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 0 - Alive 0 - No injuries 1 - Dead 1 - Injuries 2 - Disease

Appendix C Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Fish Transport Application/Permit

Appendix D Energy Northwests Request Letter to EFSEC for Updated Fish Entrainment Schedule and EFSEC Schedule Approval Letter

Shannon E. Khounnala Columbia Generating Station P.O. Box 968, MD PE03 Richland, WA 99352-0968 Ph. 509-377-8639 sekhounnala@energy-northwest.com January 17, 2018 GO2-18-013 DIC 409.3 Jim LaSpina Energy Facility Siting Specialist Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL ONLY P.O. Box 43172 Olympia, WA 98504-3172

Subject:

NPDES PERMIT FISH ENTRAINMENT STUDY UPDATED SCHEDULE

References:

1) GO2-15-151, dated October 21, 2015, electronic submittal of Columbia Generating Station Draft Fish Entrainment Characterization Study Plan via State of Washington Department of Ecologys Online Reporting System.

2) Letter, GI2-16-060, dated June 22, 2016, from S. Posner (EFSEC) to RA Dutton (Energy Northwest) NPDES Permit No. WA-002515-1 Condition S12.B.1: EFSEC Approval of Entrainment Characterization Study Plan.

3) NPDES Permit No. WA002515-1 Condition S12.B.

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) reissued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002515-1 to Energy Northwest (EN) for the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) on September 30, 2014. Permit Condition S12.B.1 required EN to prepare documentation of the proposed fish entrainment characterization study design and submit the study plan to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015. On October 15, 2015, EN submitted the draft entrainment characterization study plan to EFSEC and outlined a 2-year monitoring study in which samples of entrained fish would be taken weekly mid-March through mid-June (the risk window for early juvenile Chinook salmon) and biweekly from July through September. On June 22, 2016, EFSEC approved the entrainment characterization study plan. NPDES Permit Condition S12.B.2.b requires CGS to submit the characterization studys final report to EFSEC by May 1, 2019.

As previously discussed with you, EN began the characterization study in the spring of 2017 but ran into mechanical issues associated with the operation of the fish cages, which caused the study team to question the efficacy of the cages for capturing and retaining fish (capture efficiency). To address this issue, EN personnel spent a number of months over the course of 2017 studying the operation of fish cages, engineered cage retrofits, and conducted

successful trials to ensure that fish capture and retention efficiency is adequate for both cages.

Entrainment Study Updated Schedule Because of the delay in the start of the 2-year entrainment characterization study, EN is proposing the following schedule for EFSECs approval:

EN will begin the first year of the study in the spring of 2018 and finish the first year fieldwork in the fall of 2018.

At the end of the first year, EN will submit an interim report to EFSEC by May 1, 2019.

EN will begin the second year of the study in the spring of 2019 and finish the studys fieldwork in the fall of 2019.

EN will submit the final entrainment characterization study report to EFSEC by May 1, 2020.

Energy Northwest would also like to request that EFSEC provide guidance on the sequence of events that are required for CGS to maintain compliance with the entrainment characterization study NPDES permit requirements.

I certify under penalty of law, that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system or those persons directly responsible for gathering information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations.

If you require any additional information regarding this request, please contact WK Whitehead at (509) 377-8794.

Sincerely, 17/01/18 11:30:14 -08:00 X

Khounnala, Shannon E. , Environme Shannon E. Khounnala Environmental and Regulatory Programs Manager SEK/nb Cc: Eleanor Key, WDOE Jeff Ayres, WDOE Katie Hall, WDOE

INTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: FILE COPY SEK/lb Columbia Files 964Y Docket File PE20

STATE OF WASHINGTON ENERGY FACILITY SITE EVALUATION COUNCIL PO Box 47250 Olympia, Washington 98504-7250 November 19, 2018 Shannon Khounnala Energy Northwest Environmental and Regulatory Programs Manager P.O. Box 968, Mail Drop PE03 Richland, WA 99352-0968

Subject:

Columbia Generating Station, Energy Northwest (EN)

Fish Entrainment Study Updated Schedule National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No. WA-002515-1

Dear Ms. Khounnala:

The Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) received your letter regarding the NPDES Permit, No. WA-002515-1 (Permit), Fish Entrainment Study Updated Schedule on January 17, 2018.

In your letter, EN explained that the fish entrainment characterization study is delayed one year due to mechanical problems with the fish cages. Therefore, the submittal of the final fish entrainment characterization study will also be delayed by one year to May 1, 2020.

To satisfy the conditions of the NPDES Permit, EN must submit an interim report to EFSEC by May 1, 2019 that details the fish entrainment characterization study status, delay, and anticipated schedule.

The final fish entrainment characterization study report is due to EFSEC on May 1, 2020. If you have any questions, please contact Amy Moon at (360) 664-1362.

Sincerely, Sonia E. Bumpus Energy Facility Siting and Compliance Manager cc: Amy Moon, EFSEC, Siting Specialist Mary Ramos, Energy Northwest Katie Hall, Ecology, Nuclear Waste Program Ellie Ott, Ecology, Water Quality Program Rich Domingue, NMFS Justin Allegro, WDFW

Karen Burgess, EPA Appendix E Fish Entrainment Study Raw Data

Table E-1 Entrainment Data Date and Time Cage Cage Fish Length Weight Deployment Cage Retrieval Number Number Species Life Stage (mm) (g) Survival Health Comment 4/3/2018 11:43 4/4/2018 11:30 1 0 Paired with CE test 1 4/3/2018 11:56 4/4/2018 11:38 2 0 Paired with CE test 1 4/4/2018 12:53 4/5/2018 11:47 1 0 NONE 4/4/2018 12:56 4/5/2018 11:58 2 0 NONE 4/11/2018 11:01 4/12/2018 10:50 1 0 NONE 4/11/2018 10:35 4/12/2018 10:40 2 0 NONE 4/18/2018 09:18 4/19/2018 09:17 1 0 NONE 4/18/2018 09:10 4/19/2018 09:11 2 0 NONE 4/24/2018 10:35 4/25/2018 10:35 1 0 Paired with CE test 2 4/24/2018 10:44 4/25/2018 10:40 2 0 Paired with CE test 2 4/25/2018 11:08 4/26/2018 11:04 1 0 NONE 4/25/2018 11:17 4/26/2018 11:12 2 0 NONE 5/2/2018 09:20 5/3/2018 09:06 1 0 NONE 5/2/2018 09:10 5/3/2018 09:16 2 1 Chinook Fry 37 0.4 Alive Good NONE 5/9/2018 09:15 5/10/2018 09:14 1 0 NONE 5/9/2018 09:25 5/10/2018 09:24 2 0 NONE 6/13/2018 09:54 6/14/2018 10:08 1 0 NONE 6/13/2018 10:01 6/14/2018 10:19 2 0 NONE 6/20/2018 09:45 6/21/2018 09:41 1 0 NONE 6/20/2018 09:35 6/21/2018 09:31 2 1 Pacific Lamprey Amocoete 129 3.7 Alive Good NONE 6/26/2018 09:31 6/27/2018 09:23 1 0 Paired with CE test 3 6/26/2018 09:40 6/27/2018 09:31 2 0 Paired with CE test 3 Interim Report 1 January 2019

Date and Time Cage Cage Fish Length Weight Deployment Cage Retrieval Number Number Species Life Stage (mm) (g) Survival Health Comment 6/27/2018 10:34 6/28/2018 09:28 1 0 NONE 6/27/2018 10:28 6/28/2018 09:34 2 0 NONE 7/11/2018 09:30 7/12/2018 09:21 1 0 NONE 7/11/2018 09:11 7/12/2018 09:13 2 0 NONE 7/17/2018 09:29 7/18/2018 09:20 2 0 Paired with CE test 4 7/18/2018 10:01 7/19/2018 10:15 1 0 NONE 7/18/2018 10:09 7/19/2018 12:10 2 0 NONE 8/1/2018 09:07 8/2/2018 09:16 1 0 NONE 8/1/2018 09:15 8/2/2018 09:28 2 0 NONE 8/15/2018 09:47 8/16/2018 09:29 1 0 NONE 8/15/2018 09:13 8/16/2018 13:40 2 0 NONE 8/29/2018 09:35 8/30/2018 09:25 1 0 NONE 8/29/2018 09:30 8/30/2018 09:16 2 0 NONE 9/12/2018 09:18 9/13/2018 09:22 1 0 NONE 9/12/2018 09:10 9/13/2018 09:16 2 0 NONE Note:

CE: Cage Efficacy Interim Report 2 January 2019

Appendix F Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure

February 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Prepared for Energy Northwest

February 2019 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Prepared for Prepared by Energy Northwest Anchor QEA, LLC P.O. Box 989 23 South Wenatchee Avenue, Suite 220 Richland, Washington 99352 Wenatchee, Washington 98801 Project Number: 171376-01.01

TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................................................... ES-1 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 1.1 Site Background ................................................................................................................................................... 3 1.1.1 Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake Structure ...................................... 6 1.1.2 Previous Entrainment Studies ......................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Literature Review Objectives........................................................................................................................ 10 2 Fish Species Present in the Hanford Reach ....................................................................... 12 2.1.1 Salmonids ............................................................................................................................................ 12 2.1.2 Lamprey................................................................................................................................................ 23 2.1.3 Minnows............................................................................................................................................... 24 2.1.4 Sculpin .................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.1.5 Sturgeon .............................................................................................................................................. 26 2.1.6 Suckers.................................................................................................................................................. 26 2.1.7 Trout-Perches..................................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.8 Non-Native Species ......................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.9 Uncommon Species ......................................................................................................................... 28 3 Factors that Determine Fish Entrainment ......................................................................... 29 3.1 Biological Factors of Fish Entrainment ..................................................................................................... 29 3.2 Physical Factors of Fish Entrainment by Cylindrical Intake Screens.............................................. 31 3.2.1 Specifications of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Relative to NMFS Criteria ..................................................................................................................................... 34 3.2.2 Hanford Reach Morphology, River Discharge, and Effects on Sweeping Velocity and Depth............................................................................................................................................ 38 3.2.3 Historical Spring River Elevations and River Discharges ................................................... 45 4 Entrainment Risk at the Columbia Generating Station ................................................. 47 4.1 Fish Presence in Hanford Reach ................................................................................................................. 48 4.2 Habitat Preference ........................................................................................................................................... 51 4.3 Fish Size................................................................................................................................................................ 52 4.4 Hydraulic Bypass............................................................................................................................................... 52 4.5 Behavioral Avoidance for Bypass ............................................................................................................... 54 4.6 Exclusion .............................................................................................................................................................. 54 4.7 Sweep-Off or Impingement ......................................................................................................................... 55 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure i February 2019

4.8 Species at Risk ................................................................................................................................................... 55 4.8.1 Risk to Upper Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Smolts ........................................ 56 4.8.2 Risk to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon ......................................................................... 57 5 Conclusions .............................................................................................................................. 60 6 References ................................................................................................................................ 62 TABLES Table 1 Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Counts by Survey Area in the Hanford Reach..................... 18 Table 2 Steelhead Redd Counts by Survey Area in the Hanford Reach ........................................... 23 Table 3 Columbia Generating Station Cylindrical Screen Specifications ......................................... 35 Table 4 NMFS Criteria for Preventing Fish Entrainment or Impingement by End of Pipe Screens .......................................................................................................................................................... 35 Table 5 Velocity Observations on June 23, 2017, as Reported by Energy Northwest ............... 39 Table 6 Modeled Hydraulic Conditions at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure at Different River Discharge Levels .............................................................................. 40 Table 7 Summary of Extreme Low Water Events at the Columbia Generating Station Intake during the Juvenile Chinook Salmon Emergence and Migration Period .......... 46 Table 8 Species and Life Stages at Risk of Exposure to the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure......................................................................................................................................... 49 Table 9 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month ........................................................................ 59 FIGURES Figure 1 Site Location Map, 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Radius ...................................................................... 4 Figure 2 Site Location Map, 10-Kilometer (6-Mile) Radius ......................................................................... 5 Figure 3 Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake System Plan and Profile Views ................................................................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4 Artists Rendering of the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake System and Photographs of a Spare Intake Screen..................................................................... 9 Figure 5 Visual Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Counts, 1948 to 2016 ....................... 16 Figure 6 Aerial Survey Areas for Salmon and Steelhead Redds ............................................................ 19 Figure 7 Steelhead Redd Locations, 2015 ....................................................................................................... 22 Figure 8 Biological Determining Factors .......................................................................................................... 29 Figure 9 Sequential Events that Determine Fish Entrainment or Impingement ............................. 33 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ii February 2019

Figure 10 Mean Monthly Water Depths in March (Left Panel), June (Middle Panel), and October (Right Panel) ............................................................................................................................. 41 Figure 11 Mean Monthly Water Velocities in March (100 kcfs; Left Panel), June (190 kcfs; Middle Panel), and October (70 kcfs; Right Panel) .................................................................... 42 Figure 12 Minimum (Left Panel) and Maximum (Right Panel) Water Depths.................................... 43 Figure 13 Minimum (Left Panel) and Maximum (Right Panel) Water Velocities at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structures ......................................................................... 44 Figure 14 Number of Hours River Elevation Fell Below 343.05 Feet at the Columbia Generating Station Intake by Year and Agreement.................................................................. 46 Figure 15 Determining Factors of Encounter, Exclusion, Entrainment, or Impingement of a Species or Life Stage at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ................. 47 Figure 16 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge............................................................................................................ 51 APPENDICES Appendix A Intake Structure Engineering Drawings Appendix B Master Species Table of Fishes Occurring in the Hanford Reach Appendix C Modeled Velocity and Depth at CGS Intakes with Various River Flows Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure iii February 2019

ABBREVIATIONS CFD computational fluid dynamic cfs cubic feet per second CGS Columbia Generating Station DPS Distinct Population Segments ESA Endangered Species Act ESU Evolutionary Significant Unit FL fork length fps feet per second gpm gallons per minute HRFCPPA Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement kcfs thousand cubic feet per second km kilometer m meter MASS1 and MASS2 Modular Aquatic Simulation System in One and Two Dimensions mm millimeter mps meters per second MSL mean sea level NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Plan Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington PRD Priest Rapids Dam rkm river kilometer RM river mile SD standard deviation TMU Cooling Tower Make-Up pumphouse VBSA Vernita Bar Settlement Agreement WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure iv February 2019

Executive Summary This Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment report provides a literature review on fish species present in the Hanford Reach, factors that determine fish entrainment, entrainment risk at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS), and a review of historical river elevations and discharges that may affect entrainment at the CGS intakes in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.

The two CGS intake structures are 9-meter (30-foot)-long, perforated cylindrical screens designed to distribute the intake water flow evenly along the outer surface of the structure. They are mounted above the riverbed and situated approximately mid-channel and approximately parallel to the river flow.

The CGS make-up water intake occurs downstream of Priest Rapids Dam in a section of free-flowing river known as the Hanford Reach, which supports the largest mainstem-spawning population of fall-run Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) in the Columbia River (Dauble and Watson 1997),

as well as a smaller population of steelhead (O. mykiss; Nugent 2016). Additionally, the Hanford Reach is a migratory pathway for several species of anadromous fishes that reproduce and rear in upstream reaches, upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (Endangered), upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened), Wenatchee and Okanogan sockeye salmon (O. nerka; not listed), and coho salmon (O. kisutch; coho salmon are unlisted, but currently a reintroduction effort exists to reverse historical extirpation from the middle and upper Columbia River Basin) and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). A suite of resident native fishes can also be found that are typical of the riverine fish community in the Pacific Northwest.

A detailed review of biological factors that determine risk of entrainment included seasonal trends in species presence, fish life-histories and behavior, and habitat preferences. A subset of species was identified that is at risk of encountering the CGS intake due to seasonal presence, tendency to use mid-channel, and size that could become entrained through intake screen pores if in close proximity to the screen face. Further, the physical factors that determine fish entrainment for cylindrical screens such as those in use at CGS, including hydraulic bypass, behavioral avoidance by the fish, exclusion by screen pores, and sweep off were identified to be used in a review of entrainment risk for common species in the Hanford Reach. Risk of entrainment and impingement was considered in the context of the large seasonal variation in river discharge, depth, and velocity that occur at the site.

The CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish, and recent hydraulic modeling shows that under most flow conditions at the site, the river velocity (sweeping velocity) would greatly exceed velocity perpendicular to the intake screens (approach velocity) causing most fish to be swept past the intake.

Taking a conservative approach that some risk exists for the subset of species identified, a review of biological factors determined that periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable species are present in highest abundance from March through September. Though Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ES-1 February 2019

hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity year-round, risk of encountering the intake may also increase late in the year when submergence depths are lower.

Concerns were raised by the National Marine Fisheries Service and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife about risk of entrainment and impingement to Endangered Species Act-listed and non-listed salmonids. Typically, migratory smolts originating from the upper Columbia River Basin (upstream of Hanford Reach) are a size that would exclude them from becoming entrained through the CGS intake screens (greater than 75 millimeters). In addition, smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin tend to behave in ways that greatly minimize their risk of impingement: their peak emigration timing is in spring and summer, concurrent with peak sweeping velocities; they tend to migrate near the surface, placing them approximately 7 to 12 feet from the intake screens at this time of year; and they would have burst swimming capacities that greatly exceed through-hole velocities, allowing for behavioral avoidance of the intakes given a stimulus such as the sudden change in pressure that occurs as water moves around the intakes. Based on these biological factors, the risk of entrainment or impingement to migrating smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin was determined to be negligible for the CGS intake structures.

Salmon and steelhead that emerge and rear within the Hanford Reach have higher potential risk due to their small size and potential exposure to the intake during early development. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook salmon are the salmonid species at highest risk due to their proximity and abundance near the CGS intakes. The entrainment factors that create the most risk for fall Chinook salmon are their presence in proximity to the intake structure, their habitat preference that causes them to move away from nearshore areas as they grow, and their small size relative to the external screen pore size. These characteristics put fall Chinook salmon at relatively higher risk in April and May when large numbers of fry are both small in size and starting to move away from nearshore areas. However, fall Chinook salmon can also effectively avoid entrainment given their ability to sense rapid changes in acceleration and burst swimming capacity that also exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 10.

Overall, the probability of fish that encounter the CGS intake becoming entrained or impinged is exceedingly low, due primarily to effective hydraulic bypass and secondarily by behavioral avoidance by most species. It is only the smallest and weakest fish and life-history stages that happen to occur in mid-channel that are at risk of entrainment or impingement.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure ES-2 February 2019

1 Introduction Energy Northwests Columbia Generating Station (CGS) is a boiling-water nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in December 1984. A majority of the water used to cool the nuclear reactor recirculates between the reactor and cooling towers (closed cycle cooling). Some of this recirculating water is lost in the cooling towers by evaporation and drift of water droplets entrained in the air, leading to concentration of dissolved salts in the circulating water system. Water and dissolved salts are gradually replaced by release of a portion of the circulating water as blowdown water to the Columbia River. The combined losses from evaporation, drift, and blowdown are replenished by make-up water acquired from the Columbia River. The intake structure for this make-up water is the focus of ongoing studies to better characterize the risk of entrainment and impingement posed to fish or other aquatic life.

The CGS site is located in a unique section of the Columbia River known as the Hanford Reach, which is the only remaining free-flowing portion of the river in the United States. This section of the river hosts various life stages of native cold- and swift-water species that can no longer make use of impounded reaches, including a key population of fall Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) that has increased in abundance over the past 20 years.

The CGS intake structures are a cylindrical design oriented in the river channel to minimize fish entrainment. Initial testing carried out in 1981 showed no fish, fish eggs, or larvae were entrained, and SCUBA surveys in 1985 showed no fish impingement or screen blockage due to biofouling even though resident fish were observed near the intake.

On September 30, 2014, the Washington State Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) published a reissuance of National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit No.

WA-002515-1 for Energy Northwests CGS, which included consideration of the intake structure. The final permit, effective November 1, 2014, was the result of consultations between EFSEC and interested agencies, including the Washington Department of Ecology, Region 10 of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). Concerns were raised by NMFS and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) about risk of entrainment and impingement to Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed and non-listed salmonids migrating from upstream spawning and nursery areas, given that the existing intake screens were installed using a design developed prior to the formal development of NMFS engineering design criteria (Suzumoto 2010; NMFS 2011a). The species called out by NMFS for consultation were the upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (Endangered), upper Columbia river steelhead (O. mykiss; Threatened), and coho salmon (O. kisutch; coho salmon are unlisted, but currently a reintroduction effort exists to reverse historical extirpation from the middle and upper Columbia River Basin).

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 1 February 2019

To address NMFS and WDFWs concerns regarding fish entrainment, NPDES Condition S12.B was included in the final permit that became effective on November 1, 2014, requiring CGS to prepare an entrainment characterization study design and submit it to EFSEC for approval by November 1, 2015.

The Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington (Plan; Coutant 2014; Appendix A) was submitted to EFSEC in October 2015. EFSEC approved the study plan in June 2016. The approved plan described the general methods for a 2-year fish entrainment monitoring study. The Plan reviewed existing literature to identify species at risk of entrainment or impingement and provided general methods for repeating field monitoring of entrainment rates in a manner similar to what was conducted when CGS first became operational.

Direct field monitoring of entrainment is underway to enumerate and quantify the potential risk of entrainment of the current water intake screen design and location to listed and non-listed salmonids and other fish species that occupy Hanford Reach habitats. The monitoring is occurring over two field seasons with a final study report to be submitted to EFSEC by May 1, 2020.

An initial literature review of entrainment and impingement risk created by the type of cylindrical screens in use at CGS provided to Energy Northwest and stakeholders (Coutant 2014b) found that NMFS intake screen criteria were developed mainly for rotating drum screens, vertical screens, and inclined screens, but not cylindrical screens of the type and placement in the river channel as used at CGS. A review of controlled laboratory studies of cylindrical intake screens found that unlike other screen types, the assumption that pore size and approach velocity (velocity caused by flow through the screens) are important design criteria is not appropriate for cylindrical screens oriented parallel to flow in relatively high velocity water, where most fish are bypassed around the cylinder or swept off the face of the cylinder if they encounter the screen face.

In addition to describing the methodology used to conduct the 2-year fish entrainment study, the Plan also outlined the need for a more thorough review of existing literature to identify fish species and life stages at risk of entrainment or impingement. This Historical Fish Occurrence report builds upon the review of cylindrical screens in Coutant (2014b) by focusing on additional information from the literature on the various fish species present, their biological characteristics such as life histories, physiological capacity, and habitat preferences that make them vulnerable to entrainment. It provides a literature review of fish species that occur in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, evaluates entrainment and impingement risk posed by the CGS intake, and summarizes historical water elevations and river flow near the CGS intake structure that may influence that risk. The physical factors that affect entrainment by cylindrical screens are evaluated in the context of the biological characteristics of the fish species present and modeled hydraulic conditions near the water intake screens (Alden 2018; Perkins 2018), along with an assessment of potential risk to further inform the concerns raised by NMFS and WDFW.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 2 February 2019

1.1 Site Background The CGS is located approximately five miles north of Richland, Washington, adjacent to the west bank of the Columbia River at river kilometer (rkm) 566 (river mile [rm] 352; Figures 1 and 2). The CGS is a single-unit, 1,170-megawatt boiling-water nuclear power plant that began commercial operation in 1984. The plant uses a closed-cycle cooling system that uses circulating water to cool and condense steam exiting the main turbine. A portion of the circulating water system water that is lost to evaporation, droplet drift, and blowdown is replenished by make-up water acquired from the Columbia River.

The CGS make-up water intake occurs downstream of Priest Rapids Dam (PRD) located at rkm 639 and upstream of the McNary Dam pool (Lake Wallula) in a section of free-flowing river known as the Hanford Reach. The Hanford Reach is a 90 kilometer (km; 56 mile) stretch of river that extends from PRD at its upstream end to the city of Richland at its downstream end where the river enters the head of Lake Wallula that is formed by McNary Dam. Three major tributaries enter Lake Wallula, the Yakima, Snake, and Walla Walla rivers, and converge with the Columbia River. The Hanford Reach is a significant habitat resource for native fish because it is the only remaining free-flowing section of the Columbia River within the United States that is accessible to anadromous fish and it retains much of its natural geomorphic features.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 3 February 2019

Figure 1 Site Location Map, 80-Kilometer (50-Mile) Radius Source: EN 2010 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 4 February 2019

Figure 2 Site Location Map, 10-Kilometer (6-Mile) Radius Source: EN 2010 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 5 February 2019

The Hanford Reach supports the largest mainstem-spawning population of fall-run Chinook salmon in the Columbia River (Dauble and Watson 1997), as well as a smaller population of steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss) (Nugent 2016). Additionally, the Hanford Reach is a migratory pathway for several species of anadromous fishes that reproduce and rear in upstream reaches, including spring-run Chinook salmon, summer-run steelhead, sockeye salmon, coho salmon, and Pacific lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). The CGS intake structure is being directly monitored as part of a 2-year fish entrainment study and a fish impingement study for its potential to impact fall-run Chinook salmon and steelhead fry that rear in the reach, migrating salmonid smolts originating from upriver, and other fishes that reside or migrate through the reach.

River flow, which is a variable affecting potential entrainment and impingement at the CGS intake, is regulated by interagency agreements. The term river discharge is used to describe the total volume of Columbia River water flowing past a given point, such as Priest Rapids Dam or the CGS intake structure site. River discharge in the Hanford Reach is determined by PRD located at rkm 72.4 (rm 45) upstream of CGS. To address impacts of fluctuating water levels on salmon survival and habitat downstream of PRD, the Vernita Bar Settlement Agreement (VBSA) was signed in 1979, implemented in 1984, and finalized in June of 1988. The VBSA limited salmon nest (redd) dewatering by setting minimum flow levels at 70,000 cubic feet per second (70 kcfs) leaving PRD and maintaining low elevation flow during the day to prevent redd building in areas that could become dewatered. The Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Agreement (HRFCPPA), enacted in 1999 and finalized in 2004, superseded and replaced the VBSA. The HRFCPPA regulates flows leaving PRD during spawning, pre-hatch, post-hatch, emergence, and rearing periods. Under this agreement, a monitoring team conducts redd surveys every fall and sets a critical minimum flow based on the elevational distribution of the redds within the Hanford Reach, thus protecting them from dewatering. In addition to protecting redds, the HRFCPPA also minimizes the magnitude of flow fluctuations during the rearing period when juveniles are most at risk of being stranded due to flow fluctuations (Grant PUD 2004).

1.1.1 Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake Structure The Cooling Tower Make-Up (TMU) water pumphouse is located 3 miles east of the CGS reactor complex, on the west bank of the Columbia River (Figure 2). The TMU pumphouse contains three make-up-water pumps situated in a pump well, with two pumps typically in use. Water is gravity-fed into the pump well via two 36-inch (91-centimeter)-diameter buried pipes that extend 900 feet (274 meters [m]) from the pumphouse to the river channel (Figures 3 and 4). Water is then pumped from the pump well by three 800-horsepower make-up-water pumps. (Figure 3). Each intake structure is designed to allow make-up-water withdrawal at a rate of 12,500 gallons per minute (gpm) for a maximum withdrawal capacity from the pump well of 25,000 gpm. However, the average daily make-up-water withdrawal for CGS is typically much lower. It was 15,438 gpm in 2018, and for Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 6 February 2019

permitting purposes was estimated to draw approximately 17,000 gpm, or about 0.03% of the average mean annual river discharge of the Columbia River per day near the site. Withdrawal rates vary on an hourly, daily, and seasonal basis. Make-up-water pumps draw from the pump well and not directly from the river, therefore flow through the intake structures depends upon the hydraulic head differential between the river and the pumphouse, which is affected by drawdown for plant operations and by changing water levels in the Columbia River. The intake structures withdraw water from the river at a combined average rate of approximately 8,500 gpm (19 cfs).

Two intake structures are located in the river at the end of each of the buried pipes. The pipes make a 90-degree, upward bend and extend slightly above the surface of the riverbed (Figure 4). Attached to each of the pipes is a 30-foot (9 m)-long, cylindrical screen housing mounted above the riverbed and situated approximately mid-channel, approximately parallel to the river flow (Figure 4). Each cylinder is 6.5-feet (2 m)-long and mounted upstream and downstream of a central chamber attached to the buried pipe. Each cylinder is capped on both ends with conical caps. Each cylindrical screen consists of an outer and inner sleeve of perforated pipe designed to distribute the intake water flow evenly along the outer surface of the structure. The outer screen is 1.07 m (42 inches) in diameter with 9.5-millimeter (mm; 0.375-inch) holes comprising 40% of the surface area while the inner screen is 0.91 m (36 inches) in diameter with 19-mm (0.75-inch) holes comprising 7% of the surface area. For average intake conditions, the approach velocity of the bulk flow perpendicular to the screen surface is 0.07 fps, and the average normal through-pore velocity is 0.16 fps.

Hydrodynamic conditions around the two CGS intake structures were investigated in detail with a CFD model to describe the predicted pressure and velocity patterns around the intake at both broad and fine scales (Alden 2018). Scenarios were modeled for three river-discharge levels, four potential angles of river flow and whether the plant intake was operating or not, providing a wealth of data on flow patterns specific to the CGS intake structures. Special attention was paid to velocity and pressure changes that result from flow around the nose of the structures and fine scale examination of the approach velocities and sweeping velocities along the turbulent boundary layer of the perforated screens. Briefly, CFD model results confirmed that a rapid change in pressure, described as a bow wave, exists at the nose of the intakes resulting from the water intercepting the stationary intakes. The bow wave is implicated in hydraulically diverting fish (hydraulic bypass) and instigating evasive fish behavior (Coutant 2014; hypothesized effects on fish are discussed further in section 3.2).

The bow wave had a relatively consistent form across the various river conditions modelled, growing only slightly when the river flow angle was more oblique to the intake screens, and was only slightly smaller when CGS intake pumps were off. At a finer scale, modeling characterized turbulence in a boundary layer along the screens, or the area within which the sweeping velocity is affected by friction with the intake screens. The boundary layer varied in thickness depending on modeled conditions, and areas of concentrated inflow were revealed downstream of the bow wave, approximately one-third of the way down the screen area. Importantly, at the fine scale within 20 and Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 7 February 2019

200 mm of the screen surface, sweeping velocity and approach velocity varied with different river conditions and non-uniformity of flow along the cylindrical screens. Modeling of the pores indicated that the effective pore size due to hydraulic patterns was considerably smaller than the physical pore size. Notably, the risk of impingement or entrainment was effectively minimized by the hydraulics of water flow around the screens under most river and operating conditions, yet certain specific conditions were revealed that may increase risk of impingement or entrainment at certain parts of a screen based on present NMFS screening criteria. These conditions include scenarios of low river velocity or flow direction that was more oblique to the intake structure. A detailed summary of conditions that increase the risk to fish and the implications of these modeled flow patterns for fish impingement and entrainment and are explored further in Section 3.2.

Figure 3 Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake System Plan and Profile Views Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 8 February 2019

Figure 4 Artists Rendering of the Columbia Generating Station Make-Up Water Intake System and Photographs of a Spare Intake Screen Note: Left panel: artists rendering; Right panel: photographs of a spare intake screen showing the side view (A) outer sleeve (B) and inner sleeve (C)

The river bed elevation at the intake structure is 101.50 m above mean sea level (MSL; 333.00 feet) and the two cylindrical intake structures are situated above the riverbed at the end of each buried intake pipe. Taking into account the intake structure mounting and cylinder diameter, the elevation of top of the cylinder is 104.02 m MSL (341.30 feet); shown in additional plan view figures in Appendix A. The intake structure was designed for river elevations that range at this location from approximately 104.16 m MSL (341.73 feet) during extreme low-water events to 113.69 m MSL (373.00 feet) during extreme high-water events, and where normal high-water elevation occurring at approximately 109.12 m (358.00 feet). These elevations translate to operating depths of water covering the cylindrical screens that range from 9.66 m (31.70 feet) to 0.13 m (0.43 feet) at extreme high- and low-water levels respectively, and normal high-water depth of 5.09 m (16.70 feet). Section 5 of this report provides a detailed analysis of the historical river elevation record that characterizes the observed ranges of extreme water levels and frequency of low water events.

1.1.2 Previous Entrainment Studies Fish entrainment was a concern during design and construction of the CGS intake structure, and several studies were conducted in the 1970s through 1980s to assess the impacts of the intake on fish, particularly fall Chinook salmon. In a pre-operational study conducted from September 1974 through March 1980, the river environment near the intake structure was sampled using beach seines, hoop nets, gill nets, and electroshocking equipment. A total of 35,939 fish representing Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 9 February 2019

37 species were observed with Chinook salmon representing 44% of the catch (WPPSS 1982). Initial entrainment and impingement studies were conducted between 1980 through 1985 and no fish nor debris were observed to be impinged on the intake screens; nor were any eggs, larvae, or fish captured in the pumphouse cages specially designed to intercept entrained organisms (EN 2010). A follow up study in 1985, targeting the juvenile salmon out migration, found no observable impingement or entrainment of fish, fish eggs, or larvae while the facility was operating at a minimum of a 75% power load (WPPSS 1985).

However, increases in fall Chinook salmon productivity in the Hanford Reach resulting from the HRFCPPA is a cause for renewed assessment of the potential of impingement and entrainment of fry.

In the process of renewing the CGS operating license in 2011, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission conducted a biological assessment of essential fish habitat, and the potential effects of the CGS intake system on federally listed species. This assessment concluded that Endangered Species Act (ESA)-listed upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon and upper Columbia River steelhead may be affected, but were not likely to be adversely affected (NRC 2011). Nonetheless, in correspondence addressing concerns regarding the renewal of the NPDES permit for the CGS (NMFS 2013a,b), the outer screen of the intake structure, with 9.5-mm (0.375-inch) openings, was identified as failing to meet current NMFS and WDFW screen criteria for water intake structures (NMFS 2011a).

Fish smaller than 75 mm in body length were identified as being at risk of impingement or entrainment in the CGS intake structure (NMFS 2013a,b). Typically, migratory smolts are greater than 75 mm in size and are surface-oriented, supporting the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions conclusion that the intake structure presents a low risk to ESA-listed smolts migrating from reaches upstream; however, salmonid fry that emerge and rear near the CGS intake structure would be less than 75 mm in size and should be included in this category of potential elevated risk.

1.2 Literature Review Objectives The objectives of this study are to characterize the fish present in the vicinity of the make-up-water intake structure located in the Columbia River, and to identify the potential for fish entrainment or impingement, with a focus on early life stages of Chinook salmon and steelhead. This report fulfills this objective in part, by providing:

• A description of the spatial and temporal characteristics of fish species and abundance in vicinity of the intake structure, through a literature review and synthesis using the following resources:

Fish community survey results summarized in Energy Northwests licensing documents, both historical records from the 1970s and 1980s and related to the current license agreement (EN 2010)

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 10 February 2019

Published academic literature and books describing fish communities and salmon population dynamics in the Hanford Reach (various authors cited, e.g. Dauble et al.,

Harnish et al., Wydoski and Whitney 2003)

Salmon and steelhead spawning survey reports for the Hanford Reach (e.g. Nugent and Cranna 2015)

• A description of how annual, seasonal, and diel variations in river discharge interact with the make-up-water intake structure to affect the degree of potential entrainment or impingement risk using the following resources:

Published academic literature on typical behavior and habitat preferences of key migratory fishes such as salmon and lamprey, and other resident species, where available (various authors cited)

Laboratory studies combining computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling, laboratory experimental data using scale models, and statistical analysis that describe fish entrainment and show the reactions of early life stages of several fish species to a cylindrical intake structure (NAI and ASA 2011).

Modular Aquatic Simulation System in One and Two Dimensions (MASS1 and MASS2) modelling developed by Battelle-Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists to simulate hydraulics across the Hanford Reach (Niehus et al. 2014), used to report predicted velocity and depth under varying river discharge levels at the CGS intake structures (Perkins et al. 2018)

Three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) modeling of the physical flow patterns (i.e. velocity and pressure changes) around the CGS intake screens at various river discharge levels, angles of river flow, and plant operation conditions (Alden 2018)

Guidelines developed by NMFS to protect the most vulnerable life stages and species of fish from various types of intake screens (NMFS 2011)

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 11 February 2019

2 Fish Species Present in the Hanford Reach This section synthesizes historical literature describing the fish species present in the vicinity of the CGS intake. The fish species considered include those known to be present in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, bounded by the PRD upstream and McNary Dam downstream. Some riverine fish species may disperse upstream through normal movements, straying during migration, flood events, and angler introductions, therefore some species are included because of their occurrences in lower reaches of the Yakima River or Snake River, two major tributaries that converge with the Columbia River at the downstream end of the Hanford Reach. The following section is a narrative review of life stages, size classes, seasonal abundance, and general habitat preferences with a focus on describing life-history characteristics of the most commonly observed species groups and life stages in the Hanford Reach. The complete list of all species and life stages potentially present in Hanford Reach and at risk of entrainment or impingement is compiled in Appendix B, Table B-1 along with relevant biological information.

2.1.1 Salmonids Salmon and trout generally require riverine conditions for spawning and embryo incubation with course gravels for building redds, and cold, low turbidity water flowing through the redds at relatively high velocities to oxygenate and sustain the incubating embryos. After emerging from gravels in the spring and early summer, salmonid fry typically rear in slower-velocity, micro-habitats that provide forage and cover by overhanging vegetation, wood, and river banks, often taking advantage of smaller side channels or off-channel habitat in the floodplain that may be seasonally wet.

Historically, salmon spawning and rearing occurred throughout the mainstem reaches of the middle and upper Columbia River. Presently, the majority of accessible habitat in the mainstem Columbia River has been converted to a series of deep, low-velocity pools impounded by hydroelectric dams with little habitat diversity. The Hanford Reach is the only unimpounded reach remaining, still maintaining the key habitat features that support salmonid spawning and rearing despite flow regulation by upstream dams. Thus, the Hanford Reach is currently the only significant spawning area for anadromous salmon and steelhead in the mainstem Columbia River.

The Hanford Reach supports a distinct reproducing population of fall Chinook salmon that represents the only significant population of fall-run Chinook salmon that spawn in the mainstem Columbia River, and the largest population of fall Chinook salmon in the Columbia Basin (Dauble and Watson 1997; WDFW 2018). As part of the upper Columbia River summer- and fall-run Chinook salmon Evolutionary Significant Unit (ESU), this population is a top priority for conservation because of its ecological, cultural, and economic significance as one of the few salmon stocks in the Pacific Northwest that are not listed under the ESA.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 12 February 2019

Summer steelhead are also present and known to spawn in the Hanford Reach, though in smaller relative abundance than fall Chinook salmon (WPPSS 1982; Nugent and Cranna 2015). The upper Columbia River Distinct Population Segments (DPS) of steelhead, listed as Threatened under the ESA (NMFS 2011b, 2014), are found in the Hanford Reach and in upstream tributary sub-basins.

Bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) may have occupied the Hanford Reach historically, but are considered extirpated from the area, with only an occasional adult seen migrating through PRD or McNary Dam. Nonetheless, the Hanford Reach remains a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-designated critical habitat for middle and upper Columbia River bull trout, providing potential foraging, migrating, and overwintering habitat for juveniles and subadults that originate from colder tributaries and undertake a fluvial or adfluvial life histories (forms that undertake freshwater migrations within the Hanford Reach or among Columbia River reservoirs). The Columbia River bull trout DPS is listed as threated under ESA (USFWS 1999) and listed as a Washington State Candidate Species (WDFW 2008).

Mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni) are also present in the Hanford Reach. In ecological monitoring studies conducted between 1974 and 1980, mountain whitefish were commonly observed and comprised up to 3.7% of species abundance near CGS (EN 2010). Relatively little information on juvenile mountain whitefish abundance and activity exists for the middle Columbia River, however all life stages are observed in the Hanford Reach. Small, age-0 fish less than 100 mm fork length (FL),

are most likely present in Hanford Reach from March through the summer in shallow water, moving into deeper water as they grow (Wydoski and Whitney 2003; Dauble 2009). Juvenile mountain whitefish have been collected in nearshore surveys of the river (Becker et al. 1981; Dauble et al. 1989).

Anadromous salmonids from upstream Columbia River tributaries, including upper Columbia River spring and summer Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon and upper Columbia River summer steelhead pass through the Hanford Reach on their seaward migration as juveniles and return spawning migrations by adults. Upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon are listed as Endangered (NMFS 1999, 2005, 2014) and spring Chinook salmon are also listed by WDFW as a Washington State Candidate species (WDFW 2008). Juveniles of these stocks migrate downstream as relatively large yearling (age-1+) smolts and tend to pass through the free-flowing Hanford Reach quickly, traveling on average to 56 km per day (34 miles; Weitkamp and McEntee 1982). By virtue of large size and rapidity of passage through the high-velocity river, smolts would seem to be at negligible risk of entrainment or impingement. Spring Chinook, sockeye, and coho salmon smolts migrate through the Hanford Reach between April and July, with peak run timing depending on the species and stock.

In a cross-sectional study of juvenile salmonid occurrence in the water column in the Hanford Reach, the majority of migrating smolts were observed in the mid-channel of the mainstem (Dauble et al.

