ML071450151

Responses A51 - A54 and A61 - A66 to Additional Information Needs Identified During Audit of NRC Request for Additional Information Related to License Renewal Application

ML071450151
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Garrett T Wolf Creek
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ET 07-0018
Download: ML071450151 (350)

Text

A51 05/18/2005 15 14 FAX 16203648975 COFFEY COUNTY CLERK 1Z001/003 Jo-A nnvwR, acf COFFEY COUNTY TREASURER 110 S 6TH ST ROOM 203 BURI.NGTON KS 66839 620-364-5532 800-824-4983 FAX 620-364-8975 SEND TO: 14/,, /FAX: e3 -6'-)- -?44~-V COMPANY OR DEPARTMENT:

DATE:-4-- 1e -6 .-# OF PAGES 4at-, 6aC6 Xr RE: __ ` v- ',n-I i SENT BY.PLEASE 1 NFORM S IF-ALL COPIES ARE NOT PROPERLY RECEIVED.

05/18/2005 15 14 FAX 16203648975 COFFEY COUNTY CLERK l 002/003 TAXES LEVIED IN COFFEY COUNTY PAST 5 YEARS 2004 $31,292,371 03 2003 30,563,511.20 2002 29441,799.32 2001 29,551,324.52 2000 28,738,819.82 The top six recipients of the taxes we collect are are follows: Coffey County, which includes monies for hospital, roads, library, and many other things, USD #244, the Burlington School District USD #243, the Lebo-Waverly School District Coffey County Fire District #1.USD #245, the Gridley-LeRoy School District Burlington City I am also faxing a copy of the levy sheet for 2004. This shows the assessed valuation and levy of each taxing district.

The rate of levy is expressed per $1000 valuation or mills.To arrive at the tax, using the county as an example, take .036559 x $454,793,206.00 (the assessed valuation).

This equals $16,626,784.82 in tax. Keep in mind the assessed valuation is a per cent of the appraised value, depending on the kind of property.If you have further questions, please call me at 1-800-824-4983.

Jo Ann Raaf, Coffey County Treasurer 05/18/2005 15 14 FAX 16203648975 COFFEY COUNTY CLERK Z 003/003 2004 TAX LEVIES COFFEY COUNTY KANSAS VALUATION 454,792,206 15-Nov-04 (ALL VALUA77ONS WITHOUT PENALTY)PRIOR YEAR LEVY SHEET ON BACK Rote of Levy expressed per S1000 Valuation or Mills 2004 Stats Certlflad PopUlation 8.902 STATE LEVIES;-, VAkLUATIOM

> '7l K.S.A.76.6b01 Education Bldg. Fund I 0B04W' laite Inst. Bldg Fund,0500 G- enloi Fund 0,000 lTCI lALI-COUNTY LEVIES.-VALUAMON , .' ,r9,206.K.SJA.0 79-1946 General 14.74 65-6113 Ambulance 0563 71-301 Comm. Colleg Tunil 0059 2-1907b Conseutvaoh Dlsircl 0.056 19.412 Economnic Dow, 0441, 25-220%5 Eletown 0.205 12-16,102 Employ. 2.3M5 2S10 Ext Council 0.262 2.131d Fair Bldg. 0.01,86-204 Health 0,85¶--2681 Hist Society 0.41i 19-'606 Hospilal MainI 0 9R 12-1220 Llbrary Board 2 12.12-16.102 Library Emp. Dene. 0 266.,19,4004 Mental Hoolti 0 129 A1j _Mnial Ruýd -0.337, q NoxuS Wood 0.577 I1917 Road & Btrig 7.012 65.1125 Sp;)eci Brrdg 1571 10-113 Bond&hnlereet 4.111 TOTAL oe.su-- T WNSHiR. Ll~~EVIE ...." AUATON;",,3.051.1

.0 Iurlngton 0.. 0.4 Htarmpdxen .J/WA&, 0.0 0.000 KeRy wm i .lam 0.1 L-ory W.,4l.ea 0.05 a .Neosho .2.1l~64 03761 1.087-'" :;. CITY LEVIES'. , ,..,,.,.. , , VALUATION

"," ' ,, e. .i. , .::; io'3As .2:daz.- ..,4' X,2,zi78l K.S.A I Burflngton Gridley L11 LeRoy New Strewn Waveuly 790-152 General 33.694 30.024 22.7A6 30.646 40.621 A2.860 17-13,4 Cemetery 0478 12-16.102 Employ Bane. 000o 5.6111 12-1617h induIL DloUS. 0.041 12-11Ob Law Enlom 1.M __75-6110 Spec. LlablfIl 0.675 0.512 2.000 10-116a Uililty Serv.ce 10-113 Bond & Interal 3.6S6 6.116 M- 1962 Tw", Gail. 0.056 0032 0.390 15-I104 Twp. Cemetery 0.167 0,118 0290 2.535 12-1 .116 Cap. Irrpro-e.

2.000 TOTAL 38.544 32.207 00970 33.136 52.737 45794 ,,' ) , "'. ..." ", -,~wt. "SCIHOGUIDTRICT LEVIE .' .. , VALUA11ONOTHER\

'rama vrrea,.os,~

'x"Inis~lsJTe 5 L m ~Il K.U.A. USO 1s243 USO #24" USD 024" USD 1252 USD 03S5 72431 General 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 20.000 72-8801 Capital Outlay 0.731 3.000 1.999 3.665 t2,1927 Ro____on 1.250] 0.990 70:113 B1ondi & tnisisin 1065 ¶15.622 7.799 12-1A97 Rec. Emp. Bone & Spec Liab. 0.14_ _ 1 72-64 Supp. General 21 8B5 3.269 13 343 0.9m0 13.434 TOTAL 52450 25.399 36.34a3 60,810 ".a!!: P. ' , -' .k? 4 , , i24-`1213 ftl ,-~

2.A817 12-28Frog Crook JL 1.116(!24-153! Llk*V*- Ora. 1-1 k211.78, 3,705 24.1213 Long ScotOrk 40901' V,;;ý"4, AlIlRMI 17-13"a b00n&0 Adieej .1.209 17-1344 Mills .I " 4aAMMIMM 7134M .~a Hill 2AV3[ 01 17-1344 Toeachrl Týp. 9LI.M TO FIGURE YOUR TOTAL LEVY, FILL IN YOUR TOWNSHIP OR CITY. SCHOOL DISTRICT, AND OTHER LEVIES IN THE PROPER SPACE AND ADD. YOUFITAX STATEMENT LISTS THE DISTRICTS BY NAME AND/OR NUMBER.BTATE COUNTY Ollumwa I V'.018176 0O00 0.0001 Pai 'olzhw loru 1 Wvi -16 ooo Rock Wrook 7W-w,~ 4 -a I kwxli IS L21 AI azigiin , .l-'*-- -- o -- , I- ..'19-3901 Caley Co. ,Fi Otte IIS Ma:l'lowll'i I B120i 110-2801 Lyon Co. Ft Dil. US lI& &.00=e1 -74711 CHODL DISTRICT)TKER LEVIES TOTAL STATE OF KANI. kcOW '" COUNTY oF ...... ..*, 1,VRNON .,COFFEY COUNT-f CLERK, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY AND STATE AFORESAID, 0O HEREBY CEATIFY THE FOREGOING TO BE A TRUE COR C EDR S1 FLL ýL=MES FOR THE YEAR 2004. DULY MADE IN ACCORDANCE WIrH THE LAW OF THE OF KANSAS, EQS %*tl , ' i 1n HAMD AND OFFICIAL SEAL THIS 15111 DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2004.tIsxeeu*ulst sheest NEW uVeton Dirk Coffey County Clerk A52 Personal Communication Date: May 31, 2005 Source -Person's name, title, and phone number: Hub Casper, Coffey County Engineer 620-364-2441 or 1-866-937-2897.