1989). Yearling (age-1+) spring Chinook salmon smolts were distributed throughout the water column up to 12.2 m (41 feet) deep, whereas steelhead were distributed at mid-depths or near the Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 13 February 2019

bottom (nearly all collected greater than 4 m [13 feet] deep), and sockeye salmon smolts occurred at greater mean depths than other species (58% captured greater than 8 m [26 feet] deep). Mid-channel migration in high-velocity water is commonly observed in the mainstem Columbia River (Burley and Poe 1994; Chapman et al. 1995); however, the presence of smolts in deeper sections of the water column contrasts with studies of migration through lentic environments, such as impounded sections of the Columbia River, where smolts tend to migrate near the surface (upper 5 m [16 feet]) of the water column (e.g., Giorgi and Stevenson 1995; USACE 1995; Beeman and Maule 2006). Smolt migration through the unimpounded Hanford Reach may be influenced by microhabitat scale factors encountered in the riverine environment, such as site-specific hydraulic conditions. For instance, Dauble et al. (1989) found that more juvenile salmon were associated with the mid-channel or northeast shoreline rather than being equally distributed between the two shorelines, potentially as a result of fish orienting with areas of higher flow to initiate migration.

2.1.1.1 Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon Life History Salmonid populations that rear within the Hanford Reach are vulnerable to encountering the CGS intake, particularly the very early life stages of the locally-spawning fall Chinook salmon that are abundant in the Hanford Reach. The newly emerged fry are small in size and they rear in the Hanford Reach for weeks to months prior to migrating downstream. In addition, Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon have been studied intensively over several decades in order to quantify the impacts of PRD upstream and contamination from the adjacent Hanford Reservation. A more detailed review of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon life history is warranted to support the fish entrainment monitoring efforts that are currently being undertaken to quantify the potential impact of fish entrainment at the population level.

Adult fall Chinook salmon enter freshwater at a fully mature state in late summer through fall, typically spawning in the Hanford Reach between mid-October through the third week of November (Dauble and Watson 1997; Nugent 2016). The majority of fall Chinook salmon redds occur consistently in major spawning areas located dozens of kilometers upstream of the CGS intakes; however, in recent years, hundreds of redds have been counted within 1 km of the CGS intake; discussed further below (Figure 2 and Table 1).

Fall Chinook salmon fry emerge from gravels from mid-March through mid-May, with peak emergence observed in mid- to late April depending on water temperatures (McMichael et al. 2005, 2015). Fry range in length between 37 and 44 mm FL at emergence, and are highly dependent on shallow, shoreline habitats for feeding and sanctuary (Tiffan et al. 2006; McMichael et al. 2015).

Subyearlings (age-0) prefer shoreline habitats with warmer temperatures than the mainstem, low lateral bank slopes, and mean water velocities less than 1.5 feet per second (fps), as well as mid-sized substrates such as large gravel and cobble (Tiffan et al. 2006). Subyearling fall Chinook salmon feed and swim in the middle or upper portion of relatively shallow water (4 to 22 inches deep) during Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 14 February 2019

daytime, while during nighttime they remain less active in the lower portion of the water column (Tiffan et al. 2006). As subyearlings increase in size, they begin to inhabit deeper water with greater velocities. Wild subyearlings that average 40 to 45 mm FL in size are observed in peak abundance between mid-April and late-May, whereas hatchery-reared subyearlings that range from 40 to 90 mm FL are abundant in June (Dauble et al. 1989). In the Hanford Reach, subyearling fall Chinook salmon are most abundant in nearshore areas occupying water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet, and preferring velocities between 0.6 to 2.6 fps; however, subyearlings can be found across the full width of the river and in the upper, middle, and lower portions of the water column (Dauble et al. 1989).

Swimming performance has been more thoroughly studied for salmon than any other family of species in the Pacific Northwest. Juvenile salmon have a well-developed lateral line neuron system for sensing near-field changes in water pressure, are highly mobile compared to other species, and are capable of varying their swimming speed depending on the activity. Burst swimming is a high activity swimming or sprint behavior that lasts for less than 15 seconds and used to avoid predation, forage, or pass through areas of high water velocity. Burst swimming would also be used by juvenile salmon when they encounter and escape areas of rapid acceleration, as has been observed at juvenile fish collection structures (Haro et al. 1998). Juvenile salmon are likely to react similarly to evade rapid changes in velocity they would encounter around the CGS intake structure. The swimming performance of Chinook salmon fry is similar to coho salmon, which has been studied in greater detail. Burst swimming capacity of coho salmon under 100 mm in size depends on fish size and water temperature, but is approximately 24 body lengths per second, or 3.5 fps for a newly emerged fry of 45 mm.

Once the wild Fall Chinook salmon smolt and initiate downstream migration in late spring (e.g., early June), they tend to travel rapidly through the free-flowing Hanford Reach. Smolts that are greater than 80 mm fork length were observed traveling a median rate of 30 km per day, but with high variability from less than 10 to greater than 80 km per day (Harnish et al. 2014a). Migration rate and travel patterns of smaller smolts are less well-studied as they are more difficult to tag and track through the mainstem Columbia River. Subyearling fall Chinook salmon tend to be observed in large numbers at McNary Dam from early June through mid-August at sizes averaging approximately 70 to 110 mm FL in early June, and 105 to 125 mm FL by mid-August, depending on the year (USACE Smolt Monitoring Program; summarized by McMichael et al. 2015). This suggests that subyearling fall Chinook salmon tend to emigrate from the Hanford Reach starting in late May and early June upon obtaining a body size larger than 70 mm.

Subsequent to the development of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation, aerial redd surveys have been carried out annually to quantify the number of spawning adults returning to the Hanford Reach.

Redds have been enumerated in annual surveys since 1948 (Figure 5).

Several factors have influenced the number of salmon that use the Hanford Reach over time, primarily the loss of spawning habitat with the construction of dams and reservoirs in adjacent Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 15 February 2019

reaches of the mainstem Columbia River, and later, variability in flows associated with PRD operations (Dauble and Watson 1990, 1997). Other factors contributing to changes in salmon numbers include hatchery production, juvenile and adult passage over hydroelectric dams, harvest management, and predation on juvenile fish during downstream migration to sea (Dauble and Watson 1990, 1997; Harnish et al. 2014a). In fact, a major survival bottleneck occurs just after smolts migrate from the Hanford Reach but prior to passing McNary Dam, with survival through the lower half of Hanford Reach estimated to be better than 80%, then declining to McNary Dam to just 30%

to 40%, attributed to the abundance of piscivorous predators (including Northern pikeminnow

[Ptychocheilus oregonensis] and smallmouth bass [Micropterus dolomieu]) in a potential predation hotspot in McNary Reservoir (Harnish et al. 2014a).

Figure 5 Visual Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Counts, 1948 to 2016 Source: Adapted from Nugent 2016 Historically, fall Chinook salmon spawning was broadly distributed in the mainstem Columbia River from near the Dalles, Oregon (rkm 308) upstream to the Pend Oreille and Kootenay rivers in Idaho Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 16 February 2019

(rkm 1200; Dauble and Watson 1990) and in the lower Snake River. In the early years of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation development, relatively few redds were found in the Hanford Reach (Poston et al. 2008). Between 1933 and 1968, several dams were constructed on the Columbia River upstream and downstream of the Hanford Reach, and the formation of reservoirs behind these dams eliminated most mainstem spawning habitat resulting in increased numbers of spawners observed using the reach (Figure 5; Dauble and Watson 1990). Completion of the Dalles Dam in 1957 may have actually increased access to the Hanford Reach by flooding Celilo Falls, an almost impassible barrier during low flows.

Hatchery supplementation of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon dates back to 1962, with variable numbers of juvenile fall Chinook salmon released each year including up to 11.8 million in the early 1980s and production goals of approximately 7.5 million released in recent years, contributing between 3,000 to 4,000 adults to the spawning grounds (WDFW 2018). Currently, 7.5 million age-0 Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon smolts are released each year, with 3 million produced at the nearby Ringold Springs Hatchery (approximately 4 km upstream from CGS, located on the opposite river bank) and another 4.5 million released from the Priest Rapids Hatchery (located at PRD; WDFW 2018).

From the time of its completion in 1959 to finalizing the VBSA in 1984, PRD was operated to optimize power generation during peak demand (termed power-peaking or load-following), causing unnatural daily variability in river flow in the Hanford Reach. Large daily fluctuations in water elevation during spawning, incubation, and early rearing caused high mortality rates of incubating embryos and juveniles due to dewatering of redds and stranding of newly-emerged fry. The VBSA set minimum flow levels at 70 kcfs leaving PRD and constrained river discharge from PRD during the fall Chinook salmon spawning season to prevent spawning at higher elevations that could become dewatered, and to reverse the typical power generation pattern by providing low river discharge during the day when spawners are active and higher river discharge at night. The VBSA effectively protected incubating embryos, but did not regulate river discharge after the incubation period. The HRFCPPA (finalized in 2004) superseded and replaced the VBSA to set a critical minimum flow each year based on the elevational distribution of the salmon redds within the Hanford Reach and minimizes the magnitude of flow fluctuations during the rearing period to limit stranding and entrapment of juveniles during emergence and early rearing (Grant PUD 2004). These modern restrictions on operations at PRD have led to improvements in overwinter survival of incubating embryos and fry that have further increased fall Chinook salmon productivity in the reach (Harnish et al. 2014b). It is estimated that pre-smolt abundance increased from 14.3 million prior to the VBSA to 52 million after implementation of the HRFCPPA. Though pre-smolt production appears to be limited by density dependent factors (Harnish et al. 2014b), pre-smolt abundance was potentially even higher in recent years with record high escapement of the stock in 2014 to 2015 (WDFW 2018) and record numbers of redds observed in 2013 to 2016 (Figure 5).

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 17 February 2019

Major spawning areas have been identified throughout the reach with the majority of all spawning from 1948 through 1992 occurring in two areas: Vernita Bar (Figure 6; Area 10) and Upper Locke Island (Figure 6; Area 5; Dauble and Watson 1997). Preferential use of major spawning areas within the Hanford Reach has been consistent across many decades (Anglin et al. 2006; Poston et al. 2008) with spawning occurring in clusters in similar locations each year (Geist et al. 2006). Habitat features associated with preferred spawning locations include habitat complexity (such as around islands),

consistent velocities greater than 3 fps, lateral slopes with less than 4% grade (Geist et al. 2000), and areas with higher gravel permeability, higher specific river discharge, and higher vertical hydraulic gradient. This suggests that areas with lower levels of fine sediment, higher flow permeating the substrate, and groundwater sources have remained consistent and preferred by spawners from year-to-year (Geist et al. 2006; Hatten et al. 2009). Recent redd counts are summarized for each survey area in Table 1.

Table 1 Fall Chinook Salmon Redd Counts by Survey Area in the Hanford Reach Area Description 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 0 Islands 17 to 21 (Richland) 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 Islands 11 to 16 (Ringold; CGS) 673 533 798 906 1,193 861 1a Savage Island/Hanford Slough ND ND 0 0 0 0 2 Islands 8 to 10 (Area 100-F Islands) 814 807 2,200 1,565 3,145 1,735 3 Island 7 670 700 655 1,100 800 670 4 Island 6 (Locke Island; lower half) 1,181 1,375 3,340 2,530 2,315 1,807 5 Islands 4, 5, and upper 6 1,524 1,195 2,650 2,080 2,540 2,270 6 Island 3 525 475 1,000 1,000 1,100 600 7 Island 2 653 528 1,700 2,050 1,900 1,140 8 Island 1 295 340 900 500 1,000 340 8a Upstream of Island 1 to Coyote Rapids ND ND 0 0 15 0 9 Coyote Rapids 44 29 520 500 750 235 9a Upstream of Coyote Rapids to China Bar ND ND 0 0 230 20 China Bar Midway/China Bar 67 68 100 60 1,500 80 10 Vernita Bar 2,463 2,315 3,505 3,650 4,175 3,500 11 Near PRD 3 3 30 10 15 10 TOTAL 8,915 8,368 17,398 15,951 20,678 13,268 Notes:

ND indicates area not surveyed or no data due to poor visibility.

Source: Nugent 2016 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 18 February 2019

Figure 6 Aerial Survey Areas for Salmon and Steelhead Redds Source: Nugent 2016 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 19 February 2019

The CGS intake structure is located in Area 1 where several hundred redds have been observed in recent years and a maximum of 1,193 redds were observed associated with a record returns in 2015 (Figure 6; Table 1). In contrast, for the period from 1948 to 1992 the number of redds observed in Area 1 each year averaged 57 redds and ranged from none or single digits in the late 1950s and early 1960s to 264 in 1988 (Dauble and Watson 1997). Redd counts suggest that the number of spawners using Area 1 has increased tenfold similar to trends observed across the entire Hanford Reach since river discharge from PRD has been regulated for fall Chinook salmon, which began with the Vernita Bar Agreement in 1984, the same year CGS became commercially operational.

The nearest spawning grounds are just over 300 m northeast and upstream of the intake structure, while larger spawning grounds are located approximately 1 km both north and south of the intake structure, taking advantage of optimal substrate and flow conditions at the margins of the mid-channel islands (EN 2010). Proximity to spawning areas suggests that recently-emerged fall Chinook salmon fry have the potential to occur near the CGS intake structure as they redistribute to shallow nearshore areas. Fall Chinook salmon fry may rear in the vicinity of the CGS intake for several weeks to months prior to emigrating as smolts in mid-late summer. Subyearling fall Chinook salmon that originate from upstream spawning areas within Hanford Reach are also likely to redistribute downstream toward the CGS intake over the spring and early summer as they forage and grow. In shallow areas near the CGS site, age-0 Chinook salmon were abundant and comprised approximately 44% of all fish (EN 2010).

2.1.1.2 Upper Columbia River Steelhead Life History Similar to fall Chinook salmon, steelhead spawn and rear within the Hanford Reach and so are similarly vulnerable to encountering the CGS intake, particularly the very early life stages. The newly emerged fry are similarly small in size, but, in contrast, steelhead rear in the Hanford Reach for an entire year prior to migrating downstream. Population trends for steelhead in the Hanford Reach have not been intensively studied; however, their presence has been documented in redd surveys. A more detailed review of steelhead life history is warranted to characterize potential impact of fish entrainment to this ESA-listed species.

Adult steelhead typically move into the Hanford Reach from August to November with a peak in September; however, they may be present in the reach year-round as they hold for 6 to 8 months prior to spawning. Adults tend to migrate near shorelines in water depths of less than 3 m (Coutant 1973). Spawning has rarely been observed directly in the Hanford Reach, but is likely to occur between February and early June, with peak spawning in mid-May (Eldred 1970; Watson 1973).

Adult upper Columbia River steelhead typically use smaller tributary habitat and substrate to spawn in, compared to fall Chinook salmon, but steelhead will spawn in mainstem reaches of large rivers where suitable habitat exists. Habitat with suitable depths, velocity, substrate size, and substrate embeddedness Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 20 February 2019

for steelhead spawning exists in several locations throughout the Hanford Reach at flows that typically occur during the spawning season (Stables and Tiller 2007 in Nugent and Cranna 2015).

Based on dam passage counts, it has been estimated that between the mid-1960s to mid-1990s an average of 9,000 to 10,000 potential spawners could have occurred in the Hanford Reach; however, these estimates did not account for what are now known to be thousands of fallbacks; straying adult steelhead of mainly Snake River origin that pass upstream over McNary Dam, then subsequently fall back through various dam passage routes prior to migrating up the Snake River to spawn.

Historical steelhead redd count surveys were undertaken sporadically in the Hanford Reach by boat or airplane resulting in redd counts ranging from 220 in 1968 to 95 in 1970 (Eldred 1970), and 75 in 1998 (Dauble 1998 in Nugent and Cranna 2015); however, recent observations suggest that an unknown number may have been fall Chinook salmon redds (Nugent and Cranna 2015). Historically, spawning likely occurred at Vernita Bar, Coyote Rapids, Locke Island, 100-F Islands, and Area 1 near Ringold; however, landslides from slumping bluffs have reduced spawning habitat near Locke Island.

Systematic aerial surveys for steelhead redds since 1998 show that steelhead spawning in the Hanford Reach is rare in comparison to fall Chinook salmon. No spawning has been observed in the several years surveyed. In certain years, limited spawning near the Ringold Hatchery (Island 15, rm 355) has been observed, suggesting spawners may have been of Ringold Hatchery origin. Single redds were observed in Area 0 in 2003, and near the upstream end of Locke Island in 2008.

Suitable spawning habitat exists approximately 1 km northeast and upstream of the CGS intake structure in the outflow area of the Ringold Hatchery intake. Four steelhead redds were first observed in the area in 2013. In 2015, a peak year for salmon and steelhead spawning in the Hanford Reach since the late 1990s, 15 steelhead redds were observed in the same area, with one additional redd approximately 1 km to the southeast and downstream of the CGS intake (Figure 7, Table 2; Nugent and Cranna 2015). Lower than normal flows in late April and early May of 2015 may have contributed to surveyors ability to detect steelhead redds.

Steelhead fry emerge from the gravel 2 to 3 weeks after hatching, usually between mid-May through late-July. Fry are between 35 and 56 mm FL, and immediately move to shoreline environments with vegetation and submerged cover. As fry grow larger, they move away from nearshore environments, occupying shallow riffles and pools, yet remaining outside of the main channel, preferring low water velocities (0.67 fps). Juveniles rear year-round in freshwater, and smolts begin their outmigration after 1 to 3 years in the river environment, when they are between 165 and 241 mm FL.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 21 February 2019

Figure 7 Steelhead Redd Locations, 2015 Source: Nugent and Cranna 2015 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 22 February 2019

Table 2 Steelhead Redd Counts by Survey Area in the Hanford Reach Area Description 2012 2013 2015 0 Islands 17 to 21 (Richland) 0 0 0 1 Islands 11 to 16 (Ringold, CGS) 0 4 15 1a Savage Island/Hanford Slough 0 2 Islands 8 to 10 (Area 100-F Islands) 0 0 6 3 Island 7 0 0 0 4 Island 6 (Locke Island; lower half) 0 0 16 5 Islands 4, 5, and upper 6 0 0 6 6 Island 3 0 0 0 7 Island 2 0 0 0 8 Island 1 0 0 0 8a Upstream of Island 1 to Coyote Rapids 0 9 Coyote Rapids 0 0 0 9a Upstream of Coyote Rapids to China Bar 0 China Bar Midway/China Bar 0 0 0 10 Vernita Bar 0 0 0 11 Near PRD 0 0 0 TOTAL 0 4 43 Note:

Source: Nugent and Cranna 2015 If steelhead spawning were common in the Hanford Reach it would be expected that age-0 (young-of-the-year) fry would be regularly observed in juvenile fish surveys. Observations of age-0 steelhead fry are limited however; numerous studies have failed to collect age-0 steelhead despite methods directed at collecting salmonids in this life stage (Gray and Dauble 1976; Dauble et al. 1989, Wagner et al. 1997, Hoffarth et al. 1998, Nugent et al. 1999, 2000 in Wagner et al. 2012), confirming the rarity of steelhead spawning in the Hanford Reach. In June 2001, four wild steelhead fry were observed near Wooded Island just downstream of CGS (Area 1) during the fifth year of an ongoing fry-stranding study (Nugent 2002). Steelhead numbers may currently be low in the Hanford Reach but may increase with recovery efforts resulting from ESA-listing and protection of critical habitat.

2.1.2 Lamprey Pacific lamprey and Western river lamprey (Lampetra ayresii) reportedly occupy the Hanford Reach (Wydoski and Whitney 2003); however, no Western river lamprey have been observed in the Columbia Basin since 1980, and the species may have been extirpated from the drainage (Lindsey et al. 2016). Recent studies have documented lamprey ammocoetes in the Hanford Reach several miles Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 23 February 2019

upstream and downstream of CGS intake, however none were observed in the area surveyed nearest to the CGS intake structures (Bottom Wooded Island Bay, approximately 1 mile downstream of CGS; Lindsey et al. 2016). Both Pacific and Western river lamprey are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as Federal Species of Concern (USFWS 2010, 2018). Western river lamprey are listed as a State Candidate species (WDFW 2008).

Both Pacific lamprey and Western river lamprey are anadromous, with a relatively complex life history. After hatching, larvae (ammocoetes) drift downstream and burrow in soft substrate in areas of low water velocity (less than 1 fps) to filter feed and rear for up to 8 years (Torgerson et al. 2004; Moser et al. 2015). After metamorphosing, the macrophthalmia begin downstream migration, which usually occurs between late fall and spring. Lamprey mature into adults in the ocean, and spend several years in the marine environment. Adults migrate back to freshwater between February and June, and may spend up to a year in the freshwater habitat before spawning between March and July.

Lamprey are largely nocturnal and generally migrate mid-channel in the lower part of the water column as they stop frequently to attach to substrate. Activity is usually restricted to darkness (Moser et al. 2015).

Lamprey are susceptible to entrainment as larvae and juveniles. Both life stages are small, with ammocoetes usually less than 40 mm in length and 2 mm in width as yearlings, but can get as large as 174 mm in length. Macrophthalmia range between 75 to 200 mm in length and 6 to 11 mm in width at the eye (Moser et al. 2015). Ammocoetes are relatively immobile in low-flow environments; however, they may be displaced during high water events, particularly in the springtime, when soft sediment burrows are scoured (Moser et al. 2015). Macrophthalmia outmigration is relatively lengthy compared to salmonids. Macrophthalmia have been observed in the Columbia River during every month of the year (Moser et al. 2015), with peak numbers collected in winter and early spring, usually coinciding with high river discharge events; however, substantial numbers are also observed from March through October. Additionally, lamprey are relatively poor swimmers, and intake approach velocities as low as 1.5 fps will cause impingement of macrophthalmia. However, reducing intake approach velocity to 1 fps allows most lamprey to escape (Moser et al. 2015). Because of their small size, benthic orientation, and poor swimming performance, juvenile stages of lamprey often become entrained or impinged at water diversion sites (USFWS 2010).

2.1.3 Minnows An abundant resident fish population occurs in the Hanford Reach comprised of species that spend their entire life-cycle in the reach, in contrast to anadromous salmonids and lamprey that migrate long distances and only occur during portions of their life-cycle. Minnows make up the majority of the resident fish species present in the reach.

Peamouth (Mylocheilus caurinus), northern pikeminnow, and redside shiner (Richardsonius balteatus) are among the most abundant minnow species observed in the Hanford Reach (EN 2010; Gadomski Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 24 February 2019

and Wagner 2009) with peamouth and northern pikeminnow more abundant in proximity to the CGS intake system and mid-river relative to other sites farther upstream or closer to shore (Gray and Dauble 2001). Adult chiselmouth (Acrocheilus alutaceus) are common; however, because chiselmouth are thought to spawn in tributary streams, few age-0 juveniles are observed (Gadomski and Wagner 2009). Longnose dace (Rhinichthys cataractae) have also been observed in proximity to the CGS intake, in lesser relative abundance. Gray and Dauble (2001) report collecting all three species of dace (longnose, leopard [R. falcatus], and speckled [R. osculus]) at a mid-river site upstream of CGS.

Additionally, Umatilla dace (R. umatilla) are reportedly in the region (Gray and Dauble 1977), but direct observations of these dace species in the Hanford Reach have not been made in recent years.

Leopard and Umatilla dace are listed by WDFW as State Candidate species (WDFW 2008).

Species in the minnow family occupy the Hanford Reach year-round. Juveniles demonstrate preference for nearshore and shoreline environments, occupying relatively shallow (1.5 to 15 feet) water with low velocities (0.36 to 3.3 fps). In the Hanford Reach, minnows are predominantly found in shallow water habitat that occurs in side channels that have flowing water during periods of high flow and become backwater sloughs at lower flows (Gray and Dauble 2001; Gadomski and Wagner 2009). Age-0 juveniles of the minnow family are abundant in dense schools of mixed minnow and sucker species in shoreline areas with less than 1 m (3.3 feet) of water from late June through September or October, following the spring and summer spawning season (Gray and Dauble 2001; Gadomski and Wagner 2009). Longnose dace are an exception that prefer to be near the surface in open water, until 4 months of age. Most adult minnows are also found in low velocity (less than 1.5 fps) environments, preferring shoreline environments during the warmer months, while retreating to deeper water from October through April. Again, adult longnose dace are an exception, preferring benthic habitat in swift flowing water (3 fps). Northern pikeminnow juveniles and adults are observed in depths up to 3 m (9.8 feet) from March through August. It is unclear whether the decline in numbers in shallow areas in fall and winter reflects movement offshore, migration downstream to the McNary Pool, or relative inactivity with low winter temperatures (Gray and Dauble 2001). Peamouth and chiselmouth are not typically observed in January through March.

Adult minnows spawn between mid-May and early-August, with larvae emerging days to weeks later, depending on the species. The size of age-0 minnows ranges from 36 to 123 mm FL, depending on the species. At the end of their first summer, Gadomski and Wagner (2009) observed sizes (mean standard lengths) of juvenile age-0 minnows that ranged from 17 to 23 mm FL for northern pikeminnow and redside shiner, 27 to 38 mm FL for suckers (Catostomus spp.) and 35 to 46 mm FL for peamouth. As adults, redside shiners are on the smaller end, ranging in size between 120 to 143 mm FL, while chiselmouth, peamouth, and northern pikeminnows range between 229 and 305 mm total length. Gray and Dauble (2001) estimated size at age for the most common minnow species observed in the Hanford Reach. Northern pikeminnow are relatively fast-growing and long-lived predatory minnows and may grow more than 50 mm per year through age-3 with slower growth in Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 25 February 2019

subsequent years with individuals up to 15 years old observed in the Hanford Reach. Redside shiner were approximately 50 mm in size at age-1 and 87 mm at age-2, with growth slowing at approximately age-5 and when length is 154 mm. Peamouth growth rates are greatest during their first 3 years, from 51 to 63 mm per year, achieving an average size of 63 mm at age-1 and 114 mm at age-2. Similarly, chiselmouth grow rapidly in annual increments of 60 to 80 mm in the first 3 years.

Common carp (Cyprinus carpio) were observed in low numbers that were 61 to 69 mm in size at age-1.

2.1.4 Sculpin Prickly, mottled, and torrent sculpin (Cottus aspar, C. bairdii, and C. rhotheus, respectively) occupy the Hanford Reach (Gray and Dauble 1977; WPPSS 1982; Wydoski and Whitney 2003; Dauble 2009) and miscellaneous species have been documented in proximity to the CGS intake (WPPSS 1982),

though in relatively low abundances to other fish species. Sculpin occupy the river environment year-round. Juveniles prefer shoreline, pelagic environments between March and July, while moving to the benthos after 30 to 35 days post-hatch (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). All three species prefer benthic environments as adults, with prickly sculpin preferring shoreline environments with sand or gravel substrates. Both mottled and torrent sculpin prefer moderate to swift currents (1.4 to 4 fps) in relatively shallow (0.5 to 3 feet) water. Adults range in size from 127 to 152 mm total length, while juveniles range between 6 and 35 mm total length. Due to their size and use of multiple habitats, juvenile sculpin could be at risk of impingement or entrainment.

2.1.5 Sturgeon White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus) are the largest fish species in the Columbia River drainage, reaching up to 12 feet in length. White sturgeon are well documented in the Hanford Reach and specimens have been observed in proximity to the CGS intake system (EN 2010). During spawning, eggs are broadcast into the water column in relatively swift portions of the river and may be dispersed downstream before settling into river substrate. Larvae hatch approximately 1 week later and grow rapidly, reaching sizes greater than 100 mm total length by fall. However, spawning areas in the Hanford Reach are unknown at this time, and eggs and larvae may only be present in the vicinity if sturgeon regularly spawn immediately upstream of the CGS intake. All life stages prefer relatively deep water (39 to 72 feet), with young fish preferring water velocities between 1.3 and 2 fps (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Eggs, larvae, and age-0 white sturgeon could be at risk for entrainment at the CGS intake due to their size, particularly between May and July (McCabe and Tracy 1994).

2.1.6 Suckers Largescale suckers (Catostomus macrocheilus) are one of the most abundant species near the CGS intake system (WPPSS 1982), and juvenile suckers are some of the most abundant fish found in shallow shoreline areas of the Hanford Reach (Gadomski and Wagner 2009). Longnose, bridgelip, and mountain suckers (C. catostomus, C. columbianus, and C. latyrhynchus, respectively) are also Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 26 February 2019

associated with the Hanford Reach, but relative abundance for these species is unknown. The mountain sucker is listed by WDFW as a State Candidate species (WDFW 2008). Species in the sucker family inhabit the river environment year-round. Adult suckers generally prefer deeper water habitats during the day, while moving to shoreline environments during the night. All species can tolerate relatively strong currents, with water velocity ranging from 1.3 to 3.6 fps, with bridgelip suckers often found at the ends of riffles in the main river channel. Adults range in size between 400 and 635 mm total length, and spawn between mid-April and July. Juveniles between 1.5 and 57 mm total length prefer shallower water, occupying pools, backwaters, and shoreline environments between 0.3 to 15 feet deep, between June and August (Gadomski and Wagner 2009). Sucker juveniles may be at risk for impingement in the summer months, given their habitat preferences for slower moving and shallow water.

2.1.7 Trout-Perches The sand roller (Percopsis transmontana) is the only native species in the trout-perch family to occupy the Hanford Reach (Gray and Dauble 1989). However, this species has not been directly observed in proximity to the CGS intake system. Sand rollers are listed by WDFW as a State Monitored species (WDFW 2008). This species prefers backwater environments with cover, such as undercut banks or submerged debris, generally with slower moving currents and shallow water.

However, specimens have been observed in depths up to 71 feet as well (Wydoski and Whitney 2003). Most adult fish are less than 127 mm FL, and spawn in between June and mid-July. If present near the CGS intake, this species may be susceptible to impingement due to its small size.

2.1.8 Non-Native Species Several non-native species have been directly observed in proximity to the CGS intake in the Hanford Reach (EN 2010; Petersen et al. 2003), including American shad (Alosa sapidissima), common carp, yellow perch (Perca flavescens), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), and smallmouth bass, with juveniles tending to occupy shallow nearshore areas.

Walleye (Sander vitreus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), and white crappie (Pomoxis annularis) are less commonly observed in the Hanford Reach (Dauble 2009).

Many of the non-native species that have invaded the Columbia River are more typically associated with lake habitats with aquatic vegetation and water with little to no current, with the exception of American shad. Larval and juvenile American shad (less than approximately 130 mm) have been observed in small numbers in backwaters and sloughs in the Hanford Reach. In the John Day Reservoir and below Bonneville Dam, American shad are one of the most abundant species (Petersen et al. 2003). Larval American shad are initially pelagic and can be found in plankton tows across the entire channel starting in late June, prior to recruiting to shallow shoreline areas in August. Age-0 juveniles are observed in nearshore areas from late July through September, before outmigrating to Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 27 February 2019

the ocean in late fall (Wydoski and Whitney 2003; Dauble 2009). Age-0 Juvenile shad may be found in water between 3 and 20 feet deep and relatively slow velocities of 0.1 to 2.5 fps.

2.1.9 Uncommon Species Gray and Dauble (1977) observed more than 45 species in the Hanford Reach in 1977. However, many of these species are not well documented or are uncommon in the Hanford Reach. Native species that are known to occur in adjacent reaches or tributaries to the Hanford Reach (such as the lower Yakima and lower Snake rivers) include Western river lamprey, burbot (Lota lota), Umatilla dace, Paiute sculpin (Cottus beldingi), reticulate sculpin (Cottus perplexus), threespine stickleback (Gasterosteus aculeatus), longnose sucker, and sand roller. Non-native species that may occur in the Hanford Reach include bullhead catfish species (Ameiurus spp.), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus),

western mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), tench (Tinca tinca), and largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides). Details about the life histories and habitat preferences of these uncommon species can be found in Appendix B, Table B-1.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 28 February 2019

3 Factors that Determine Fish Entrainment The overall risk of fish entrainment by the CGS intake structure can be broken down into a set of factors that contribute to, or lessen, the risk by determining whether fish encounter the intake and subsequently become entrained, excluded, or impinged. These factors are divided into biological factors that result from different fish life histories, and physical factors resulting from the interaction of the intake structure and the river environment. To evaluate risk of entrainment for fish in the Hanford Reach, each factor can be examined in a stepwise manner in order of its relative importance for each species or life stage.

3.1 Biological Factors of Fish Entrainment The driving biological characteristic that creates a risk of encountering the intake structure is fish proximity to the intake. Whether a certain species tends to occur in proximity to the intake is a function of multiple factors, in this case the most obvious being a known presence in the Hanford Reach. Proximity to the intake is also a function of a species seasonal occurrence (its presence in the Hanford Reach at specific times of the year) followed by species preference for the type of microhabitat where the CGS intake is located (see Figure 8).

Figure 8 Biological Determining Factors Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 29 February 2019

The risk of entrainment is also a function of fish size. Fish size primarily affects swimming performance and the ability to respond behaviorally to the intake to avoid entrainment. Secondarily, fish size also determines whether a fish will be physically excluded from passing through intake screen pores.

1. Presence in the Hanford Reach - Refer to Section 2 for a detailed review of species known to be present in the Hanford Reach and seasonal trends in occurrence of their life stages.

2. Habitat Type Preference - Species and life stages that are more likely to encounter the CGS intake structure are those that tend to use the lower part of the water column in mid-channel habitat of riverine environments and those that are oriented to substrate or to shallow-water habitats.

3. Hydraulic Conditions Preference - Preferences for water velocities and depths will determine whether a given species or life stage tends to occur at the intake site. Habitat preference changes as fish pass through different life stages that are repeated on an annual cycle such as spawning, rearing, and migration seasons. Risk of entrainment changes across the year with the predictable seasonal changes in river discharge and differences in the preferences between life stages.

4. Fish Size - Generally, as larval and juvenile fish increase in size their swimming ability improves; however, swimming ability is also a species-specific trait that depends upon adaptations for different types of in-stream habitat. Species and life stages at elevated risk for entrainment by the CGS intake based on body size alone would be those with body widths less than the size of the intakes outer screen pores, or 9.5 mm, which for salmonid fry and other species with similar fusiform, or torpedo shaped body types translates to a body length of approximately 75 mm or less (Bell 1990). Species groups with fusiform body types include the salmonids, shad, minnows and carps, suckers, sticklebacks, livebearers, perches, sand roller, and sturgeon.

Lamprey ammocoetes and macrophthalmia have an elongated body type with body depths less than the size of the intake screen pore size and would not be excluded even at much longer body lengths. Conversely, fish that have body types that are compressed such as the sunfishes (laterally compressed) or depressed such as sculpin and catfishes (dorsal-ventrally depressed) may have body widths that exceed the intake screen pore size at shorter body lengths. A body of literature is building in response to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencys Section 316(b) of the Clean Water Act, that requires cooling water intakes to estimate and minimize fish entrainment rates. In more recent studies of larval fish entrainment in marine and lake environments where larval fish are a large component of entrained zooplankton, the size of the larval head capsule has emerged as a determining metric for entrainment (e.g., Tenera 2013; Patrick et al. 2018). Body length and depth remains the metric most commonly used for predicting entrainment of inland fishes in the Pacific Northwest, including salmonids (NMFS 2011a).

The biological factors that determine fish exposure to the intake structure can be combined with the physical mechanisms of intake screen exclusion determined for cylindrical screens as a set of criteria Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 30 February 2019

in a framework for evaluating entrainment and impingement risk for fish that are in proximity to the CGS intake structure.

3.2 Physical Factors of Fish Entrainment by Cylindrical Intake Screens The CGS intake structure is a bullet-shaped cylindrical intake screen with nose cones that create unique hydraulic conditions around the structure, designed to minimize fish entrainment at the time of its installation. More recently, CFD modeling undertaken to evaluate hydraulics around the cylindrical screen revealed broad and fine-scale flow patterns that were evaluated against NMFS (2011) design criteria for intake screens to characterize the risk posed to fish in proximity of the intake (Alden 2018).

Direct experimentation with fish entrainment or impingement by the CGS intake structures is outside the scope of the current study, however a combination of computational fluid dynamic (CFD) modeling, laboratory experimental data, and statistical analysis were used to describe fish entrainment by similar cylindrical intakes using scale models with variable slot dimensions and variable water flow and approach velocities. The reactions of early life stages of several fish species with morphologically different larval body types from 0.3 to 2.3 mm in length were tested (NAI and ASA 2011). Compact body shapes were tested with larvae of Atlantic tomcod (Microgadus tomcod),

Atlantic cod (Gadus morhua), and hybrid striped bass (Morone saxatilis striped bass males x Morone chrysops white bass females), and common carp. Elongate body shapes were represented by white sucker (Catostomus commersonii). Results of these studies can be used to characterize the mechanisms that lead to exclusion or entrainment of fish from similar intakes (Enercon 2010, as summarized in a memorandum to Energy Northwest by Coutant 2014b).

For fish that occur near a cylindrical intake, the following sequential events determined the proportion of fish that are ultimately entrained or impinged by the intake structure. These mechanisms of entrainment by a cylindrical intake apply broadly to egg, larval, early juvenile, and in some cases adult stages of small bodied species. Each event described below represents a mechanism by which fish may avoid entrainment by a cylindrical screen (NAI and ASA 2011):

1. Hydraulic Bypass - Hydraulic bypass describes the portion of the water and particles (such as fish) that pass near to the intake structure but are not withdrawn from the river due to hydrodynamic and physical phenomena around the intake structure such as turbulence. For fish that encounter an intake screen, the probability of hydraulic bypass is related to river channel flow characteristics and screen characteristics. A combination of CFD modeling, laboratory experimental data, and statistical analysis found that the probability of hydraulic bypass for cylindrical wedge wire screens was primarily related to the physical bow wave at the nose cone, the sweeping velocity (the velocity parallel to the screen face) and to the screen characteristics of slot width and approach velocity (perpendicular to the screen face), but unrelated to screen Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 31 February 2019

diameter or length (NAI and ASA 2011). The potential for hydraulic bypass at the actual CGS intakes can be evaluated using data from CFD modeling that quantified sweeping velocity and approach velocity under various river and operating conditions (Alden 2018).

2. Behavioral Avoidance - Fish have highly sensitive sensory systems that detect changes in fluid flows and often show an avoidance reaction to rapid changes in water velocity and pressure (Liao 2007; Stewart et al. 2014). In laboratory screen studies, the majority of larval fish that were not hydraulically bypassed avoided entrainment by actively swimming away from flow changes around the nose cone of a cylindrical screen (NAI and ASA 2011). The probability of behavioral avoidance was positively related to fish length and negatively related to sweeping velocity. In laboratory testing and CFD modeling, the diameter of the cylindrical screen as a function of the overall channel cross-section was not included in the probability calculation. Recent CFD modeling confirmed that the CGS intakes do create a stable bow wave extending several feet upstream of the nose of the intake that could provide the pressure change stimulus to fish that encounter the structures (Alden 2018). An assumption is that larval or juvenile fish encountering a cylindrical intake can sense the change in pressure or velocity associated with the bow wave well-before encountering the intake screens, and that they have the ability to respond to the sensory stimulus of the intake flow by actively swimming away from the intake. Fish must have the short burst swimming capacity to escape approach velocities. Particularly relevant is the startle response, in which the fish rapidly forms a C shape and snaps open thrusting the body away from the initial trajectory (Taylor and McPhail 1985; Stewart et al. 2014; Nair et al. 2015).

This occurs in milliseconds. In order to exhibit successful behavioral avoidance fish must have an available escape route (NMFS 2011a), which for the CGS intakes is the sweeping flow around the intake unit. This is not the case for eggs, embryos, and some larval fish.

3. Exclusion - Exclusion is determined by fish size and screen pore diameter. If fish are not hydraulically bypassed and are unable to avoid the intake structure by startle response or swimming away, the geometry of the screen will mechanically exclude fish that are larger than the screen pore diameter. Effective pore size may also be affected by through-hole flow patterns at the micro scale

4. Sweep-Off or Impingement - For the fish that do come into contact with the screen, but are excluded by size, a portion of these will be swept-off by flows parallel to the screen face while any remaining fish will be impinged. The probability of sweep-off is determined by sweeping velocity, approach velocity, screen pore diameter, and fish size.

This results in four possible outcomes for fish (summarized in Figure 9) two of which are positive (no involvement with the intake structure or exclusion) and two of which are negative (impingement or entrainment).

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 32 February 2019

Figure 9 Sequential Events that Determine Fish Entrainment or Impingement Source: Adapted from NAI and ASA 2011 These controlled studies of fish interactions with the physical forces around a cylindrical intake structure provide a framework for evaluating the likelihood of entrainment by highlighting several metrics that determine how fish transition through the above sequence of events.

In an idealized experiment, the probabilities of the first three events (hydraulic bypass, behavioral avoidance, and exclusion) that determine the overall probability of entrainment for organisms that Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 33 February 2019

encounter the intake screen could be tested using live fish at the CGS intake in its existing location to develop the following relationship:

= 1 (1 )(1 )

Based on the following assumptions, if the probability of either bypass, avoidance, or exclusion is 100%, the probability of entrainment falls to zero. To approximate results of such an idealized experiment, one can rely on information about the intake and species characteristics from existing literature.