Title of place contacted:

Coffey County Planning and Zoning Office.Subject. discussed:

Land Use and LOS determinations for Coffey County.Personal communication with E. N. Hill, TtNUS.Detailed description of the information sought: I contacted Mr. Casper to obtain a detailed description of how land use has changed over that several decades. I also asked him if he were aware of any LOS determinations for any roads in the county.Mr. Casper reported the following:

1 .The County does not have a Comprehensive Land Use Plan and land use in the County has not been broken down into categories.

2. Land use in the county has remained largely rural. Most residential development is located in and around the incorporated towns and cities in the County. There is a concentration south of Burlington.

Overall, there has been a small increase in residential development, and it has been characterized by current or prospective residents purchasing individual lots in more rural areas and building homes on those. Th ey are not generally part of developments.

There has been a small gradual migration of residents from the more urban areas to the more rural areas surrounding the population centers. He also stated that many people who work in the County commute from areas like Ermporia, Ottawa, Topeka, and Kansas City.3. There has been some commercial/industrial development and it has, been located on the east side of Leroy, the south side of Burlington, the intersection of 1-35 and U.S. 75, in Gridley, Lebo, and west of Waverly.4. He is unaware of any roads in Coffey County with LOS classifications.

5. WCGS is the largest tax payer in the county and provides most of the funding for infrastructure development and improvements.

These tax payments also allow residents and businesses to pay lower than average property taxes.

A53 Personal Communication Date: June 1, 2005 Source -Person's name, title, and phone number: Jon Hotaling, Coffey County Economic Development Director:

1-800-947-4796.

Title of place contacted:

Coffey County Economic Development.

Subject discussed:

Land Use and Tax Trends for Coffey County.Personal communication with E. N. Hill, TtNUS.Detailed description of the information sought: I contacted Mr. Hotaling to obtain a detailed description of how land use in Coffey County has changed over that several decades. I also asked him about the WCGS tax-related impacts on the County.Mr. Hotaling reported the following:

1. There is no County Comprehensive Land Use Plan and County land has not been broken down into categories.

2. He is not aware of any LOS determinations for roads in the County.3. For every $1 of revenue to the County, WCGS provided over 90 percent of it.4. Land use surrounding WCGS is primarily grazing land, pastureland, and some crop production (soybeans?).

The cooling lake is used for fishing only -non-contact lake.5. Land use in the county has remained largely rural. Most residential development is located in and around the incorporated towns and cities in the County. He stated that many people who work in the County commute from areas like Emporia, Ottawa, Topeka, and Kansas City.6. There has been some commercial/industrial development.

There are 2 industrial parks and I commercial park in the County and they are located in and around the City of Burlington.

He believes that funding for the infrastructure development for these parks was primarily provided by WCGS tax payments.

Since WCGS's construction, small and medium industries have located in Burlington, Gridley, Waverly, Lebo, and Leroy. However, most of the industries are small (under 100 employees).

Tri-Com went bankrupt and closed.

7. The County no longer operates the purchase-lease program. Most of the property, facilities, and equipment leased through the program have been paid for. Now, the County operates a revolving loan fund that provides low-cost loans to businesses.

He believes that this fund is funded primarily by WCGS property tax payments.8. The four largest employers in the County are: WCGS, Coffey County Hospital (220 employees), Charloma Plastics Company (60 employees), and Countertop Trends (70 employees).

There are also some small hog farming outfits.9. He is unaware of any roads in Coffey County with LOS classifications.

10. WCGS is the largest tax payer in the county and provides most of the funding for infrastructure development and improvements.

These tax payments also allow residents and businesses to pay lower than average property taxes. He estimates that, because of the large property tax payments made by WCGS, residents and other businesses pay property taxes that are 30 to 40 percent lower than neighboring counties.11. Mr. Hotaling stated that he did not think that WCGS's presence has been directly responsible for drawing other companies to the area. The presence of the station is neither a draw nor a deterrent for industrial/commercial or residential development.

However, WCGS's positive contributions to the county's overall quality of life has served as a tool in recruiting industries.

The tax base, employment, and salaries that WCGS provides have encouraged some industrial/commercial development, particularly in the incorporated towns in Coffey County, and have helped make the region's economy more stable. He feels that the plant's tax payments have been responsible for improving the county's hospital, roads, sewers, schools, and recreation facilities and that these improvements are a selling point to industrial prospects.

Also, he feels that WCGS has brought a more highly educated, technical work force to the County and that the workers will continue to support the types of community improvements that would be attractive to industries.

A54 Apr. 21. 2005 .1: 06PM PAY Nnte 7671 V"-LYON CO. MAPPING ZONIN No. 0169 F.. I 4ma PREPARED B Y THE LYON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD Assisted by Russell Schoenberger FEBRUARY 2001 Passed and Appro by Resohition 16-01 Lyon Coun'y Comnmision, March R, 2001 LYON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVTE PLAN INTRODUCTION PURPOSE: The State of Kansas has granted counties the power to enact and enforce zoning and subdivision regulations in the public interest.

These regulations are intended to protect and enhance the "general welfare" of the county residents.

In order to achieve this intended purpose, each zoning and subdivision decision should be consistent with the long-range goals of the Lyon County Comprehensive Plan and not just be an isolated response.Whenever a land use decision is made, it should be based on a review of the adopted plan including relevant goals, objectives and policies.

These goals, objectives and policies will help the Lyon County Planning Board and the County Board of Commissioners as they consider development proposals.

The Lyon County Comprehensive Plan should be reviewed at least annually to reflect changes in local conditions and attitudes.