• The probability of bypass can be estimated based on studies of cylindrical intakes in controlled laboratory settings and compared to what is known about the dimensions and orientation of the CGS intake structure in the river. Hydraulics around the CGS intake, and therefore the probability of hydraulic bypass, may change over time with predictable seasonal changes in the river environment. CFD modeling of the CGS intakes under a variety of river conditions provides flow velocity and direction data at the nose cones and along the screen surfaces that can be used to evaluate the probability of bypass at this specific location.

• The probability of active avoidance depends on the abilities of species and life stages to sense rapid changes in pressure or velocity and have the startle response and adequate swimming strength to avoid the screen. Quantitative information is lacking for such abilities by all fish species in the CGS vicinity, but general assumptions can be made based on existing knowledge of similar species available in the literature.

• The probability of exclusion can be estimated based on fish sizes relative to the intakes outer screen pore size and the near-pore hydraulics identified by the CFD modeling.

To estimate the risk of entrainment to different fish species, the state of the knowledge related to these mechanisms of entrainment are reviewed in the following sections.

3.2.1 Specifications of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Relative to NMFS Criteria It is important to consider the geometry of cylindrical intake structures and orientation of the structure relative to the main flow of the river channel to accurately evaluate risk of entrainment and impingement.

The CGS intake structures are located approximately mid-channel of the main channel of the Columbia River, on the right of Homestead Island when looking downstream. The cylindrical screens are oriented parallel to the predominant flow through the reach. The structural and operational Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 34 February 2019

specifications of the cylindrical screens in use at CGS that are relevant to evaluating risk of fish entrainment are summarized in Table 3. Potential sweeping velocities, approach velocities, and through-hole approach velocity across the intake screens have been derived using CFD modeling.

Table 3 Columbia Generating Station Cylindrical Screen Specifications Specification Measurement Number of intake structures 2 Number of screens per intake structure 2; 1 outer and 1 inner Outer screen diameter 1.07 m (42 inch)

Outer screen pore diameter 9.50 mm (0.375 inch)

Inner screen diameter 0.91 m (36 inch)

Inner screen pore diameter 19.05 mm (0.75 inch)

Screen length 1.98 m (6.50 feet)

Screen elevation (top) 104 m (341 feet) MSL Average intake flow per 2-screen intake structure* 8,500 gpm or 19 cfs (0.54 cubic mps)

Average approach velocity for bulk flow* 0.07 fps Average through-hole velocity* 0.16 fps Hydrodynamically-effective pore diameter* ~3 mm Note:

• Source: Alden 2018. Assumes screen is clear of debris Specific criteria for cylindrical screens like those in use at CGS have not been included in NMFS criteria for fish screen and bypass facilities, and the CGS intake structures pre-date the initial development of intake criteria (NMFS 2011a). Nevertheless, certain elements of the criteria developed for end of pipe intake screens provide a starting point for evaluating the effect of intake screen geometry on potential approach velocities and risk to the size classes of fish that could become entrained, summarized in Table 4.

Table 4 NMFS Criteria for Preventing Fish Entrainment or Impingement by End of Pipe Screens Criteria Value Near-field sweeping velocity 2.5 fps or greater Approach velocity 0.2 fps or less Outer screen pore diameter 2.4 mm Submergence depth (at least 1 screen radius) 0.53 m (21 inch)

Note:

Source: NMFS 2011a Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 35 February 2019

Comparing the CGS cylindrical intake to those used in controlled laboratory studies of fish entrainment is a useful starting point for evaluating this type of intake relative to NMFS criteria.

However, caution should be taken in comparing the CGS intake structure to existing entrainment experiments with cylindrical intakes because most experiments have been conducted on screens using wedge wire rather than the perforated-pore screen used at CGS. Because of similar overall shapes of the screen structures, however, cylindrical intakes with perforated screens downstream of a nose cone likely have similar hydraulic bypass characteristics to cylindrical intakes with similarly placed wedge wire screens and fish are likely to have a similar behavioral response; however, the differences in pore shape and size may have different near-field hydraulic characteristics that cause different impingement and entrainment risk (Enercon 2010).

CFD modeling carried out by Alden Labs (2018) provides a wealth of data on the hydrodynamics around the CGS intake structures as they pertain to entrainment and impingement risk to fish. First, a broader scale global model was run for a range of conditions that could be observed at the CGS intakes: three different river velocities commonly observed over the year at the site (3, 6, and 9 fps), five river flow attack angles inferred by geomorphology of the channel (-24°, -12°, -6°, 0°, and 12°), and two make-up pump operating conditions (off/on). Key findings of the global model included the following:

• At the highest river velocity (9 fps) a low pressure bow wave extends from the nose of the intakes approximately 10 to 15 ft upstream whether pumps are operating or not, changing only slightly in size with changes in river velocity or obliqueness of flow

• A boundary layer of turbulent flow exists along the cylindrical screens that is much thinner when pump units are off. More oblique flows compress the boundary layer of the up-current face and expands the boundary on the leeward face, where a low pressure back-eddy develops and flow must move back toward the screen face.

Second, a near-field model was run to investigate the boundary layer and its interaction with screen perforations at a scale on the order of a few millimeters. The near-field model was run for a subset of global model flow conditions that encompassed the extremes in river velocity and attack angle and pump unit operation. Key findings of the near-field model included the following:

• Flow distribution across the screens exhibited some non-uniformity decreasing the effective screen area and causing regions of concentrated inflow.

• Sweeping velocity generally increases with river velocity and obliqueness of flow, but is remarkably similar whether pump units are operating or not. Sweeping velocity is above NMFS criteria of 2.5 fps for all simulations, with a single exception at very low river velocity (3 fps) and the most extreme attack angle (-24°) where sweeping velocity near the leeward face of the downstream screen drops to approximately 1.5 to 2 fps.

• The layer in which flow is oriented toward the screen face generally thins with increasing river velocity, ranging from approximately 400 mm at 3 fps to 200 mm at 9 fps. Approach velocity Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 36 February 2019

varies within a few millimeters of the screen where flow rapidly accelerates through the screen pores. Oblique river flow acts to force water into the up-current face at velocities that exceed the NMFS criterion for approach velocity of 0.2 fps. Approach velocity increases slightly when pump units are operating and increases somewhat with river velocity, depending on obliqueness of flow and whether the screen faces up-current or leeward of the flow. Approach velocity is consistently less that the NMFS criteria of 0.2 fps at an arbitrary distance of 200 mm from the screen face when flow is axial to the intake structures. Approach velocity increases nearer to the screen face (20 mm from the screen face), exceeding (violating) NMFS criterion in some cases. When flows are oblique to the screen face, the NMFS criterion is violated for all cases modeled on the up-current, upstream face that bears the brunt of the river flow, regardless of whether the pump units are operating or not. On the leeward, downstream face, the NMFS criterion is generally met except at the leading edge of the screen where inflow is intensified.

The intake screen hole diameter at CGS is 9.5 mm, which is four times larger than the 2.4 mm pore diameter recommended by NMFS (NMFS 2011a, 2013a,b). The larger hole size increases the risk for entrainment compared to the 0.5 to 3 mm slot widths used in most cylindrical wedge wire laboratory and field testing (EPRI 2007; NAI and ASA 2011). Flow conditions through screen pores at the micro scale is affected by river flow and operating conditions; CFD modeling at CGS demonstrated that the effective pore size would be approximately 1/3 of the actual pore diameter due to a counter-rotating micro-eddy that could impede entrainment through the pores.

Perforated screen intakes are known to have surface profiles that are prone to clogging or snagging, resulting in greater head loss and poor velocity distribution across the screen face, and are now considered obsolete for most new developments (Enercon 2010). The intakes at CGS are passive screens and do not have an automated cleaning system for removing debris (NMFS 2011a, 2013a,b),

putting the CGS intakes at greater risk for debris build up compared to a screen with automated cleaning systems. There is a risk that such fouling could create localized areas of higher approach velocity as the total area of screen intake is reduced (Enercon 2010; Reclamation 2009). The CGS intakes orientation parallel with the river channel and sweeping flows minimizes the potential for debris to become impinged on the intake structure. A 1985 study at CGS found no evidence that fouling by algae, insects, sponges, or plastic debris impeded proper operation of the intakes (WPPSS 1985) and debris impingement has not been identified as an operating problem over the 30 years of past operations at CGS. CGS periodically inspects and cleans intake structure screens as needed to reduce biofouling.

According to NMFS criteria (NMFS 2011a), end of pipe screens should be submerged to a depth of at least one screen radius below the minimum water surface to protect fish from entrainment; for the CGS intake structures this would amount to 21 inches of submergence between the top of the screen and river surface. Seasonally-fluctuating flows in the Hanford Reach create conditions of relatively Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 37 February 2019

shallow water over the CGS intake structure in late summer to early fall that may increase risk of fish entrainment (seasonal trends in flow and velocity at CGS are explored further in Sections 4 and 5). It should be noted, however, that NMFS does not provide submergence criteria for cylindrical screens oriented parallel to the stream channel as is the case at CGS, and that shallower conditions may in fact increase the sweeping velocity at the top of the screen, increasing the likelihood of hydraulic bypass and reducing risk of entrainment (Coutant 2014b).

In summary, given the size of the intakes, the pumping rate, and NMFS recommendation that the entire screen face area be used in calculation of the approach velocity, the CGS intakes generally meet NMFS requirement that approach velocity be less than or equal to 0.2 fps (0.06 meters per second [mps]) for salmonid fry when both intakes are running and are clear of debris (NMFS 2011a, 2013a,b). Exceptions are identified by CFD modeling that shows local scale turbulence and areas of higher approach velocity, especially with oblique flows. Fish vulnerability to entrainment or impingement may increase as pores become clogged with debris and biofouling, or total submergence is less than recommended (NMFS 2011a), such as occurs at CGS during extreme low flow conditions, (Enercon 2010; NMFS 2011a, 2013b).

3.2.2 Hanford Reach Morphology, River Discharge, and Effects on Sweeping Velocity and Depth Hydraulic conditions around the intake depend upon interactions between river morphology and river discharge. A complete understanding of the effects of river discharge on river elevation and velocity is necessary to more thoroughly evaluate the resulting hydraulic conditions at the CGS intake as they affect vulnerability of fish to entrainment or impingement. River velocity at the site will be a major factor determining the probability of hydraulic bypass and sweep-off for species typically observed near the CGS intake. Seasonal differences in river elevation and velocity will also influence the tendency for certain fish species and life stages to occur near the CGS intake structure, given that different species and life stages tend to occur at certain times of year and prefer specific hydraulic conditions.

Despite upstream flow regulation, the unimpounded Hanford Reach maintains its historical variability in channel morphology and bathymetry compared to impounded reaches. Numerous side channels and islands create small-scale variations in velocity throughout the reach. The CGS intake is in the river right channel where the Columbia splits into two channels separated by Homestead Island and the river right channel is the wider of the two. While the intake is positioned near mid-channel by design, the depth of the water covering the intake structures and water velocity fluctuates with the natural hydrograph and with daily regulation of flow from PRD. PRD is a run-of-river type dam, so the magnitude of seasonal fluctuations in river discharge greatly exceed the storage capacity, allowing for major changes in flow in the Hanford Reach across seasons and across years, depending on regional climatic conditions.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 38 February 2019

Laboratory studies on cylindrical intake studies provide a good baseline of screen performance; however, changes in river flow and stage will affect flow angle and sweeping velocities, and therefore performance in the field. To address this data gap, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation recommends that field evaluations be conducted for a wide variety of flow conditions to fully evaluate screen performance (Reclamation 2009). Energy Northwest directly measured velocities at various depths near the intake structures during high flows on June 23, 2017, when the annual maximum discharge reached approximately 310,000 cfs at Priest Rapids Dam (Table 5). Near-surface velocity was estimated to be approximately 7.6 fps based on boat drift speed, and depth was approximately 16 to 19 feet in the vicinity of the structures. More precise velocity measurements taken at 1 and 3 feet below the boat (corrected for boat drift) range from approximately 6 to 9 fps, with higher values occurring at shallower depths.

Table 5 Velocity Observations on June 23, 2017, as Reported by Energy Northwest Velocity (fps)

Location 1-foot depth ~ 3-foot depth At intake structures 8.8 5.6 8.9 5.5 50 feet south of intake structures 7.7 7.7 8.7 7.3 8.5 50 feet north of intake structures 7.4 6.2 7.2 6.2 Additional direct field measurement of a broader range of flow conditions at the CGS intake is outside the scope of the current report; however due to its unique hydraulic conditions compared to impounded reaches and its importance for salmon habitat, the Hanford Reach has been the focus of intensive study since the 1970s.

To better characterize relationships between river discharge and hydrodynamic conditions, the Modular Aquatic Simulation System in One and Two Dimensions (MASS1 and MASS2) model has been used by Battelle-Pacific Northwest National Laboratory scientists to simulate hydraulics throughout the reach and across time based on mapped bathymetry (Coleman et al. 2010) and river discharge observed from 1917 through 2011. The MASS1 model produces averaged predictions for river discharge, velocity, water elevation, and temperature per individual cross sections. The MASS 2 model can predict the same metrics, but does so in a plan view, thus producing averages per cell.

This provides spatially distributed estimates across the river channel in the resolution of the available bathymetric data. The most comprehensive modeling of the Hanford Reach to date was conducted in Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 39 February 2019

2014; the entire reach was modeled using both MASS1 and MASS2 to a resolution of 5 m (Niehus et al. 2014). These modeled hydraulic data are used here to estimate the range of river conditions that can occur at the CGS intake.

Estimated velocity, water depth, and water surface elevation at the specific location of the CGS intake structure was modelled using the MASS2 model at river discharges representing times of particular biological significance (Table 6). A range of river discharge levels were modeled to correspond to conditions that could be observed during extreme low flow conditions (40 kcfs), mean conditions during minimum flows typically observed in October (70 kcfs), mean conditions in March when fall Chinook salmon fry begin to emerge (100 kcfs), mean conditions in June when peak flows and peak smolt migration typically occurs (190 kcfs), and extreme high flow conditions (350 kcfs).

Typical depths and velocities in given months of the year, shown in Figures 10 and 11, respectively, illustrate that depth and velocity are not evenly distributed across the channel, and localized variation exists within this reach. Depths and velocities resulting from the minimum and maximum river discharges observed across the period of record (1917 through 2011) are depicted in Figures 12 and 13. During these months the average river discharge ranges from 100 to 190 kcfs with corresponding water depths of 0 to 28 feet and velocities ranging from 0 to 6 fps within the reach upstream and downstream of the intake structure. Additional visualization of the hydrodynamic conditions near the CGS intake structure are included in Appendix C, Hydrodynamic Model Description and Data, Perkins et al. 2018.

Table 6 Modeled Hydraulic Conditions at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure at Different River Discharge Levels River Discharge Depth Velocity Water Surface Elevation Flow Threshold Biological Relevance (kcfs) (feet) (fps) (cubic feet)

Average March Fall Chinook salmon 100 16 5 347.8 Flow1 emergence begins Average June Seasonal high flows 190 20 6 353.4 Flow1 Average Seasonal low flows 70 12 4 345.6 October Flow Minimum Flow Historical extreme low 40 8 3 343.2 (Daily Mean) flows Maximum Flow Historical extreme 350 24 7 360.6 (Daily Mean) high flows Notes:

1. Hanford Reach Chinook salmon fry occur from March through June.

Source: Perkins et al. 2018 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 40 February 2019

Figure 10 Mean Monthly Water Depths in March (Left Panel), June (Middle Panel), and October (Right Panel)

Note: Monthly means are based on river discharge observed from 1917 through 2011. The location of the CGS intake structure and buried intake pipes are shown in black.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 41 February 2019

Figure 11 Mean Monthly Water Velocities in March (100 kcfs; Left Panel), June (190 kcfs; Middle Panel), and October (70 kcfs; Right Panel)

Note: Monthly means are based on river discharge observed during the period of record from 1917 through 2011. The location of the CGS intake structure and buried intake pipes are shown in black.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 42 February 2019

Figure 12 Minimum (Left Panel) and Maximum (Right Panel) Water Depths Note: Data are based on monthly mean river discharge levels for the maximum and minimum on record since 1917. The location of the CGS intake structure and buried intake pipes are shown in black.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 43 February 2019

Figure 13 Minimum (Left Panel) and Maximum (Right Panel) Water Velocities at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structures Note: Data are based on monthly mean river discharge levels for the maximum and minimum on record since 1917. The location of the CGS intake structure and buried intake pipes are shown in black.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 44 February 2019

3.2.3 Historical Spring River Elevations and River Discharges Broad seasonal fluctuations in water level occur in the Hanford Reach and are driven primarily by the natural hydrograph, and secondarily by flow regulation from upstream dams. Prior to the implementation of the VBSA (signed in 1979, implemented in 1984, and finalized in June of 1988),

rapid changes in river discharge from PRD caused dewatering of redds in the fall and stranded large numbers of juvenile salmon in the spring. The VBSA set minimum flow levels at 70 kcfs leaving PRD (Grant PUD 2004). The HRFCPPA (enacted in 1999 and finalized in 2004) superseded and replaced the VBSA to set a critical minimum flow each year based on the elevational distribution of the salmon redds within the Hanford Reach and minimize the magnitude of flow fluctuations during the rearing period (Grant PUD 2004). This change in dam operation regimes over time presents a unique case to be able to observe changes in the frequency of extreme water level conditions that can affect entrainment.

River elevation at the CGS intake site was modeled for river discharges from March of 1976 to January of 2016 (Niehus et al. 2014; Perkins et al. 2018), thus encompassing periods prior to implementation of the VBSA in 1984, after implementation of the VBSA, and after initial application of the HRFCPPA agreement in 1999. Table 7 and Figure 14 display the number of low water events, mean event duration in hours, mean river flow, and mean river discharge during the events for each period. Standard deviation (SD) is reported to illustrate the spread in the data, reported as one SD around the mean, which represents the majority (68.2%) of the data points, assuming the data are normally distributed. The top elevation of the CGS screen is 104.02 m (341.30 feet) above MSL, and the minimum amount of submergence to protect fish from entrainment if considered an end of pipe screen would be one screen radius, 21 inches, or approximately 1.75 feet (NMFS 2011a); therefore, for this analysis, a low water event as it relates to elevated risk of fish entrainment is classified as the river elevation falling below 104.56 m (343.05 feet) MSL.

Extreme low water elevations occurred more frequently prior to the VBSA (52 events in 9 years compared to 54 events in 32 years). However, despite the greater number of events in the pre-VBSA years, the mean duration of such events is actually the highest in the post HRFCPPA period. During the 1999 to 2015 period, low flow events lasted on average 24.1 hours1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br />. In 2001 and 2002, five events exceeding 40 hours4.62963e-4 days <br />0.0111 hours <br />6.613757e-5 weeks <br />1.522e-5 months <br />, with one event lasting longer than 80 hours9.259259e-4 days <br />0.0222 hours <br />1.322751e-4 weeks <br />3.044e-5 months <br />. During the VBSA period, the majority of low flow events were short in duration. This can be compared to the events of the HRFCPPA period, when fewer low flow events have occurred, but the mean duration of low flow events has been longer. Note that the HRFCPPA was not finalized until 2004, and since then there has only been one 2-hour extreme low-flow event in 2015.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 45 February 2019

Table 7 Summary of Extreme Low Water Events at the Columbia Generating Station Intake during the Juvenile Chinook Salmon Emergence and Migration Period Mean Duration of Low Flow Mean River Mean River Number Events +/- SD Flow +/- SD Stage +/- SD Agreement Period Years of Events (hours) (cfs) (feet)

Pre-VBSA 1975 through 1983 9 52 11.9 +/- 10.7 49,170 +/- 5,098 342.5 +/- 0.5 VBSA 1984 through 1998 15 33 8.7 +/- 9.1 55,140 +/- 2,888 342.9 +/- 0.2 HRFCPPA 1999 through 2015 17 21 24.1 +/- 27.0 49,794 +/- 5,707 342.6 +/- 0.5 Note:

The juvenile Chinook salmon emergence and migration period is defined as March 1 through June 30. Data are modeled to estimated river flow and stage at the CGS intake. One SD around the mean is given to show the spread of the data, representing the majority of the data (68%) assuming the data are normally distributed.

Figure 14 Number of Hours River Elevation Fell Below 343.05 Feet at the Columbia Generating Station Intake by Year and Agreement Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 46 February 2019

4 Entrainment Risk at the Columbia Generating Station The biological and physical factors that determine encounters, exclusion, entrainment, or impingement with intake structures can be combined and used to determine whether individual species that are present in the Hanford Reach are at higher or lower risk, due to their habitat preferences, size, and life history characteristics (Figure 15).

Figure 15 Determining Factors of Encounter, Exclusion, Entrainment, or Impingement of a Species or Life Stage at the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 47 February 2019

4.1 Fish Presence in Hanford Reach Of all species and life stages that are known to occur in the Hanford Reach, a subset can be identified that are at elevated risk of entrainment or impingement because their habitat preferences increase their potential to occur in proximity to the CGS intake. The species listed in Table 8 are:

1) abundant in the Hanford Reach; 2) prefer mid-channel or benthic habitat; and 3) inhabit waters where conditions exceed the minimum depth and velocity observed at the CGS intake site of 8 feet and 3 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The subset of species and life stages listed are also those that can be small in body size, increasing their risk of impingement or entrainment due to poor swimming ability or ability to pass through screen pores. The complete list of species that occur in the Hanford Reach are the focus of Section 3 and are listed in Table B-1 in Appendix B.

Of the 14 species listed in Table 8 and shown in Figure 16, nearly all overlap in proximity to CGS in September through October, with the exception of migratory salmonids. This exception includes Hanford Reach subyearling fall Chinook salmon, which typically have emigrated from the reach by September. March through June is when fall Chinook salmon fry emerge in the Hanford Reach and therefore are most at risk of entrainment. March through June is also when smolts from upstream tributaries are typically migrating through the Hanford Reach. Low flows in late summer through winter largely affect resident fish species and those with extended residency before outmigration (steelhead, lamprey). River discharge is typically lowest in October, resulting in lowest average monthly river depths and lowest sweeping velocities past the CGS intake. In Figure 16, the presence of a given species in the Hanford Reach over time is indicated by gray bars. The species that occur in the Hanford Reach during periods of highest fish abundance and lowest flows are indicated by yellow and orange, respectively.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 48 February 2019

Table 8 Species and Life Stages at Risk of Exposure to the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Preferred Preferred Size Common Name Scientific Name Life Stage Preferred Habitat Type Depth (feet) Velocity (fps) (length in mm)

Herring Juvenile American Shad Alosa sapidissima Mid-channel, Sloughs 3 to 20 0.1 to 2.5 75 to 125 (Age-0)*

Lamprey High; Macrophthalmia Mid-channel/ Benthic 3 to 40 individuals drift 125 to 200 with flow Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Less than 0.8 Ammocoetes* Mid-channel/ Benthic 2 to 3 (prefer less Less than 125 than 0.3)

Minnows and Carps Nearshore, pools, then mid- Shallow to Low to Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Juvenile 30 to 250 channel later in summer deep Moderate Nearshore, pools, then mid- Greater than Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Juvenile* Greater than 3 9 to 75 channel later in summer 15 Nearshore, then mid- Shallow to Low to Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus Juvenile 9 to 75 channel later in summer deep Moderate Salmonids Nearshore, then mid-Chinook Salmon, Fall Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Juvenile (Age-0) 5 to 20 < 2.6 45 to 80 channel later in summer Chinook Salmon, Spring O. tshawytscha Smolt Mid-channel 6.5 to 40 3 to 4.5 100 to 225 Coho Salmon O. kisutch Smolt Mid-channel 5 to 40 3 to 4.5 90 to 130 Sockeye Salmon O. nerka Smolt Mid-channel 6.5 to 40 3 to 4.5 74 to 100 Nearshore, then mid-Steelhead O. mykiss Juvenile (Age-0) Less than 10 Less than 1.5 35 to 155 channel later in summer Steelhead O. mykiss Smolt Mid-channel 13 to 40 4 to 4.5 165 to 240 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 49 February 2019

Preferred Preferred Size Common Name Scientific Name Life Stage Preferred Habitat Type Depth (feet) Velocity (fps) (length in mm)

Suckers Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus Juvenile (Age-0) Mid-channel 2 to 8 Low Less than 80 Largescale Sucker C. macrocheilus Juvenile (Age-0) Nearshore/ Benthic, Pools 0.3 to 15 Low 8 to 55 Note:

• Larvae have a pelagic stage Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 50 February 2019

Figure 16 Seasonal Occurrence of Fish Species at Risk of Entrainment in Relation to Average Daily River Discharge Notes:

Fish presence is indicated by gray bars. Months with highest abundance of juvenile fish are highlighted in yellow. Months with lowest sweeping velocity and water depth are highlighted in orange. Mean Daily River Discharge shows the daily mean river discharge below PRD with each day represented by a black dot and the overall seasonal trend represented by the blue line. Data were collected from January 1975 through January 2016.

• Eggs may drift, or larvae have a drifting pelagic phase vulnerable to entrainment by the CGS intake.

4.2 Habitat Preference Of this subset of fish species and life stages that could occur near the CGS intake, most are more likely to inhabit shallow nearshore areas with low velocities during very early larval and juvenile development phases. Risk of becoming exposed to the intake structure may increase as age-0 fry grow throughout the summer and begin to move offshore into the mid-channel habitat. American shad larvae may also be vulnerable to entrainment during their very early pelagic stage, prior to recruiting to shallow nearshore habitats; however, in the Hanford Reach, American shad larvae are mainly observed in backwater slough habitats in contrast to impounded reaches where they are observed across the entire channel (e.g., John Day Reservoir; Petersen et al. 2003).

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 51 February 2019

Declining river discharge in September through November to annual minimums may pose additional risk to fish along with a corresponding reduction in submergence depth of the intake screens (less than 12 feet total river depth and less than 8.5 feet depth over the top of the cylindrical screens; Figure 10) and sweeping velocity (less than 4 fps). The reduction in flow may increase the likelihood for juveniles or small-bodied adults such as minnows to encounter the intake structures at shallower depths and slower velocities; however, risk to these species is still relatively low in the fall due to their tendency to prefer areas with overhanging cover or aquatic vegetation and velocities less than 4 fps.

The assumptions about fish risk of entrainment based on depth and habitat preferences are only estimates based on review of the literature; a conservative analysis should assume that fish may behave outside the norm. For instance, Dauble et al. (1989) found subyearling Chinook salmon in the Hanford Reach throughout the water column and across the entire river channel up to mean river depths of 40 feet and velocities of 5 fps, although the common assumption is that their habitat preferences would isolate them to shallow, slow velocity, nearshore areas. In addition, more fish may encounter the intake structure at times of the year when fish densities are highest, such as in March through May for Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon or June through September for spring-spawning minnows and suckers.

4.3 Fish Size Nearly all other species that are prone to entrainment as age-0 juveniles may experience fast growth in their first summer and may be too large to become entrained by September. Other fishes that reside in the Hanford Reach are poor swimmers and small enough to become entrained through the intake screens; however, their depth and velocity preferences make it unlikely that they would occur in close proximity to the intake structure. These include the dace species, redside shiner, and sculpin species, that prefer very shallow water less than 3 feet deep, and age-0 juvenile sturgeon, mountain whitefish, walleye, crappie, and lamprey ammocoetes that prefer low velocities less than 1.5 fps. Risk of entraining these species is low, but not zero, as they may become exposed to the intake as they drift downstream from upstream habitats or spawning areas.

4.4 Hydraulic Bypass Hydraulic bypass is the phenomenon that some fish in the water directly approaching the intake system would likely pass by the screen (bypass) without coming close enough to it to be vulnerable to entrainment or impingement. Three mechanisms can lead to hydraulic bypass, that is, passing the screen before becoming involved with the approach velocity and through-pore velocities that cause fish to become entrained through the screen. First, hydraulic bypass at the CGS intakes is first determined by the bow wave, i.e., the pressure and velocity changes at the nose cone that create flow vectors away from the screen at the sides of the cone. Second, the bow wave can also induce a startle response and active avoidance behavior by the fish stimulated by the hydraulic patterns Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 52 February 2019

around the intake. Third, the sweeping flow can move fish along the screen before they can be affected by the approach velocity (sweeping velocity greater than approach velocities). Early studies lumped all fish bypassing the structure as hydraulic bypass without distinguishing between the mechanisms, other than theoretically. More recent lab experiments have distinguished between the physical and behavioral factors that can cause fish to be bypassed.

Physical factors that cause hydraulic bypass are a function of the interactions between approach velocity at the face of the intake screen and sweeping velocity past the intake screen. Generally, at the CGS intake structure, approach velocity of the bulk flow is 0.07 fps (0.02 mps) for average operating conditions and 0.16 fps (0.05 mps) through-pore velocity. Both are much less than the sweeping velocity of the free-flowing Columbia River.

The two cylindrical intake screens at CGS are oriented parallel to the stream channel; therefore, the modelled river surface velocity oriented in the same direction can be used as a surrogate measure of the sweeping velocity. Average river velocity at the CGS site ranged from 3 fps at the lowest river discharge levels to 7 fps at the highest river discharge levels observed over the period of record from 1917 to 2011. At very high flows observed on June 23, 2017, direct measurements of surface velocity reached 8.9 fps at just 1 ft below the surface and 5.6 fps at 3 ft below the surface. Modeled mean velocities range from lows of 4 fps in October to highs of 6 fps in June. Even at the lowest river discharge levels, river velocity at the CGS intake structure exceeds the maximum approach velocity created by intake suction more than fiftyfold. Therefore, at the river scale, sweeping velocity overcomes approach velocity of the CGS intake structure throughout the year. Given the much greater sweeping velocities relative to approach velocities observed at the CGS intake structure, and assuming approach velocity is not greatly amplified by reduction in intake area due to clogged screen pores, it is likely that most fish bypass the intake structure without becoming entrained or impinged. Extrapolating from cylindrical wedge wire laboratory test data to sweeping velocities of 3 fps or greater, the probability of bypass is expected to be 0.8 or greater (NAI and ASA 2011).

Finer-scale investigation of the hydrodynamics around the intake structure a by CFD modeling revealed localized variation in sweeping and approach velocity as water moves around and through the intake screens. The ratio of sweeping velocity to approach velocity is a concise indicator of entrainment or impingement risk derived from the near-field CFD modeling, where higher values indicate lower risk (Alden 2018). Using NMFS criteria of minimum threshold for sweeping velocity of 2.5 fps and maximum threshold for approach velocity of 0.2 fps, a minimum threshold for the ratio could be inferred to be 12.5. This threshold is generally exceeded (NMFS criterion met) when flow is axial to the intake screens with marginal exceptions occurring locally very near the upstream edge of the downstream screen only. When flow is oblique to the screens the ratio is consistently less than 12.5 (in violation) at a distance of 200 mm from the up-current, upstream screen face, but increases Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 53 February 2019

in value closer to the screen face (within 20 mm) as stream flow is forced to turn to become more tangential to the screen face.

4.5 Behavioral Avoidance for Bypass The pressure bow wave that exists at the nose of the intakes is relatively large in size (reaching 10-15 ft upstream) relative to the size of juvenile and small-bodied fish at highest risk of entrainment or impingement. This bow wave is the first stimulus a downstream-migrating fish would encounter around the intake structure and may provide a strong signal for fish to swim away from the structure before coming within several feet of the screens, if not cause hydraulic bypass of fishes that are pushed out of the way of the structure by the bow wave. Of the fish that are not protected by hydraulic bypass and come closer to CGS intake structure, many would have the ability to respond behaviorally to sudden changes in flow (pressure or velocity) with an avoidance responses. As demonstrated in laboratory experiments, the avoidance can have two phases, a rapid and largely involuntary startle response that breaks the drifting trajectory (milliseconds) followed by active burst swimming. Assuming a submergence depth of at least one screen radius as required by NMFS guidelines (NMFS 2011a), at a river velocity of 2 fps, a fish approximately 20 mm in length would be expected to avoid the screen 95% of the time (NAI and ASA 2011). As bulk river velocity increases, the ability of fish to avoid the CGS intakes will decrease, but the probability of hydraulic bypass will also increase (NAI and ASA 2011).

NMFS screen criteria (2011a) are intentionally conservative to protect the weakest fish, in this case, those fish that are poor swimmers that may encounter the CGS intake by chance if not prevented by hydraulic conditions. The smallest and weakest life stages that may become entrained are young of the year juveniles and larvae of species listed in Table 8, including post-emergence fall Chinook salmon fry. Other species present in the Hanford Reach would have the ability to evade the typical bulk approach velocities of the CGS intake structure of 0.07 fps and through-pore velocities of 0.16 fps with escape or burst swimming even without high sweeping velocity, with the possible exception of drifting larval stages of American shad, Pacific lamprey, Northern pikeminnow, walleye, and white sturgeon.

4.6 Exclusion For fish that are not bypassed and are unable to swim away from the approach velocity, some will be physically excluded if they are larger than the CGS screen pore diameter of 9.5 mm (0.375 inch). In addition, micro-eddies created within screen pores have been identified with CFD modeling, which reduce the effective pore size to as small as 3 mm in diameter for entrainment of passive particles.

This effective pore size still exceeds the NMFS criterion of 2.4 mm, however. Fish size is typically discussed in terms of length; however, body depth or the size of the incompressible head may be the dimension most likely to determine the ability of some species to pass through small openings. Body Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 54 February 2019

depth is likely the determining factor for larval lamprey with an elongated cylindrical and flexible body shape, but in ammocoete entrainment studies probability of entrainment is tightly correlated with length (Rose and Mesa 2011). Head size may be the most important body dimension as in the case of resident fish like sculpin, that have a dorsal-ventrally flattened body shape.

The ratio of body length to depth has been used to predict juvenile salmonid entrainment or impingement (NMFS 2013a,b; Bell 1990); however, for many species and life stages, body depths are unavailable in reviewed literature. Using criteria presented by Bell (1990), fish with a body length of 75 mm are at risk for entrainment at the CGS intake. Salmonids with body lengths of 75 mm typically would have a body depth of 12 mm (Bell 1990); however, this varies by species and developmental and nutritional state.

4.7 Sweep-Off or Impingement Sweeping velocity also contributes to sweep-off, or the movement of eggs, larvae, or juvenile fish along the screen after initially becoming impinged. Sweep-off accounts for a minor component of fish that escape entrainment but become impinged on the surface of the intake screens. Boundary-layer hydrodynamics that may affect sweep-off are similar to those that affect hydraulic bypass. Fish that are larger in size than the screen pores but cannot avoid approach velocities may become impinged on the intake screens. Impingement is more likely to occur when sweeping velocity is lowest, such as in the fall, and on certain areas of a screen when oblique flow occurs.

4.8 Species at Risk An examination of the framework of biological and physical factors that determine fish interactions with the CGS intake reveals some species, life history stages, and seasons at potentially elevated risk.

However overall, the physical design of the intake effectively minimizes that risk. Characterizing risk for a given species is complicated by changes in species presence across seasons and river habitat that changes seasonally with flow. A species or life stage is at risk if an overlap exists between its seasonal presence and its preferred hydraulic conditions. For instance, many age-0 fish would be vulnerable when they occur at the smallest sizes in spring and early summer, but river discharge is highest during this time of the year, resulting in a smaller percentage of the flow encountering the intake structures than when river discharge is low. The high river flow also causes fry to tend to stay isolated in nearshore and backwater environments, away from the CGS intake structure located in deep, swift water in the mid-channel. Of the species and life stages that are at higher risk of encountering the intake structure, some species are present year-round and remain small in body size for at least their first year, whereas other species are only present for short periods of the summer or grow quickly in their first year so that they exceed a vulnerable size threshold by the end of the summer.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 55 February 2019

Figure 16 shows the seasonal presence of the species identified to be at highest risk of encountering the CGS intake based on overlapping habitat preference for mid-channel or benthic habitat with river conditions and fish size. A conservative assumption is that some risk exists for these species even though the CGS intake was designed to bypass most fish. That potential risk is a result of localized areas of concentrated inflow or minimal sweeping velocity around the intake screens revealed by the CFD models. In addition, flows that are oblique to the intake structures increase risk to fish by forcing flow directly through the intake screen on the up-current side of the upstream screen. It is possible that river discharge levels and river elevations cause more oblique flows to occur at specific times of the year and not others, however such direct measurements of hydraulic conditions around the CGS intake have not been performed. Therefore, the most conservative assumption is that periods of higher risk of encountering the intake occur when the most vulnerable species are present in highest abundance from March through September, highlighted in yellow in Figure 16.

Though hydraulic bypass of fish is facilitated by sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocity under most river discharge and river flow angles examined (Alden 2018), risk of encountering the intake may also increase late in the year when river velocity is lowest and submergence depths may fail to meet NMFS criteria of greater than one screen radius, or 1.75 feet, highlighted in orange in Figure 16.

4.8.1 Risk to Upper Columbia River Salmon and Steelhead Smolts Concerns have been raised about risk of entrainment and impingement to salmon and steelhead migrating from upstream spawning and nursery areas (upstream of Hanford Reach), including the upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon (ESA-listed as Endangered), upper Columbia River steelhead (Threatened), Wenatchee and Okanogan sockeye salmon (not listed), and coho salmon (coho salmon are unlisted, but currently a reintroduction effort exists to reverse historical extirpation from the middle and upper Columbia River Basin).

Typically, smolts originating from the upper Columbia River Basin follow a stream-type life-history strategy, spending an entire year rearing in headwater tributaries prior to navigating the mainstem Columbia River downstream to the ocean. These yearling smolts are relatively large, typically around 100 mm at the time of migration (see Table 8 and Appendix B for species specific sizes at emigration), and are a size that would prevent them from becoming entrained through the CGS intake screens (greater than 75 mm).

Once initiating their downstream migration, smolts tend move downstream rapidly by orienting with the main flow of the river, passing through the Hanford Reach in 1 to 2 days on average which reduces their exposure to the CGS intakes compared to species that rear in the reach for extended periods of time. In addition, smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin tend to behave in ways that greatly minimize their risk of impingement: their peak emigration timing is in spring and summer, Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 56 February 2019

concurrent with peak sweeping velocities (shown in Figure 16); they tend to migrate near the surface, placing them approximately 7 to 12 feet from the intake screens at this time of year.

Finally, yearling smolts are robust swimmers, with burst swimming capacities greater than 2.5 fps (Taylor and McPhail 1985) and sustained swimming speeds greater than 1.0 fps, which greatly exceed the bulk flow approach velocities of 0.07 fps through the CGS intakes.

Taken together, smolts from upper Columbia River tributaries are at small risk of encountering the CGS intakes due to their typical life-histories and migration behavior. If these smolts were to encounter the intake, there is a high likelihood they could become bypassed by hydraulics around the screens, or by burst-swimming as part of the startle response upon encountering the bow wave or approach velocities near screen pores. Finally, they are too large to become entrained, and while they could become impinged, their tendency to occur in the Hanford Reach during the periods of highest sweeping velocities in spring and early summer supports the hypothesis that they are likely to become swept of the face of the intake screens. Based on this combination of biological and physical factors, the risk of entrainment or impingement to migrating smolts from the upper Columbia River Basin is negligible for the CGS intake structures.

4.8.2 Risk to Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon As previously discussed in Section 2.1.1.1, fall Chinook salmon that originate from the Hanford Reach, although not ESA listed, have unique significance and are a key Columbia River Chinook salmon population, warranting a more detailed evaluation of entrainment risk. Fall Chinook salmon fry and age-0 juveniles are abundant in shallow nearshore areas near the CGS intake (EN 2010). To examine the risk posed by the CGS intake to fall Chinook salmon in detail, the framework of biological and physical factors that determine fish interactions with the CGS intake described in Section 3 can be examined relative to known biological characteristics of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon.

The large body of published literature on Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon, and Chinook salmon in general, can be used to evaluate risk level and change in risk over the season. The determining factors of entrainment are evaluated individually in Table 9 relative to the biological characteristics of Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon (discussed in detail in Section 2.1.1.1) to characterize the level of risk created by each individual factor. Each entrainment factor and relevant biological characteristics are briefly summarized on the left-hand side of Table 9, and the level of risk created by the entrainment factors and biological characteristics are shown on the right side of the table by month as red, yellow, and green, representing the range from high, to moderate, to low risk.

Table 9 shows that the entrainment factors that create the most risk for fall Chinook salmon are their presence in proximity to the intake structure, their habitat preference that causes them to move away from nearshore areas as they grow, and their small size relative to the external screen pore size.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 57 February 2019

These characteristics put fall Chinook salmon at relatively higher risk in April and May when large numbers of fry are both small in size and starting to move away from nearshore areas.

Entrainment factors that effectively minimize the risk to fall Chinook salmon are facilitated by orientation of the intake in a relatively high-velocity, near-mid-channel location, mostly parallel to flow which creates sweeping velocities that exceed typical approach velocity of the bulk flow by at least a factor of 50. It can also be assumed that fall Chinook salmon can effectively avoid entrainment given their ability to sense rapid changes in acceleration and burst swimming capacity, that also exceeds maximum approach velocity by a factor of 50.