BACKGROUND Residential uses are scattered throughout rural. Lyon County, along rural water district lines and arterial roads and highways; also within the vicinity of the "Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan Planning Area" around the City of Emporia. These uses have been developed without regard of the primary purpose of the Lyon County Zoning Regulations, which is to protect and conserve good agricultural land. Further, the utilities that serve these scattered residences have been improved without regard for community-wide concerns for efficient extension of public water and sewer services.The Lyon County Planning Board, in cooperation with the Board of County Commissioners, has met during 1999 and 2000 to formulate the Goals for rural development, and update the comprehensive plan created in 1990.In addition to the preservation of good agricultural land and the orderly and efficient extension of public utilities, Lyon County needs to plan for the following public purposes: Control the maintenance costs and tax burden which new development can create for Lyon County, the Townships, and the incorporated places of Admire, Allen, Americus, Bushong, Hartford, Neosho Rapids, Olpe and Reading.*Eliminate the problems of cities having to annex (or being pressured to annex)Subdivisions which are substandard.

• Encourage new development in Lyon County--particularly in the Metropolitan Planning Area--by making new subdivisions more economically feasible.

0 Provide the county with effective regulations for reviewing and regulating subdivision proposals.

0 Assure coordination of development between Lyon County and the cities within the county to promote efficient use of county roads and law enforcement, to improve fire protection, and to complement local school districts' attendance centers.GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES Goals are the generalized framework of the desires of the community.

From these goals, objectives are developed to more specifically define the community's intent in attaining these goals. The final step of the planning process is the actual programming of activities, or establishing policies that help implement the objectives and goals.RELATIONSHIP OF GOALS TO THlE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN The Planning Board and the Board of County Commissioners must work to articulate the specific objectives and policies for the development of the area. These objectives and policies will give direction to the plan. The detailed objectives and policies of the plan can be used as a reference to guide the work of the Planning Board: recommending amendments to zoning and subdivision regulations, negotiating inter-local agreements with the cities for development review in the urban fringe, and in many other land use matters.The objectives and policies of the plan, therefore, becomes the mechanism by which the goals of the community in the unincorporated areas of the county are. implemented.

As such, they should be consulted during the planning.

process, just as the Future Land Use Map and the District Zoning Map is consulted when considering zoning amendments.

Goals and objectives should be dynamic. As a community changes, so must the goals and objectives.

Therefore, they should be periodically reviewed so that new policies for land use in the county may be formulated.

ROLE OF THE PLANNING BOARD The role of the Planning Board is one of advisor to the Board of County Commissioners.

The Planning Board is responsible for informing the Commissioners as to the consequences of potential development decisions.

A well functioning Planning Board can help the Commissioners weigh the advantages and disadvantages of alternative courses of action. They should keep the public informed and seek to include their input.The Planning Board's direct responsibilities are to formulate and adopt the county's comprehensive plan, hold public hearings on zoning amendment applications, recommend action on such applications and approve or disapprove subdivision plats.

ROLE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Lyon County Board of Commissioners has responsibility for enacting and amending the zoning regulations after considering the recommendations of the Planning Board.This responsibility includes amending the zoning district map. The role of the County Commission in the subdivision process includes accepting or rejecting dedications of easements, right-of-way and other public lands, approving financial quarantines or financing mechanisms to ensure construction of all public improvements, and approving engineering drawings.ROLE OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS The Lyon County Board of Zoning Appeals is, as the name implies, the body to which appeals are directed.

The Board of Appeals functions as quasi-judicial body rather than an advisory of legislative body. Its role in zoning administration is specifically limited to three duties: o To hear appeals of an administrative decision or interpretation, o To hear and decide request for interpretation of any map, and* To grant variances in cases of hardship.In the first two cases it is the Board's responsibility to rule on the decision or interpretation of the Zoning Administrator or to rule on the interpretation of the zoning regulations or map whenever it is alleged that there is an ambiguous provision or an error in the enforcement.

In the third case, a variance may be granted where a unique physical constraint would cause hardship to the property owner if a particular requirement of the zoning regulations were to be enforced.

The role of the Board is to determine whether a variance is warranted and whether a variance can be granted in a manner consistent with the intent of the zoning regulations.

ROLE OF THE CITIZEN Citizens can become directly involved in the planning process through appointment to the Planning Board. Other county boards and commissions work with related county development issues. These groups are composed of interested citizens motivated by a general desire to help improve their community and work with the Planning Board.Formalizing citizen input through public meetings and required public hearings is one of the most vital aspects of the planning process. Citizens can become involved into the process by contributing to the meaningful dialogue surrounding particular issues of the process in general. Citizens of Lyon County have participated extensively in the original preparation of this plan through goal-setting workshops and, finally, during public hearings for the adoption of the plan.ROLE OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR It shall be the duty of the Zoning Administrator to enforce the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations and other related land use regulations adopted by the County Commission.

The Zoning Administrator acts as Secretary to the Planning Board and the Board of Zoning Appeals. The Zoning Administrator shall serve as zoning advisor to the Planning Board, Appeals Board as well as the Lyon County Commission.

CHAPTER 1 POPULATION HISTORICAL TRENDS The City of Emporia population grew by 8.4% during the 1970's. By comparison the county population outside of Emporia---the "rural" population as defined by the Census Bureau--increased by 12.3% during the same period (See Tables 1 and 2) The growth in the "rural" area marked the first time in nearly 40 years that the "rural" population had grown instead of decreasing.

However, during the 1980's the trend reverted to a more urban growth with a slight increase of .89% while the "rural" population declined by 6.17%. It is anticipated that the urban growth in the 1990's will again exceed the rural growth.Table 1 Historical Population Trends_____________

L1.940* Li51-90 i )90K?%1 19 EMPORIA 125,512 SLYON COUNTY 25,442 26,576 26,928 32,011 35,108 34,732 OUTSIDE EMPORIA 12,154 10,907 8,738] 8,684 9,830 9,220 U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Table 2 Population Rate of Growth (Percentage)

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census Also see Figure No. 1. #9; #9;POPULATION PROJECTIONS The Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission rewrote and adopted their Comprehensive Plan in 1998. A review of the Population projections made by such plan is shown as Table 3. The projections shown are using the best methods and information available at the time; however, it is extremely difficult to accurately forecast population in the future due to unknown factors. These projections do however reflect the historical trends of the last decades of the 20th Century.Table 3 Population Projections 1990-2010 ACTUAL I PROJECTIONS I RATE OF GROWTH II PERCENTAGE LZON ooUNEZI EEL ]LIIKFFEEL3]LE, OUTSIE EMPORLUJA Source: Comprehensive Plan for Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan A=ea: Prepare by Butcher-Willis-Ratcliff Also see Figure No. 2

SUMMARY

These figures anticipate that the population of the City of Emporia will continue to grow at a modest rate of approximately 12% from 1990 to 2010, while Lyon County would show only a slight growth of 1.1% during the same time. This means that the rural population outside of the City of Emporia will'continue to decline. It is projected that the rural area outside of the City of Emporia will decline 28.9% from 1990 to the year 2010.At this time, even preliminary figures of the 2000 Census are unavailable to check the accuracy of the population projections.

Within a couple of years the plan will be reviewed and updated when all figures from the 2000 Census are available.

CHAPTER 2 LAND USE The Land Use Map presented in this plan was compiled a) From the data files created by the County Zoning Department on each rezoning approved from the implementation of Zoning in 1979 to 2000, b) County wide Land Use data from the Lyon County Appraiser's office compiled during 2000, and c) From field check of certain areas. The Land Use Map presented with the original Comprehensive Plan of 1990 was used to cross check the accuracy of the other data sources.A review of land use data indicates that there are approximately 1919 home sites within Lyon County, with well over 300 tracts having an area of 3 acres or less. Many uses are currently non-conforming as to size and the intention of this plan is to greatly limit the continuing use of extremely small tracts of land for residential development.

While it is projected that there will continue to be new housing units developed within the unincorporated area of Lyon County, the overall population of the County was expected to raise slightly up to the year 2000, but is projected to decline modestly thereafter.

The land use data supports the Census data presented.

in Tables 1, 2 and 3 of Chapter 1 of this document, showing a continued increase of population within the City of Emporia, but an overall decrease in the Rural population.

The Lyon County Zoning Board and staff have identified development trends in the following areas, outside of the Metropolitan Planning Area.1. East along Old Highway 50 between Emporia and the Lyon-Coffey.

county line.2. East of Emporia--the area between Highway 50 and Interstate 35 3. Along Burlingame Road North from Road 190 (old Rinker school house) to the junction of Highway 99.4. Along Amnericus Road between Emporia and Americus.5. West of Emporia along Highway 50 6. West of Emporia along Road E, from Road 180 to Road 210 7. From Highway 99 south of Emporia along Road 130 west to Lock erman Road 8. From Highway 99 south of Emporia along Road 110 west to Lockerman Road.9. From Highway 99 north of Emporia to Burlingame Road intersection.

As observed by the Planning Board, rural residential growth tends to follow the water lines improved by the Water Districts in Lyon County. Current land use data indicates that a large percentage of the rural residential development has occurred within one mile of the Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan Planning Area boundary and also along the above-designated areas. The Goals and Objectives adopted as a part of this.Comprehensive Pl an, along with amendments of the Zoning and Subdivision Regulations are designed to promote orderly development as the County and cities respond to growth pressures in the unincorporated areas.RECOMMENDATIONS:

Because of the lack of water service and supply throughout the rural areas of the County, the pattern of development near the boundary of the Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan Area and along the defined development areas is projected to continue.

The Lyon County Zoning Regulations, the Lyon County Subdivision Regulations and Goals of this Comprehensive Plan should be administered so that residential, non-farm growth continues within the Metropolitan Planning Area, within one mile of the Planning Area and along designed Urban Corridors.

Action steps to be taken to implement the plan.

• Amend the Zoning Ordinance of the County to implement the objectives of the plan for creating orderly development close to the cities and within the Urban Reserve areas.* Amend the Subdivision Regulations of the County to implement the objectives of the plan for creating orderly development close to the cities and within the Urban Reserve areas, assuring utility and infrastructure in accordance with the objectives of the plan,* Create and update a Procedures Manual for efficient administration of the new regulations.

• Coordinate with regional and local jurisdictions and other county departments to review land use development proposals, including:

1. #9; The Rural Watershed District Boards 2. #9; The Emporia-Lyon County Metropolitan Area Planning Commission

3. #9; Planning Commissions of any other city in Lyon County 4. #9; The Soil Conservation Service 5. #9; Lyon County Health Department

6. #9; Lyon County Engineer 7. #9; Rural Water Districts GOALS OF TIE LYON COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1. AGRICULTURAL GOAL: To preserve and enhance utilization of Rural land for Agricultural purposes, while ensuring sufficient amounts of developable land suitable for future urban growth.Objective Al Stabilize and enhance agricultural operations.

Policy A1.1 Non-agricultural development should not be allowed to disrupt agricultural operations areas that are not anticipated to become urbanized 1. Amend the subdivision regulations to show a principal objective of the conservation of agricultural uses, while accommodating appropriate urban development.

2. Amend the zoning regulations to help implement the principal objective of the conservation and development of agricultural uses, while accommodating appropriate urban development.

Policy A1.2 Uses that are supportive of agriculture (e.g., agricultural chemical wholesalers, grain elevators and feed stores) should be allowed in rural areas where the following conditions can. be met.1. The existing roads can safely accommodate increase in traffic without causing maintenance problems, and 2. Water supply and sewage disposal systems are environmentally safe.Policy A1.3 Support educational efforts to inform the residents of Lyon County about the needs of the agricultural industry.Policy A1.4 Maintain roads and bridges in good repair for safe and efficient operation of agricultural uses.Objective A2 Minimize conflict between rural/agricultural uses and urban growth areas.Policy A2.1 Urban subdivisions and utility extensions shall be located and designed so as to encourage a logical and compact growth pattern which mitigates conflicts between agricultural and urban land uses.Policy A2.2 Land in the immediate path of urban growth should not be used for any purpose, which will preclude its eventual use for urban purposes.2. i)EVELOPMVENT GOAL: To provide ample opportunity for continued Commercial.

and Industrial development logically distributed at locations with suitable access, adequate public facilities and within an orderly, efficient and environmentally safe planning framework.

Objective D1. Restrict development to areas with few environmental hazards and minimize the loss of natural resources.

-Policy D1.1 New development shall be located in areas, which are relatively free of environmental problems relating to soils and topography.

Policy D1.2 New development shall not alter drainage patterns of adjacent land or cause downstream flooding or pollution.

Policy D13 Non-agricultural development should generally not be located in the 100-year flood plain.Policy D1.4 Development should be avoided on slopes greater than 15% unless the developer can demonstrate that appropiatfes-ps hav.ee n t-e-a fo prevent: soero-sion and slippage.Objective D2 Minimize initial and future public costs of new development.

Policy D2.1 New development shall be encouraged to locate in areas where services and public facilities exist or can easily be extended.Policy D2.2 Streets and utility extensions shall be designed to provide services to the maximum area, with the least length of extension.

Cost for such improvements to a development, where such improvements exclusively serve the development area, shall be borne by the developer or owners of property being served.Policy D2.3 Construction of nonagricultural improvements down stream from an existing watershed dam shall be safely above prescribed flood routing levels, as shown by* flood routing and breaching studies, and the cost of such studies, or updating of an existing study, to be borne by the developer.

1. 9; #9;Objective D3 To provide areas for commercial and industrial development consistent with their intended market and where appropriate public services are available.

Policy D3.1 Commercial uses shall be permitted in rural area if the market being served is distinctly non-urban in nature (e.g., agricultural commodities; highway services; plant nurseries; rural residential services, etc.) or if a suitable urban site cannot be found.Industrial use shall be permitted in rural areas only if the use is agriculture based, requires

,IL a site-specific resource or cannot find an appropriate urban location. (Cost of land shall not be a factor in determining suitability.)