It is the combination of the listed entrainment factors that determine the overall probability of entrainment for fish. In an idealized scenario, if fish to do not come into proximity of the intake, or if the probability of either bypass, avoidance, or exclusion is 100%, the probability of entrainment falls to zero. In reality, a conservative assumption is that some risk may always exist, but for many cases the risk is exceedingly low. Even so, if the risk is low for one of the factors identified in Figure 15 in a given month, subsequent entrainment factors, however potentially hazardous on their own, could not pose added risks. For instance, the combined entrainment risk to fall Chinook salmon fry in March is low because they tend to inhabit nearshore and backwater areas just after emergence, so that even though they are small enough to pass through the intake screen pores at this time of year they are not in proximity of the intake structures. Though risk created by some entrainment factors is higher in some months, when all the biological and physical factors of entrainment are considered in combination, the risk of entrainment is low across the entire year.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 58 February 2019

Table 9 Risk to Fall Chinook Salmon Created by the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure by Entrainment Factor and by Month Risk Level Created by Each Determining Factor of Entrainment Entrainment by Month Factor Review of Literature Summary Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Presence in Fry emerge from mid-March through mid-May, redistribute to shallow Hanford Reach nearshore areas through early summer, and migrate downstream from early M H H H H M L June through mid-August.

Habitat Emergent fry use shallow, shoreline habitats with mean water velocities less Preference than 1.5 fps. Older subyearlings are found in water depths of 4.9 to 19.4 feet, L L H H H H H and velocities between 0.6 to 2.6 fps, mainly in nearshore areas but can be found across the entire river channel and water column.

Fish Size 37 to 44 mm at emergence, 70 to 110 mm by early June, and 105 to 125 mm by H H H M M L L mid-August Hydraulic Bypass Mean sweeping velocity ranges from 4 to 5 fps during the months that emerging fry and subyearlings are present and exceeds the typical bulk flow L L L L L L L approach velocity of 0.07 fps by at least a factor of 50.

Behavioral Burst swimming capacity of 3.5 fps exceeds the typical approach velocity of L L L L L L L Avoidance 0.07 fps by a factor of 50.

Exclusion Salmon larger than approximately 75 mm excluded from outer screen pores H H H M L L L that are 9.5 mm in diameter. Most subyearlings reach 75 mm by June.

Sweep-Off or Sweeping velocities that exceed approach velocities contribute to sweep-off.

Impingement Blocked screen pores may contribute to higher and uneven approach velocities L L L L M M M and increase the potential for impingement; river debris is likely to be swept off; however, biofouling of screen pores may increase across the summer.

Combination of All Entrainment Low risk for one factor negates the risk posed by subsequent factors L L L L L L L Factors Note:

Each entrainment risk factor and relevant biological characteristics are briefly summarized on the left-hand side of the table and the relative level of risk is shown on the right side of the table, by month, as red, yellow, and green, representing the range from high (H), to moderate (M), to low (L) risk. The overall risk created by the combination of entrainment factors is depicted in the bottom row, representing the outcome of the sequence of entrainment factors shown in Figure 15.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 59 February 2019

5 Conclusions A broad diversity of species exists in the Hanford Reach, representing native species that are well-adapted to free-flowing, cold river habitat, and expansion of non-native species from impounded areas. Many of the most vulnerable species and life stages, those that are small in size and poor swimmers such as subyearling (age-0) salmon and minnows, prefer slow water and shallow nearshore habitat, excluding them from occurring in proximity of the intake in large numbers. With the possible exception of American shad, the non-native species present in Hanford Reach also tend to prefer slow, backwater sloughs. Therefore, of all species found in the Hanford Reach only a small subset are likely to occur in the mid-channel habitat near the CGS intake structure during a limited period of late spring or summer as they grow and move offshore. Other species that have passively drifting larval stages may be entrained as larvae are swept past the CGS intake structure; however, larval lamprey (macropthalmia) are the only species known to drift in benthic, main channel habitat.

Upon detailed examination of the biological characteristics of all fish and life stages known to occur in the Hanford Reach, most are excluded from risk of entrainment because of their habitat preferences, and few are at risk of entrainment, including Hanford Reach fall Chinook salmon and upper Columbia River steelhead.

Salmonids are the focus of regulatory concern in the Columbia River, with particular interest in evaluating whether the CGS intake poses risks to threatened or endangered species, in this case, upper Columbia River spring-run Chinook salmon and steelhead. These and other salmonid species that originate from reaches upstream of the Hanford Reach (sockeye salmon, coho salmon) typically pass through the Hanford Reach rapidly during their downstream migration to sea, minimizing their exposure to the CGS intake. In addition, their tendency to smolt at a relatively large size as yearlings excludes them from entrainment, and their burst swimming capability at this age and size allows them to avoid impingement. Risk of entrainment or impingement posed by the CGS intake is, therefore, found to be negligible for smolts that originate from tributaries to the upper Columbia River.

Two factors that largely determine fish habitat preferences are river depth and velocity; however, without direct and constant monitoring the magnitude of change in depth and velocity over time can be challenging to estimate in a large river. Using LiDAR-mapped bathymetry and river discharge levels gauged at PRD, MASS models were applied to determine range of depth and velocity at the CGS intake structure (Coleman et al. 2010; Niehus et al. 2014; Appendix C). Modelling verified that the CGS structure is oriented parallel to the river flow velocity vectors and demonstrated that river velocity is greater than 3 fps at the site, even during minimum flows. These physical interactions between the intake structure and river conditions confirm that fish encounters with the intake screens would be effectively minimized by hydraulic bypass around the structure created by the hydraulic bow wave at the cone and sweeping velocity along the screen as well as likely behavioral Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 60 February 2019

avoidance of changes in pressure and velocity near the screens. Year-round, that sweeping velocity exceeds typical bulk approach velocity by a factor of at least 50, such that entrainment or impingement are unlikely even if fish come into close proximity with the intake screens. Modeled hydrodynamic conditions around the cylindrical CGS intake structures provide data on conditions that mostly prevent entrainment, but also highlight exceptions that may increase risk of entrainment or impingement, including localized turbulence causing concentration of inflow and higher-than-optimal approach velocity when flows are more oblique to the structures. A conservative approach must assume that some risk may always exist. Risk exists for fish that encounter areas of the intake where approach velocity is highest (e.g. the up-current side of the upstream screen with oblique flows at the highest velocity of the year) and where sweeping velocity is lowest (e.g. the leeward side of the downstream screen where back eddies direct flow toward the screen with oblique flows). Risk may be elevated when fish are most abundant, when screen submergence depth is lowest in the fall, or if screen pores become clogged due to biofouling causing uneven increases in approach velocity across the screen face.

Overall, the probability of fish becoming entrained or impinged by the CGS intake exists for small-bodied fish in the Hanford Reach, including fall Chinook salmon and steelhead fry that rear in the Hanford Reach. However, the risk is exceedingly low, with only the smallest and weakest fish that happen to occur in mid-channel at risk of entrainment or impingement.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 61 February 2019

6 References Alden Research Laboratory 2018. Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of Perforated Intake Screens at Columbia Generating Station. Alden Report No.: 1175ENWCGS. Prepared for Energy Northwest. April 2018.

Anglin D.R., S.L. Haeseker, J.J. Skalicky, H. Schaller, K.F. Tiffan, J.R. Hatten, P. Hoffarth, J. Nugent, D. Benner, and M. Yoshinaka, 2006. Effects of Hydropower Operations on Spawning Habitat, Rearing Habitat, and Stranding/Entrapment Mortality of Fall Chinook Salmon in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Final Report, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vancouver, Washington. August 10, 2006.

ASMFC (Atlantic States Marine Fish Commission), 2009. Atlantic Coast Diadromous Fish Habitat: A Review of Utilization, Threats, Recommendations for Conservation, and Research Needs.

Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission Habitat Management Series No. 9. January 2009.

Becker, C.D., D.H. Fickeisen, and J.C. Montgomery, 1981. Assessment of Impacts from Water Level Fluctuations on Fish in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Contract DE-AC06-76RL0 18380. May 1981.

Beeman, J.W., and A.G. Maule. "Migration depths of juvenile Chinook salmon and steelhead relative to total dissolved gas supersaturation in a Columbia River reservoir." Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135(3): 584-594.

Bell, M.C., 1990. Fisheries Handbook of Engineering Requirements and Biological Criteria. Third Edition. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers North Pacific Division. Fish Passage Development and Evaluation Program. 1990.

Burley, C.C., and T.P. Poe, 1994. Significance of predation in the Columbia River from Priest Rapids Dam to Chief Joseph Dam. Prepared for Chelan, Douglas, and Grant County Public Utility Districts by Washington Department of Wildlife and National Biological Survey.

Chapman, D., C. Peven, A. Giorgi, T. Hillman, and F. Utter, 1995 Status of spring chinook salmon in the mid-Columbia region. Prepared for the Mid-Columbia Public Utility Districts.

Coleman, A.M., D.L. Ward, K.B. Larson, and J.W. Lettrick, 2010. Development of a High-Resolution Bathymetry Dataset for the Columbia River through the Hanford Reach. Prepared for the U.S.

Department of Energy. PNNL-19878. September 2010.

Coutant, C.C., 1973. Behavior of Ultrasonic Tagged Chinook Salmon and Steelhead Trout Migrating Past Hanford Thermal Discharges (1967). BNWL-1530, UC-48. July 1973.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 62 February 2019

Coutant, C.C. 2014a. Draft Entrainment Characterization Study Plan for the Columbia Generating Station, Richland, Washington. For NPDES Permit No. WA002515-1, Effective November 1, 2014.

Coutant, C.C., 2014b. Why Cylindrical Screens in Flowing Water Impinge and Entrain Few Fish and Its Importance for The Columbia Generating Stations Intake. Discussion Paper prepared for Energy Northwest. April 9, 2014.

Dauble, D.D., 1998. Letter Report to Keith Wolf, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, October 22, 1998.

Dauble, D.D., 2009. Fishes of the Columbia Basin. Sandpoint, Idaho: Keokee Books.

Dauble, D.D., and D.G. Watson, 1990. Spawning and Abundance of Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, 1948-1988.

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL-7289, UC-600. March 1990.

Dauble, D.D., and D.G. Watson, 1997. Status of Fall Chinook Salmon Populations in the Mid-Columbia River, 1948-1992. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 17(2):283-300.

Dauble, D.D., T.L. Page, and R.W. Hanf Jr., 1989. Spatial Distribution of Juvenile Salmonids in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Fishery Bulletin 87(4):775-790.

Eldred, D., 1970. Steelhead Spawning in the Columbia River, Ringold to Priest Rapids Dam, September 1970 Progress Report. Washington Department of Game.

EN (Energy Northwest), 2010. License Renewal Application Environmental Report Appendix E Applicants Environmental Report Operating License Renewal Stage Columbia Generating Station. Docket No. 50-397, License No. NPF-21. January 2010.

Enercon (Enercon Services, Inc.), 2010. Evaluation of Alternative Intake Technologies at Indian Point Units 2 & 3. Prepared for Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC, and Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 3, LLC. February 12, 2010.

EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute), 2007. Fish Protection at Cooling Water Intake Structures: A Technical Reference Manual. No. 1014934. December 2007.

Gadomski, D. M., and P.G. Wagner, 2009. Factors Affecting the Age-0 Resident Fish Community Along Shorelines of the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Northwest Science 83(3):180-188.

Geist, D.R., E.V. Arntzen, Y. Chien, T.P. Hanrahan, C.J. Murray, W.A. Perkins, M.C. Richmond, and Y. Xie, 2006. Spawning Habitat Studies of Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 63 February 2019

tshawytscha) Final Report. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy. Project No. 1994-069099 Contract No. 00000652. September 2006.

Geist, D.R., J. Jones, C.J. Murray, and D.D. Dauble, 2000. Suitability Criteria Analyzed at the Spatial Scale of Redd Clusters Improved Estimates of Fall Chinook Salmon (Oncorhynchus Tshawytscha) Spawning Habitat Use in the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 57(8):1636-1646.

Giorgi, A.E., and J.R. Stevenson, 1995. A Review of Biological Investigations Describing Smolt Passage Behavior at Portland District Corps of Engineers Projects: Implications to Surface Collection Systems. Boise, Idaho: Don Chapman Consultants.

Grant PUD (Grant County Public Utility District), 2004. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Protection Program Executed Agreement. Available at:

http://www.grantpud.org/documents/Hanford%20Reach%20Protection%20Program%20Exec uted%20Agreement%204-5-04.pdf.

Gray, R.H., and D.D. Dauble, 1976. Synecology of the Fish Community Near Hanford Generating Project and Assessment of Plant Operational Impacts, In Final Report on Aquatic Ecological Studies Conducted at the Hanford Generating Project, 1973-1974. WPPSS Columbia River Ecology Studies Vol. 1. Prepared for Washington Public Power Supply System under Contract No. 2311201335 with United Engineers and Constructors, Inc., by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington; pp. 5.1 to 5.55.

Gray, R.H., and D.D. Dauble, 1977. Checklist and Relative Abundance of Fish Species from the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Northwest Science 51(3):208-215.

Gray, R.H., and D.D. Dauble, 2001. Some Life History Characteristics of Cyprinids in the Hanford Reach, Mid-Columbia River. Northwest Science 75(2):122-136.

Harnish, R.A., H. Li, E.D. Green, B. Rayamajhi, K.A. Deters, K.W. Jung, K.D. Ham, and G.A. McMichael, 2014a. Survival of Wild Hanford Reach and Priest Rapids Hatchery Fall Chinook Salmon Juveniles in the Columbia River: Predation Implications. October 2014.

Harnish, R.A., R. Sharma, G.A. McMichael, R.B. Langshaw, and T.N. Pearsons, 2014b. Effect of Hydroelectric Dam Operations on the Freshwater Productivity of a Columbia River Fall Chinook Salmon Population. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 71(4):602-15.

Haro, A., M. Odeh, J. Noreika, and T. Castro-Santos, 1998. Effect of Water Acceleration on Downstream Migratory Behavior and Passage of Atlantic Salmon Smolts and Juvenile Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 64 February 2019

American Shad at Surface Bypasses. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:118-127.

Hatten, J.R., K.F. Tiffan, D.R. Anglin, S.L. Haeseker, J.J. Skalicky, and H. Schaller, 2009. A spatial model to assess the effects of hydropower operations on Columbia River Fall Chinook salmon spawning habitat. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 29:1379-1405.

Hoffarth, P., J. Nugent, T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Wagner, and L. Key, 1998. Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 1997BI30417, Project No. 199701400. BPA Report DOE/BP-30417-2.

Liao, J.C., 2007. A review of fish swimming mechanics and behavior in altered flows. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 362:1973-1993.

Lindsey, C., P. Wagner, and J. Nugent, 2016. Calendar Year 2012 Assessment of Larval Pacific Lamprey on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy Contact DE-ACO6-09RL14728 by Mission Support Alliance. May 2016.

McMichael, G.A., R.A. Harnish, and E.D. Green, 2015. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Salmon Over-Escapement Effects on Emergence Timing and Size at Emigration. Final Report to the Northern Fund, Pacific Salmon Commission, under contract NF-2015-I-52. November 11, 2015.

McMichael, G.A., C.L. Rakowski, B.B. James, and J.A. Lukas, 2005. Estimated Fall Chinook Salmon Survival to Emergence in Dewatered Redds in a Shallow Side Channel of the Columbia River.

North American Journal of Fisheries Management 25(3):876-84.

Moser, M.L., A.D. Jackson, M.C. Lucas, and R.P. Mueller, 2015. Behavior and Potential Threats to Survival of Migrating Lamprey Ammocoetes and Macrophthalmia. Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 25(1):103-16.

NAI and ASA (Normandeau Associates, Inc. and ASA Analysis and Communications, Inc.), 2011. 2011 IPEC Wedgewire Screen Laboratory Study. R-21825.004. July 22, 2011.

Nair, A., G. Azatain, and M.J. McHenry, 2015. The kinetics of directional control in the fast start of zebrafish larvae. Journal of Experimental Biology 2015.

Niehus, S.E., W.A. Perkins, and M.C. Richmond, 2014. Simulation of Columbia River Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature from 1917 through 2011 in the Hanford Reach. Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division, Richland, WA. Prepared for: Public Utility District No. 2 of Grant County.

2014.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 65 February 2019

NMFS (National Marine Fisheries Service),1999. Endangered and Threatened Species; Threatened Status for Three Chinook Salmon Evolutionarily Significant Units (ESUs) in Washington and Oregon, and Endangered Status for One Chinook Salmon ESU in Washington. Final Rule. 64 Federal Register No. 56. March 24, 1999.

NMFS, 2005. Endangered and Threatened Species: Final Listing Determinations for 16 ESUs of West Coast Salmon, and Final 4(d) Protective Regulations for Threatened Salmonid ESUs. Final Rule. Federal Register Vol. 70, No. 123. June 28, 2005.

NMFS, 2011a. Anadromous Salmonid Passage Facility Design. National Marine Fisheries Service, Northwest Region, Portland, Oregon.

NMFS, 2011b. Endangered and Threatened Species; 5-Year Reviews for 17 Evolutionarily Significant Units and Distinct Population Segments of Pacific Salmon and Steelhead. Final Rule. 76 Federal Register No 157. August 15, 2011.

NMFS, 2013a. Memorandum to: Hydro Division Files, National Marine Fisheries Service. Regarding:

Entrainment and Impingement Potential for Salmonids at the Columbia Generating Station (CGS) Intake Screens. July 31, 2013 NMFS, 2013b. Memorandum to: Hydro Division Files, National Marine Fisheries Service. Regarding:

Columbia Generating Station (CGS) - Intake Screens Assessment and Recommendations for Modifications. August 7, 2013.

NMFS, 2014. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife; Final Rule to Revise the Code of Federal Regulations for Species Under the Jurisdiction of the National Marine Fisheries Service. Final Rule. 79 Federal Register No. 20802. April 14, 2014.

NRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission), 2011. Biological Assessment and Essential Fish Habitat Assessment Columbia Generating Station License Renewal, Docket Number 50-397, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Nugent, J., 2016. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Redd Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2015.

Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC06-09RL 14728 by Mission Support Alliance. April 2016.

Nugent, J., and K. Cranna, 2015. Hanford Site Steelhead Redd Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2015. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy under contract DE-AC06-09RL 14728 by Mission Support Alliance. November 2015.

Nugent, J., T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Hoffarth, and M. Kuklinski, 2002. 2001 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 66 February 2019

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No. 00004294, Project No. 199701400. BPA Report DOE/BP-00004294-3.

Nugent J., T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Hoffarth, and P. Wagner, 2000, Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Prepared for The Bonneville Power Administration and The Public Utility District Number 2 of Grant County, BPA Contract Number 9701400 Grant County PUD Contracts Document 97BI30417. April 2002.

Nugent, J., T. Newsome, M. Nugent, W. Brock, P. Wagner, and P. Hoffarth, 1999. Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Salmon Stranding on the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Report to Bonneville Power Administration, Contract No.

00004294, Project No. 199701400. BPA Report DOE/BP-00004294-1.

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Modular Aquatic Simulation System 1D and 2D software, operated by Battelle, produced under funding from the U.S. Department of Energy.

https://basin.pnnl.gov/Software/Details/16.

Patrick, P.H., J. Powell, E. Mason, M-K. Tai, T. Stanko, and H.D. Dziedzic, 2018. Size distribution of larvae entrained and the role of fine mesh screening in excluding larvae at an operating power plant. Lake and Reservoir Management 34(3):306-319.

Perkins, W., M. Richmond, and S. Niehus, 2018. Hydrodynamic Model Data Near Energy Northwest Plant Intake (Columbia River Mile - 352.13). Hydrology Group - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. February 9, 2018.

Petersen, J.H., R.A. Hinrichsen, D.M. Gadomski, D.H. Feil, and D.W. Rondorf, 2003. "American shad in the Columbia River." American Fisheries Society Symposium 35:141-155.

Poston, T.M., J.P. Duncan, and R.L. Dirkes, 2008. Hanford Site Environmental Report for Calendar Year 2007. Prepared for the U.S. Department of Energy by personnel from the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory under contract DE-AC05-76RL01830. September 2008 Reclamation (U.S. Bureau of Reclamation), 2009. Guidelines for Performing Hydraulic Field Evaluations at Fish Screening Facilities. Water Resources Technical Publication. April 2009.

Rose, B.P., and M.G. Mesa, 2011. Effectiveness of Common Fish Screen Materials to Protect Lamprey Ammocoetes. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 32(3)597-603.

Stables, T.B., and B.L. Tiller, 2007. Suitability of Aquatic Habitat for Steelhead Spawning at Selected Sites in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River, Measured February 21-25, 2007.

Environmental Assessment Services.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 67 February 2019

Stewart, W.J., A. Nair, H. Jaing, and M.J. McHenry, 2014. Prey fish escape by sensing the bow wave of a predator. Journal of Experimental Biology 217:4328-4336.