Policy D3.2 Commercial and Industrial uses 'in rural areas shall have direct access to a hard surfaced arterial or collector road.Objective D4 Locate commerial and industrial uses in a manner compatible with adjacent land uses, site constraints and the intensity of the proposed use.Policy D4.1 Commercial or Industrial uses shall not cause traffic congestion or disrupt residential areas.Policy D4.2 Industrial uses which extract mineral resources, or which create or store toxic wastes, will be required to submit plans showing the steps taken to protect the public health and safety, and to reclaim any land damaged or destroyed during operation.

Policy D4.3 New Industrial uses shall be separated and buffered from surrounding non-industrial uses so that the usefulness and value of adjacent property is not impaired.Appropriate buffers may include fences, landscaping and earth berms.Policy D4.4 Industrial uses shall be located and designed so as to minimize any negative impact relating to noise, smoke, dust, runoff or odor.3. HOUSINNG GOAL: To provide decent and affordable housing for present and future populations of Lyon County, while preserving existing residential areas.Objective H1 Locate suburban residential development so that costs of providing and maintaining public services are minimized.

Policy H1.1. Encourage subdivision development to locate within the Metropolitan Planning area.Policy H1.2. Allow residential subdivisions to locate within Urban Reserve Areas, no farther than one mile outside an incorporated or unincorporated place; or beyond one mile in clusters of at least 20 residential lots, provided lots are served by adequate utilities and local streets are improved by a development agreement with the county.

Policy HI.3. Continue to update Subdivision Regulations to ensure that subdivisions developed in the county area are developed to acceptable engineering standards, which are compatible with City of Emporia standards, so such subdivisions do not become a financial burden for the county or the city in event of annexation.

Policy 111. Require subdivisions to connect to public and/or approved sanitary sewage and water systems, and to be provided with appropriate utility easements for extension of all public services.Objective Hi. Limit residential development outside of the Metropolitan Area so that agricultural land is preserve Policy 112.1 Allow existing farmstead or "sell-off' of parcels not less than 6 2/3 acres for a single family residence in an agricultural district to a density of no more than 16 residences per square mile, subject to lot division approval.Policy H2.2. Allow single-family residences to be developed to a higher density than one residence per 40 acres in the Urban Reserve areas; and along the Urban Access Corridors where access is within one mile of a hard-surfaced public road, provided that the carrying capacity of such road is not diminished.

Policy H12.3 Authorize the location of residential development so that it will not restrict existing agricultural operations or remove significant amounts of prime agricultural land from production.

Objective H13. Encourage safe and standard construction practices.

Policy 113.1. Study the advantages and disadvantages of adopting basic Building Codes for non-agricultural construction.

Objective H4 Strive to maintain and upgrade the residential character of existing villages and residential subdivisions.

Policy 114.1 Non-agricultural uses which create substantial traffic, noise or odor, shall be separated physically or visually from existing residential neighborhoods.

Policy H4.2 Vacant areas within predominately residential areas shall be encouraged to be developed similar in character to surrounding residential uses.Policy H4.3 Nonconforming commercial and industrial uses in residential areas shall not be allowed to expand and their conversion to appropriate land uses shall be encouraged.

Policy H4.4 The rehabilitation of housing in older sections within unincorporated villages shall be encouraged.

A61 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Air Emissions and Solid Waste from Coal- and Gas-Fired Alternatives for Wolf Creek Generating Station September 19, 2005 Prepared for: Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Prepared by: Anne Lovell Tetra Tech NUS Aiken, South Carolina 1 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Air Emissions and Solid Waste from Coal-, Gas-, and Oil-Fired' Alternatives for Wolf Creek Generating Station This discussion supports the alternatives analysis in Chapter 7 of the Environmental Report.The process of burning fossil fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, and fuel oil) in power generation brings about emissions that pollute the atmosphere.

Among these, the more important emissions are sulfur oxides (SOx), nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO) and particulate matter (PM). The combustion process also releases carbon dioxide (C0 2) which is considered a contributor to the global warming phenomenon.

If coal or oil is the fuel source, the combustion process produces ash; and the flue gas desulfurization equipment produces a slurry of ash, unreacted lime, calcium sulfate, and calcium sulfite (i.e. scrubber sludge). The management of these solid wastes would require additional facilities at the plant site.The analysis described below estimates air emissions and solid waste from the operation of hypothetical coal-, gas-, and oil-fired electric generation units that could be built to replace the generating capacity of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS), if it's operating licenses were not renewed.I. Problem Statement Provide input for evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action to renew the operating license~s for WCGS. Specifically, calculate:

• Controlled emissions of the following criteria pollutants:

sulfur oxides as sulfur dioxide (SO 2), nitrogen oxides (NO.), carbon monoxide (CO), total suspended particulates (TSP), and particulates smaller than ten microns (PM 1 o) 2.* Uncontrolled carbon dioxide (CO 2) emissions 3.* Solid waste (ash and scrubber sludge) that would be generated by the coal- and fuel oil-fired alternatives.

Emissions and solid waste from oil-fired electric generation units are calculated, but not used in the Environmental Report.In 1971, the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for total suspended particulate (TSP) were established for particulate matter less than 50 microns in diameter.

On July 1, 1987 the particulate standard was revised from TSP to PM 1 0 [52 FR 246341. The PM , 0 standard is federally enforceable and applicable nationwide.

The TSP standard is not federally enforceable, but is used by some states for industrial monitoring purposes.Greenhouse gas (CO2) emissions are calculated, but not used in the Environmental Report.2 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station II. Analyzed Scenario For each of the three fossil fuel-fired electric generation technologies, identify the appropriate electrical generation capability, fuel characteristics, firing configurations, and emissions control devices. Assumptions were based, in part, on electric power industry experience, and consist of the following:

Assumptions:

Electricity Generating Net Generation Capacity Consumed Technology Capacity 1 Units 2 Factor Onsite4 Coal-fired boiler 1,125 MW 8 Two 562.5-MW 8 (net), 0.85 6 percent 596-MWe (gross) unit Combined cycle 1,125 MWe Two 562.5-MWe (net), 0.85 4 percent gas turbine 312-MW 8 (gross) units Fuel oil-fired 1,125 MW, Two 562.5-MW 8 (net), 0.85 4 percent boiler 5 312-MWe (gross) units 1 Assumed slightly less generation capacity than the existing WCGS units to avoid overestimating the impacts of the alternatives.

The net capacity of the combined cycle gas turbine is based on a commercially available unit (i.e., General Electric S207FB). For equivalency, the coal-fired and fuel oil-fired boilers were assumed to have the same net capacity.2 International Standards Organization (ISO) rating.3 Typical for modem fossil fuel-fired units that provide baseload generation capacity.4 Based on industry experience.

5 Emissions from fuel oil-fired units are estimated, but not used in the Environmental Report.Input Data: Generating Firing S Technology Fuel Type 1 Configuration Control Devices 2 Coal-Fired Boiler Pulverized Tangentially-fired, SO 2 -wet scrubber (lime)Bituminous Coal dry-bottom, NSPS NO, -low NO, burner with overfire air with low NO,, burner and selective catalytic reduction TSP and PM 1 0 -fabric filter (baghouse)

Combined Cycle Natural Gas Two 172-MWed SO 2 -not applicable 4 Gas Turbine combustion turbines NO, and CO -selective catalytic with one 218.5-MWe reduction (with steam/water injection) steam turbine driving TSP and PM 1 o -not applicable 4 the same generator Fuel Oil-Fired No. 6 Fuel Oil Tangentially-fired, SO 2'- wet scrubber Boiler with low NO,, burner NO, -selective catalytic reduction TSP and PM 1 0 -fabric filter (baghouse) 1 Determination of the heat content and quality of each fuel is described under Calculation Methodology.

2 Best available control technology.

3 Emissions based on output of combustion turbines only. Heat recovery steam generators do not contribute to emissions..

4 Because of the purity of natural gas, combined-cycle gas turbines emit only trace amounts of SO 2 and particulate matter.3 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station IlI. Calculation Methodology Air Emissions:

Annual emission estimates for criteria pollutants and CO 2 are calculated using emission factors developed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The emission factors are multiplied by the relevant "activity level" to determine annual emission estimates for criteria pollutants and CO 2.The basic emission estimation equation when using an. emission factor is: E=AxEFx (1-C)Where: E = emission estimate A = activity level, such as throughput EF = emission factor C = control efficiency (expressed in percent);

C equals zero if no control device is in place 4 The emissions calculations were performed using a series of Excel spreadsheets.

Three spreadsheets (Coal, Oil, and Gas) provide a summary of the user-specified input and the resulting air emission estimates.

Three other spreadsheets (Coal-alt, Oil-alt, and Gas-all) show in detail how the emissions were calculated.

Four additional spreadsheets (Fuels, Control-coal, Control-gas, and Control-oil) contain lookup matrices and databases for user selection of Energy Information Administration (EIA)-designated fuel characteristics and EPA-designated emission factors for specified fuel type I firing configuration and applicable control devices.Using the coal-fired technology as an example, in a work area that runs along the top of the Coal spreadsheet (cells A3:C8) the analyst specifies the plant abbreviation, client, plant capacity, heat rate basis, state and reference year. The selection enters the fuel characteristics (from the Fuels spreadsheet) and the heat rate into the Input Table (cells Al 2:D28). The analyst then enters into the Input Table, the assumed number of units, unit size, and capacity factor as indicated in Section II, Analyzed Scenario.Going to the Control-coal spreadsheet, the analyst specifies the chosen firing configuration and control devices as indicated in Section II, Analyzed Scenario, by choosing the row number in the tables, which are directly below the selection cell. The selection enters the emission factors and control devices and efficiencies into the Input Table, and displays the annual fuel use and calculated emissions in the Coal spreadsheet (cells A30:D41).Emissions calculations for the gas- and oil-fired alternatives are performed in the same manner.4 Most emission factors are developed assuming no control devices are in place. Some emission factors, however, were derived from data obtained from facilities with a control device in place. When using these "controlled emission factors" the control efficiency is included in the emission factor.4 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Solid Waste: The estimated amount of solid waste (i.e., ash and scrubber sludge) generated by the coal- and oil-fired alternatives is calculated using a material balance based on annual fuel consumption.

The calculations assume complete combustion and operating life of 40 years5.Excel spreadsheets (SW-Coal, and SW-Oi/) were used to perform the calculations.

These spreadsheets use parameters (e.g., fuel use, sulfur content, ash content, and pollutant control efficiency) that were determined while performing the air emissions calculations.

The only input required is the amount of ash recycled (cell E7). Results are displayed on the right-hand side of the output table (cells 110:J54).IV. Verification and Validation This documentation assumes that the referenced EIA and EPA data input is valid.Verification, therefore, must demonstrate that the model is functionally equivalent to manual application of the emission factor methodology using the actual tables published in AP-42. Verification would consist of confirmation of the input and output files as defined in Section V. This would include confirmation of the following:

• The tables in the model are equivalent to the corresponding tables and sections in the referenced publications.

e The input in the work area rolls up the correct data from the model tables into the work area.* The calculated emissions, which also roll up into the work area, are correct and appear correctly in the summary tables and the calculation display tables (i.e., coal-alt).

• Manual calculations from the calculation display tables equate to the listed values.V. Input and Output File Coal-Fired Boiler: Table V.A-1 displays the input and output values for coal-fired boiler air emissions.

User defined input is in bold, the source for other input is referenced, and the output emissions are in reverse video (white letters on black background).

Table V.A-2 displays the equations and the same output values for coal-fired boiler air emissions.

5 The total amount of solid waste generated during the 40-year operating life of an electric generation plant is twice the amount that would be generated during the license renewal period. The total, however, is representative of the cumulative impact.5 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Table V.A-3 displays the calculations and output values for coal-fired boiler solid waste generation.

Figure 1 a is the work area for the sheet named Coal, and displays the input (in bold)and corresponding output from the coal emissions work area. The formulas that generated the output are displayed in Figure 2a. The formulas and output for the coal-fired boiler solid waste generation are provided in Figure 3a. Lookup matrices and databases are shown in Figures 4a and 4b.Each input selects the State or row number for tables that are derived from EIA or EPA data. The Section II, analyzed scenario, defines the appropriate selections and the information is displayed in Table V.A-1. On the Fuels sheet (Figure 4), the input at cell C6 (KS) and cell B6 (2002) retrieves HV, S, and A (cells D6:F6) for average quality coal in Kansas 20026 (EIA 2004a, Table 22).On the Control-coal sheet (Figure 4) input at A5 (2) puts the user-selected SO. control device (wet scrubber-lime) and its control efficiency (95%) into cells B5:C5. The input at E5 (8) places the NOx control device (low NOx burners with overfire air and selective catalytic reduction) and its control efficiency (95%) into cells F5:G5. Similar input in cell 15 (2) selects baghouse control with TSP and PM 1 o control efficiencies of 99.9% (cells J5:L5). For the row selected at N5 (5) SO., NO., CO, and C02 emission factors are placed in P5:S5 for the firing configuration shown in 05. Similarly, less detailed firing configurations have associated emission factors for TSP and PM 1 o. Input at T5 (2) for the firing configuration placed in U5 has emission factors placed in V5:W5.This is all the input required to calculate emissions listed in the problem statement.

The emissions in tons per year are pulled up into cells C36:C41 on the Coal worksheet.