Suzumoto. B., 2010. Columbia Generating Station license renewal, request for species list for consultation. Letter from U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service, Portland Office to Bo Pham, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory commission, Rockville, Maryland.

Taylor, E.B., and J.D. McPhail, 1985. Ontogeny of the startle response in young coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 114:552-557.

Tenera, 2013. Report Supplement: Length Specific Probabilities of Screen Entrainment of Larval Fishes Based on Head Capsule Measurements. Prepared for Bechtel Power Corporation in support of California State Water Resources Control Board Once-Through Cooling Policy Nuclear-Fueled Power Plant Special Studies. October 29, 2013.

Tiffan, K.F., L.O. Clark, R.D. Garland, and D.W. Rondorf, 2006. Variables Influencing the Presence of Subyearling Fall Chinook Salmon in Shoreline Habitats of the Hanford Reach, Columbia River. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 26(2):351-60.

Torgerson, C.E., and D.A. Close, 2004. Influence of habitat heterogeneity on the distribution of larval Pacific lamprey (Lampetra tridentata) at two spatial scales. Freshwater Biology 49:614-630.

USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers), 1995. Lower Snake and Columbia Rivers surface bypass and collection systems prototype development program. Portland and Walla Walla Districts, U.S.

Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla, Washington.

USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 1999. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Threatened Status for Bull Trout in the Coterminous United States; Final Rule.

Federal Register Volume 64, Issue 210. November 1, 1999.

USFWS, 2010. Best Management Practices to Minimize Adverse Effects to Pacific Lamprey (Entosphenus tridentatus). April 2010.

USFWS 2018. Species Fact Sheet River Lamprey (Lampetra ayresii). Accessed August 23, 2018.

Available at: https://www.fws.gov/wafwo/species/Fact%20sheets/Riverlampreyfinal.pdf.

Wagner P., J. Nugent, W. Price, R. Tudor, and P. Hoffarth, 1997. 1997-99 Evaluation of Juvenile Fall Chinook Stranding on the Hanford Reach-1997 Interim Report, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration and the Public Utility District Number 2 of Grant County, BPA Contract Number 97BI30417, Project Number 97-104, Grant County PUD Contracts Document 430-647.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 68 February 2019

Wagner, P., C.T. Lindsey, and J.J. Nugent, 2012. Hanford Reach Fall Chinook Redd Monitoring Report for Calendar Year 2013. No. HNF-52190 Rev. 0. Hanford Site (HNF), Richland, WA (United States), 2014.

Watson, D.G., 1973. Estimate of Steelhead Trout Spawning in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River.

Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.

WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2008. Priority Habitats and Species List.

Updated June 2016. Available at: https://wdfw.wa.gov/conservation/phs/list/.

WDFW, 2018. Salmon SCoRE. Accessed July 9, 2018. Available at:

https://fortress.wa.gov/dfw/score/score/species/chinook.jsp?species=Chinook.

Weitkamp D.E., and D.M. McEntee, 1982. 1982 Gatewell Sampling Wanapum and Priest Rapids Dam.

Prepared for Grant County Public Utility District by Parametrix, Inc.

WPPSS (Washington Public Power Supply System), 1982. Technical Review of the Aquatic Monitoring Program of WNP-2, Washington Public Power Supply System. September 1982.

WPPSS, 1985. Operational Ecological Monitoring Program for Nuclear Plant 2. Annual Report 1985.

Prepared by Environmental Programs Department, Washington Public Power System.

Wydoski, R.S., and R.R. Whitney, 2003. Inland fishes of Washington. Seattle, Washington: American Fisheries Society, in association with University of Washington Press.

Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure 69 February 2019

Appendix A Intake Structure Engineering Drawings

Figure A-1 Plan and Section Views of the Columbia Generating Station Cylindrical Intake Structure Screens

Appendix B Master Species Table of Fishes Occurring in the Hanford Reach

Table B-1 Master Species Table Relative Abundance Near Approximate Preferred Velocity Family Common Namea Scientific Name a

Life Stage CGS1 Size (mm) Seasonal Occurence Habitat Uses Preferred Habitat Preferred Depth (ft) (ft/sec) State Federal Origin Source Bullhead Catfishes Black Bullhead Ameiurus melas Juvenile Uncommon <170 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Bullhead Catfishes Brown Bullhead Ameiurus nebulosus Juvenile Uncommon <190 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Bullhead Catfishes Yellow Bullhead Ameiurus natalis Juvenile Uncommon <110 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Bullhead Catfishes Channel Catfish Ictalurus punctatus Juvenile Uncommon <250 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters, Pools Shallow Moderate to High -- -- Non-native b, c, d Herrings American Shad Alosa sapidissima Juvenile* Abundant 75-125 Late Jun- late fall Rearing Nearshore 3-20 0.1-2.5 -- -- Non-native b,c,d, f Lamprey Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Ammocoetes* Common < 125 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic 2 to 2.5 < 0.8 (pref <0.3) -- Species of Concern Native c, d, e, High; individuals drift Lamprey Pacific Lamprey Lampetra tridentata Macrophthalmia Common 125-200 October - early spring Migratory Mid-channel/Benthic 3 to 40 -- Species of Concern Native c, d, e, with flow Lamprey River Lamprey Lampetra ayresii Ammocoetes* Uncommon < 175 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic Shallow to moderate <0.5 - 0.1 Candidate Species of Concern Native c, d, e, High; individuals drift Lamprey River Lamprey Lampetra ayresii Macrophthalmia Uncommon > 175 Early Apr - mid-June Migratory Mid-channel/Benthic Deep Candidate Species of Concern Native c, d, e, with flow Livebearers Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Adult Uncommon > 40 Year-Round Resident Nearshore, Backwaters, Pools Shallow Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Livebearers Western Mosquitofish Gambusia affinis Juvenile Uncommon < 40 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters, Pools Shallow Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Minnows and Carps Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Subadult/Adult Common 100-125 Year-Round Resident Benthic 3 3 -- -- Native a, b, c, d Minnows and Carps Longnose Dace Rhinichthys cataractae Juvenile* Common 7-100 Mid May - Mid July Rearing Mid-channel 1.5 3 -- -- Native a, b, c, d Minnows and Carps Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Subadult/Adult Abundant 75 - 440 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel, Nearshore >15 >3 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus Subadult/Adult Abundant 75 - 290 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel, Nearshore Shallow to deep Low to Moderate -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Subadult/Adult Common 65-290 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel, Nearshore, Pools Shallow to deep Low to Moderate -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus Subadult/Adult Abundant 120-140 Year-Round Resident Nearshore Shallow Low to Moderate -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Northern Pikeminnow Ptychocheilus oregonensis Juvenile (Age 0) Abundant 9-75 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore <15 <3 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Peamouth Mylocheilus caurinus Juvenile (Age 0) Abundant 9-75 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore Shallow Low -- -- Native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Common Carp Cyprinus carpio Juvenile Present 6-305 spring-summer Resident Nearshore <4 Low -- -- Non-native a, b, c, d, g Minnows and Carps Umatilla Dace Rhinichthys umatilla Subadult/Adult Uncommon 50 -100 Year-Round Resident Nearshore < 3.3 < 1.5 Candidate -- Native c, d Minnows and Carps Umatilla Dace Rhinichthys umatilla Juvenile Uncommon < 50 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore < 3.3 Low to Moderate Candidate -- Native c, d Minnows and Carps Tench Tinca tinca Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon < 75 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Backwaters, Pools Shallow Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Minnows and Carps Redside Shiner Richardsonius balteatus Juvenile Abundant <50 - 120 Jul-Sep Rearing Nearshore, Pools Shallow Low to Moderate -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Minnows and Carps Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus Subadult/Adult Present 50 -100 Year-Round Resident Nearshore, Benthic/Pools, Runs, Riffles <3 Low to High -- -- Native b, c, d Minnows and Carps Speckled Dace Rhinichthys osculus Juvenile Present < 50 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore, Benthic/Pools, Runs, Riffles <3 Low -- -- Native b, c, d Minnows and Carps Leopard Dace Rhinichthys falcatus Juvenile* Present 7-70 Mid May - Early Aug Rearing Nearshore/Benthic 1.5 1.5 Candidate -- Native c, d Minnows and Carps Leopard Dace Rhinichthys falcatus Subadult/Adult Present 70-120 Year-Round Resident Nearshore/Benthic, Pools, Riffles 3 1.5 Candidate -- Native c, d Minnows and Carps Chiselmouth Acrocheilus alutaceus Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon <65 Year-Round Rearing Tributary streams 1.5 0.4 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Perches Yellow Perch Perca flavenscens Juvenile Present <10 - 130 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore Shallow Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Perches Walleye Sander vitreus Juvenile* Present 13-225 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore/Benthic 1 Low -- -- Non-native a, b, c, d, Salmonids Mountain Whitefish Prosopium williamsoni Juvenile (Age 0) Common 15-100 Year-Round Rearing Benthic <1 0.9 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Salmonids Chinook Salmon, Spring Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Smolt Common 100-225 Late Apr Migratory Mid-channel 6.5-40 3.2-4.7 Candidate Endangered Native b, c, d Salmonids Coho Salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch Smolt Common 90-130 Late Apr - Mid May Migratory Mid-channel 5-40 3.2-4.7 -- -- Native b, c, d Salmonids Sockeye Salmon Oncorhynchus nerka Smolt Common 74-100 Mid Apr - Late June Migratory Mid-channel 6.5-40 3.2-4.7 -- -- Native b, c, d Salmonids Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Smolt Present 165-240 Late Apr - Early Jun Migratory Mid-channel 13-40 4.2-4.7 Candidate Threatened Native a, b, c, d, Salmonids Chinook Salmon, Fall Oncorhynchus tshawytscha Juvenile (Age 0) Abundant 45-80 Mid Mar - Mid June Rearing Mid-channel, Nearshore 5-20 0.6-2.6 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Salmonids Steelhead Oncorhynchus mykiss Juvenile (Age 0) Present 35 - 155 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel, Nearshore < 10 <1.5 Candidate Threatened Native b, c, d Sculpins Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdii Adult Present 25-125 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore 0.5-3 1-3 -- -- Native b, c, d Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study February 2019 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Page 1 of 2

Table B-1 Master Species Table Relative Abundance Near Approximate Preferred Velocity Family Common Namea Scientific Name a

Life Stage CGS1 Size (mm) Seasonal Occurence Habitat Uses Preferred Habitat Preferred Depth (ft) (ft/sec) State Federal Origin Source Sculpins Mottled Sculpin Cottus bairdii Juvenile (Age 0) Present 6-25 Mar-Jul Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore 0.5-3 1-3 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus Adult Present 25 - 152 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow 1.4-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Torrent Sculpin Cottus rhotheus Juvenile (Age 0) Present < 25 May-Late Jul Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow 1.4-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Paiute Sculpin Cottus beldingi Adult Uncommon 35-125 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow 1.4-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Paiute Sculpin Cottus beldingi Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon < 35 May-Late Jul Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow 1.4-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Prickley Sculpin Cottus asper Adult Present 13-150 Year-Round Resident Nearshore/Benthic 0.5-3 Low -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Prickley Sculpin Cottus asper Juvenile (Age 0)* Present 13-35 May-Late Jul Rearing Nearshore/Benthic 0.5-3 Low -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Reticulate Sculpin Cottus perplexus Adult Uncommon 40-100 Year-Round Resident Nearshore/Pools, Riffles Shallow 0-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sculpins Reticulate Sculpin Cottus perplexus Juvenile Uncommon < 43 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore/Pools, Riffles Shallow 0-4 -- -- Native b, c, d Sticklebacks Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Adult Uncommon 55-75 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Native b, c, d Sticklebacks Threespine Stickleback Gasterosteus aculeatus Juvenile Uncommon < 55 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Native b, c, d Sturgeons White Sturgeon Acipenser transmontanus Juvenile (Age 0)* Present < 280 Mid May - Late July Rearing Mid-channel/Benthic, Nearshore 40-90 1.3 -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Suckers Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus Juvenile Common < 200 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel 2-8 Low -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Suckers Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus Juvenile Present 40-125 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel 3.3-5 1.5 Candidate -- Native b, c, d Suckers Mountain Sucker Catostomus platyrhynchus Juvenile (Age 0) Present 25-40 July-Sep Rearing Nearshore 0.5-1.3 Low to Moderate Candidate -- Native b, c, d Suckers Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus Juvenile Uncommon < 200 Year-Round Rearing Pools Shallow Low -- -- Native c, d Suckers Longnose Sucker Catostomus catostomus Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon < 75 June - Sep Rearing Pools < 11 Low -- -- Native c, d Suckers Bridgelip Sucker Catostomus columbianus Juvenile (Age 0) Common < 80 Mid May - Sep Rearing Pools, Nearshore 0.03-2 Low -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Suckers Largescale Sucker Catostomus macrocheilus Juvenile (Age 0)* Common 8-55 Jun-Aug Rearing Pools, Nearshore 0.32 -15 Low -- -- Native a, b, c, d, Sunfishes Bluegill Lepomis macrochirus Juvenile Present < 90 Year-Round Rearing Backwaters Shallow Low -- -- Non-native a, b, c, d, Sunfishes Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus Juvenile Present < 90 Year-Round Rearing Backwaters Shallow Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Sunfishes Largemouth Bass Micropterus salmoides Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon 6-190 Year-Round Rearing Backwaters < 20 Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Sunfishes Burbot Lota lota Juvenile (Age 0) Uncommon < 205 Year-Round Rearing Deep nearshore, Deep pools Shallow to moderate Low -- -- Native b, c, d Sunfishes Black Crappie Pomoxis nigromaculatus Juvenile (Age 0) Present < 105 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel, Nearshore < 10 Low -- -- Non-native a, b, c, d, Sunfishes White Crappie Pomoxis annularis Juvenile (Age 0) Present < 125 Year-Round Rearing Mid-channel, Nearshore < 10 Low -- -- Non-native b, c, d Sunfishes Smallmouth Bass Micropterus dolomieui Juvenile (Age 0) Present < 80 July-Winter Rearing Nearshore < 25 Low -- -- Non-native a, b, c, d, Trout-perches Sand Roller Percopsis transmontana Adult Uncommon 75-105 Year-Round Resident Mid-channel, Nearshore 3-70 Low Monitor -- Native b, c, d Trout-perches Sand Roller Percopsis transmontana Juvenile Uncommon < 75 Year-Round Rearing Nearshore 3-70 Low Monitor -- Native b, c, d Notes:

• Eggs may drift or larvae have a pelagic phase

1. Relative Abundances: Abundant = >10%, Common = > 1%, Present = < 1% (as reported in WPPSS 1982). Some species are noted as abundant or present in other literature but not directly observed in CGS studies. Uncommon = suspected presence but rarely observed Sources:

a. WPPSS 1982, cited in EN 2010

b. Gray and Dauble 1977

c. Wydoski and Whitney 2003

d. Dauble 2009

e. Lindsey et al. 2016

f. ASMFC 2009

g. Gadomski and Wagner 2009 Columbia Generating Station Fish Entrainment Study February 2019 Historical Fish Occurrence and Risk Assessment of the Columbia Generating Station Intake Structure Page 2 of 2

Appendix C Modeled Velocity and Depth at CGS Intakes with Various River Flows

Hydrodynamic Model Data Near Energy Northwest Plant Intake (Columbia River Mile - 352.13)

William Perkins - william.perkins@pnnl.gov Marshall Richmond - marshall.richmond@pnnl.gov Sara Niehus - sara.niehus@pnnl.gov Hydrology Group - Pacific Northwest National Laboratory February 9, 2018 PNNL-SA-132236

Background

Larissa Rohrbach of Anchor QEA requested Hanford Reach model outputs to support a study of fish entrainment in the intake for Energy NW nuclear power plant.

PNNL will provide 2-D MASS2 model outputs (maps) and an excel file of 1-D MASS1 model output (water elevation and discharge)

Contact info: lrohrbach@anchorqea.com; (509) 293 8737 Results are from the updated PNNL models (MASS1 and MASS2) documented in report to Grant County PUD Niehus, et al (2014).

Site location: right bank of the Columbia, near RM 352.13 PNNL-SA-132236

PNNL Model Overview Unsteady flow simulation (1-D and 2-D)

Physics-based models for hydrodynamics Mass and momentum conservation Time-varying prediction of river discharge, velocity, water surface elevation Water quality simulation (1-D and 2-D)

Temperature Total dissolved gas, Dissolved tracers Sediment (MASS2 only)

References Niehus, S. E., W. A. Perkins, and M. C. Richmond. 2014. Simulation of Columbia River Hydrodynamics and Water Temperature from 1917 through 2011 in the Hanford Reach. Final Report PNWD-3278. Richland, Washington 99352: Battelle-Pacific Northwest Division. doi:10.13140/RG.2.1.5146.8409.

Richmond MC, and WA Perkins. 2009. "Efficient Calculation of Dewatered and Entrapped Areas Using Hydrodynamic Modeling and GIS." Environmental Modelling & Software 24(12):1447-1456.

doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2009.06.001 Perkins WA, and MC Richmond. 2007. MASS2, Modular Aquatic Simulation System in Two Dimensions, Theory and Numerical Methods . PNNL-14820-1, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.

Perkins WA, MC Richmond, and GA McMichael. 2004. "Two-Dimensional Modeling of Time-Varying Hydrodynamics and Juvenile Chinook Salmon Habitat in the Hanford Reach of the Columbia River." ASCE World Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2004, June 27 - July 1, 2004, Salt Lake City, Utah.

Waichler, S. R., J. A. Serkowski, W .A. Perkins, and M. C Richmond. 2017. Simulation of Columbia River Floods in the Hanford Reach. PNNL-26204. Richland, WA: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.16036.17282.

PNNL-SA-132236

PNNL Model Overview Two representations of the river hydraulics are used MASS1 - one-dimensional, cross-sectional averaged Predicts one discharge, velocity, water elevation, temperature per individual river cross-section Represents an average across the river cross section Unsteady MASS2 - two-dimensional, depth-averaged Predicts discharge, velocity, water elevation, temperature in plan view Represents an average over the water depth in each cell Provides spatially distributed estimates across the river Unsteady Elevation datum for both models is NGVD29 PNNL-SA-132236

PNNL Regional Scale 1D/2D Modeling Hanford Reach Models are a Subset PNNL-SA-1D MASS1 model zone - red line 132236 2D MASS2 model zone - black inset line

High-Resolution Bathymetry Development for the Hanford Reach Used in the MASS1 and MASS2 models

Reference:

Coleman AM, DL Ward, KB Larson, and JW Lettrick. 2010. Development of a high-resolution bathymetry dataset for the Columbia River through the Hanford Reach . PNNL-PNNL-SA-19878, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.

132236

Spatial Resolution for MASS2 Snapshot of simulation on October 4, 2010 at 0:00 hours Variables (velocity, water elevation, temperature) are simulated on the 5-meter mesh. Detail shown at right.

PNNL-SA-132236

Stage/Discharge Curve PNNL-SA-132236

MASS2 Simulation Maps MASS2 with 5-m mesh (Niehus, et al, 2014)

Steady Priest Rapids Dam discharge McNary forebay stage constant at 340 feet Map horizontal coordinates are WA South State Plane, NAD83, feet Vertical datum is NGVD29 PNNL-SA-132236

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 40 kcfs Depth (4 ft contour)

Depth, ft 2

8 16 32 48 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 40 kcfs Velocity Magnitude (1 ft/s contour)

Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 40 kcfs River Mile Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 40 kcfs W.S. Elevation (0.2 ft contour)

River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 70 kcfs Depth (4 ft contour)

Depth, ft 2

8 16 32 48 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 70 kcfs Velocity Magnitude (1 ft/s contour)

Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 70 kcfs River Mile Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 70 kcfs W.S. Elevation (0.2 ft contour)

River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 100 kcfs Depth (4 ft contour)

Depth, ft 2

8 16 32 48 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 100 kcfs Velocity Magnitude (1 ft/s contour)

Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 100 kcfs River Mile Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 100 kcfs W.S. Elevation (0.2 ft contour)

River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 190 kcfs Velocity Magnitude (1 ft/s contour)

Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 190 kcfs Depth (4 ft contour)

Depth, ft 2

8 16 32 48 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 190 kcfs River Mile Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 190 kcfs W.S. Elevation (0.2 ft contour)

River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 350 kcfs Velocity Magnitude (1 ft/s contour)

Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 350 kcfs Depth (4 ft contour)

Depth, ft 2

8 16 32 48 River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 350 kcfs River Mile Velocity Magnitude, ft/s 0

4 8

12 16 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000

1951000 1952000 1953000 419000 419000 418000 418000 417000 417000 352 352 352 352 352 352 Discharge = 350 kcfs W.S. Elevation (0.2 ft contour)

River Mile 416000 416000 0 300 600 900 feet 1951000 1952000 1953000