Gas-Fired Combustion Turbine: Input and output for the gas (and fuel oil) alternative is quite similar to the input and output for the coal-fired alternative.

Table V.B-1 displays the input and output values for air emissions from the gas-fired combustion turbine, and Table V.B-2 displays the equations and the same output values.Figure 1 b is the work area for the sheet named Gas, and Figure 2b shows the formulas.Lookup matrices and databases are provided in Figure 4a and 4c.On the Fuels sheet (Figure 4a); input of the State (KS) in cell K6 and the year (2002) in cell J6 retrieves HV (cell L6) for average quality natural gas used in Kansas (EIA 2004b, Kansas Table 6). On the Control-gas sheet, input at cell A5 (6) looks up the NOx and 2001 is the most recent year in which a complete set of data is available for the average quality of coal used in Kansas.6 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station CO emission factors for the selected control device (see B5:D5). SO 2 , C02, filterable TSP, and condensable TSP are uncontrolled.

Their emission factors are listed in Table V.B-1.Fuel Oil-Fired Boiler: Table V.C-1 displays the input and output values for the oil-fired boiler air emissions, and Table V.C-2 displays the equations and the same output values. Table V.C-3 displays the calculations and output values for oil-fired boiler solid waste generation.

Figure 1 c is the work area for the sheet named Oil, and Figure 2c shows the air emission formulas.

The formulas and output for the coal-fired boiler solid waste generation are provided in Figure 3c. Lookup matrices and databases are shown in Figure 4a and 4d.On the Fuels sheet (Figure 4a), input of the Year (2002) in cell P6 and State (KS) in cell Q6 retrieves HV and S for average quality fuel oil used in Kansas into cells R6:S6 (EIA 2004b, Kansas Table 6).On the Control-oil sheet, input in cell A7 (4) looks up the firing configuration and S02, NOx, CO, C02 and filterable TSP emission factors and displays them in B7:H7. The emission factors along with control efficiencies enable the calculation of emissions in tons year, which are shown for the chosen firing configuration in 17:M7 and 07 (PM 1 o in cell N7-will be discussed later). The user selects the SO 2 control device by input of the row number in P7 (2). The output is the control device and its control efficiency in cells Q7:R7. NOx control is via input in S7 (4) and output to T7:U7.The control device for TSP is selected by input into V7 (3) on the Control-oil sheet. The device [fabric filter (baghouse)]

and its control efficiency (99%) are displayed in W7:X7.Controlled PM 1 o is defined as 63% of TSP for electrostatic precipitation and 100% of TSP for scrubber control. Although like information is not given for baghouse control or high-efficiency cyclonic collectors, 63% of TSP is assumed to avoid overestimating the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action (see Y7 and N7).List of Outputs: Tables V.A-1, V.B-1, and V.C-1 list the emissions calculation output in reverse video.Tables V.A-2, V.B-2, and V.C-2 show the equations used for calculating the emissions with the output listed down the right side of the table. Tables V.A-3 and V.C-3 present the equations used to determine the amount of solid waste generated by the coal- and oil-fired alternatives with the output listed down the right side of the table. Figure 5 displays the spreadsheet formulas.7 Air Emissions and Solid Waste Calculation Package Wolf Creek Generating Station Emissions and solid waste generation rates are reported in Section 7.2.2 of the Environmental Report for Wolf Creek Generating Station.Table V.A-I. Emissions for Coal Fired Alternative Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation WCGS Client WCNOC Replaces Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA) EIA If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)Referenced State/Year KS 1,170 MWe 2002 Bituminous Coal Fired Worksheet, Section 1.1 AP-42 Supplement E (EPA 1998a)Inputs Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw'hr)

Heating Value (BTU/lb)Capacity Factor Percent Sulfur Percent Ash SO, Control Device SO, Control Efficiency

(%)NOx Control Device NO 1 Control Efficiency

(%)TSP Control Device TSP Control Efficiency

(%)PM 1 o Control Device PMjo Control Efficiency

(%)Parameter Annual Coal Consumption (tons/yr)Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-3 SOx, NOK, and CO emission factors Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-4 TSP and PM 1 0 emission factors Name Value Source Provides 1,125 MWe < WCGS U 2 net capacity-1 170 MWe E 596 6% used onsite C 562.5 Input HR 10,200 EIA 2002, pg. 110 HV 8,648 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 CF 0.85 Assumed S 0.40 EtA 2004a, KS Table 6 A 5.53 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 Wet scrubber-Lime EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-1 SCE 95 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-1 Low NOx burners with over-fire air end SCR "EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 NCE 95 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 Baghouse EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 TSPCE 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 Baghouse EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 PM10CE 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 Formula Value Source U*E1000*HR/(HV*2000)*CF-365-24 5,236,437 Energy Balance PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 Emissions SOx (tons/yr)NO, (tons/yr)CO (tonslyr)CO 2 (tons/yr)TSP (tons/yr)PMjo (tons/yr)uncontrolled lb/ton 38S = 15.2 10 0.5 5510 1OA= 55.3 2.3A = 12.719 controlled EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 1 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 1 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 13 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-20 1EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 1 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 Bold = user defined inputs (e.g., 562.5)White font = outputs (e.g.,,)8 Table V.A-2. Calculation of Coal Fired Emissions Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station COAL Parameter Calculation Annualcoal 596 MW 1,000kW 10,200 Btu lb ton 2 0.85 3 24hr -consumption unit MW kWxhr

• 8,648 Btu 2,000 lb day yr S02 38 x 0.40 lb ton (100-95) 5,236,437 tons X X X ton 2,000 Ib 100 yr NO. 101b ton (100-95) 5,236,437 tons ton 2,000 lb 100 yr Co 0.5 lb ton 5,236,437 tons ton 2,000 lb yr C0 2 5510 lb ton 5,236,437 tons ton x 2,000 lb yr TSP 10 x 5.53 lb ton (100-99.9) 5,236,437 tons ton 2,000 lb 100 yr Result 5,236,437 tons of coal per year 1,990 tons SO 2 per year 1,309 tons NO, per year 1,309 tons CO per year 14,426,385 tons CO 2 per year 145 tons TSP per year PM 1 O 2.3 x 5.53 lb x ton x (100-99.9) x 5,236,437 tons 33 tons PMlo per year ton 2,000 lb 100 yr 9 Table V.A-3. Calculation of Solid Waste from Coal Fired Alternative Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station S02 Control Method: Wet scrubber-Ume Basis: Annual coal consumption

= 5,236,437 tons Percent of Ash Recycled = 50 %Parameter Calculation generated 0.40 64.1 5,236,437 tons coal SO 100- 32.1 yr* 95 S02 removed 41,871 x 10 100 5.53 tons ash 5,236,437 tons coal 99.9 Ash generated 100 tons coal x yr 100 Wet Scrubbing

-Lime: CaO + 2H20 + SO2 + 1/202 ---> CaSO4

• 2H20 Annual lime 41,871 ton S02 56.1 ton CaO consumption yr 64.1 ton S02 Annual calcium sulfate generation 39,777 ton S02 172 ton CaSO4

• 2H20 rate yr 64.1 ton SO 2 Annual scrubber waste generation 36,645 ton CaO 100- 95 x + 106,734 ton CaSO4 2H20 =rate yr 100 Total volume of 108,566 tons 2000 lb tt 3 scrubber waste yr x 40 yr x ton x 144.8 lb Total volume of ash 289,285 tons 2000 lb ft generated yr ton 100 lb Volume of ash 176,662,847 f x 100-50 disposed 100 Total volume of 59,994,663 ftW + 88,331,424 f -solid waste Waste pile area 148,326,086 ft 3 (fte) 30 ft high Waste pile area 4944203 e acre (acre) 43,560 ft -Waste pile area (feet by feet square) /4,944,203 ft 2 Waste pile area mi 2 (mi 2) 114 acre x 640 acre Waste pile area (mile by mile square) 0J.18mi =Result 41,871 tons SO 2 per year 39,777 tons SO 2 per year 289,285 tons ash per year 36,645 tons CaO per year 106,734 tons CaSO4

• 21-120 per year 108,566 tons Scrubber waste per year 59,994,663 ft 3 Scrubber waste 176,662,847 ft 3 Ash 88,331,424 ft 3 Ash waste 148,326,086 ft 3 Solid waste 4,944,203 ft 2 Solid waste 114 Acre Solid waste 2,224 feet by feet square solid waste 0.18 mi 2 Solid waste mile by mile square 042 solid waste 10 Table V.B-1. Emissions for Gas Fired Alternative Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation Replaces Client Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)It Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/(kwh)

EIA Table 28 Referenced State/Year WCGS WCNOC Client 5,940 KS 1,170 MWe GE S207FB 2002 Gas Turbines for Electrical Generation Worksheet, Section 3.1, AP-42 Supplement B (EPA 2000a)Inputs Number of Units Name U'.E,.Co=, HR,.Value 2 585 562.5 5,940 Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw*hr)

Heating Value (BTU/ft 3)Capacity Factor Sulfur (%)SO,, (lb/MMBTU)

NOx /CO control device NO. (lb/MMBTU)

CO (Ib/MMBTU)

CO 2 (Ib/MMBTU)

Filterable TSP (Ib/MMBTU)

Condensable TSP (lb/MMBTU)

Parameter Qty.=Annual gas consumption (ft/yr)Hj,,,,.,Annual Btu input (MMBTU/yr)

Emissions SOx (tons per year)NOx (tons per year)CO (tons per year))CO 2 (tons per year))Filterable TSP (tons per year)Filterable PM 1 o (tons per year)'Condensable TSP (tons per year)Condensable PM 1 o (tons per year)'HV,.CF,.S SCR (with water/steam injection)

NOX,.CO'CO2 0 1 TSPF 0 , TSPC 9 B 1,000 0.85 NA 0.0034 0.0109 0.00226 110 0.0019 0.0047 Source Provides 1,125 MWe < WCGS net capacity-1,170 MWe 4% used onsite GE S207FB Manufacturers listed heat rate for this unit EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 Assumed Use SO. =.94S if available EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000b EPA 2000b EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a Source Energy Balance EIIP 2001, pg. 2.4-5, eq 2.4-4 EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000b EPA 2000b EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000a, Table 3.1-2a Formula Value UE*1 000*HR/HV*CF*24*365 51,748,210,800 Qf,a,&'HV/1 0e 51,748,211 Ib/MMBTU tons/yr 0.0034 0.0109 0.00226 110 0.0019 0.0019 0.0047 0.0047 I a All particulate matter<1.0 micron (EPA 2000a, Table 1.3-2)Bold = user defined input (e.g., 562.5)White font = outputs (e.g., )11 Table V.B-2. Calculation of Gas Fired Emissions Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station GAS Parameter Annual gas consumption Annual BTU input S0 2 Calculation units x 585 MW 5,940 Btu 1,000 0.85 x 24 hr x365 days unit KWxhr MW 1,000 Btu day yr 51,748,210,800 ftW 1,000 Btu MMBtu X t3 X- -yr ft lOBtu 0.0034 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu MMBtu 2,000 lb yr Result 51,748,210,800 ft 3 per year 51,748,211 MMBtu per year 88 tons SO 2 per year NO.CO 0.0109 lb x ton x 51,748,211 MMBtu MMBtu 2,000 lb yr 0.00226 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu MMBtu x2,000 lb yr 110 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu MMBtu 2,000 lb yr 0.0019 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu MMBtu 2,000 lb yr 282 tons NOx per year 58 tons CO per year C02 2,846,152 tons C02 per year 49 tons filterable TSP per year TSP PMo 49 tons TSP1 yr 49 tons filterable PM 1 o per year 12 Table V.C-1. Emissions for Oil Fired Alternative Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation Client Replaces Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)It Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)Number 6 Oil Fired Worksheet, Section EIA Referenced State/Year WCGS WCNOC 1,170 MWe EIA 1.3 AP-42 Supplement E (EPA 1998b)KS 2002 Inputs Name Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate [BTU/(kwvhr)]

Heating Value (BTU/gal)Capacity Factor Percent Sulfur SO, Control Device SOi Control Efficiency

(%)NO, Control Device NO= Control Efficiency

(%)TSP Control Device TSP Control Efficiency

(%)PM,, fraction of controlled TSP Parameter Annual Oil Consumption (gal/yr)Firing Configuration for Table 1.3-1 SOx, NOx, CO, and filterable TSP emission factors Uoi, COB HVod CF., Sao Wet scrubber SCEd, Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)NCF_Fabric filter (baghouse)

TSPCEOO PM10_TSP Formula U*E*1000*HR/HV*CF*24*365 No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing, low NOx bum Value Source Provides 1,125 MWe <2 WCGS net capacity -1,170 MWe 585 4% used onsite 562.5 Assumed 9,600 EIA, 2002, page 110 152,240 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 0.85 Assumed 1.60 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 95 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 85 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 99 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 0.63 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-4 Value Source 549,352,811 Energy Balance er EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 Emissions uncontrolled lb/Kgal c SOx (tons per year) 157S NO, (tons per year) 26 CO (tons per year)) 5 CO 2 (tons per year)) 25,000 Filterable TSP (tons per year) 9.19S+3.22 Fiterable PM 1 0 (tons per year) 0.63"(9.19S+3.22)

Condensable PM (tons per year)' 1.5 8All condensable PM<1.0 microns (EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-2), no control device identified Bold = user defined input (e.g., 562.5)White font = outputs (e.g.,¢ontrelled tens/yr 49 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-12 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-4 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-2 13 0 Table V.C-2. Calculation of Oil Fired Emissions Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station OIL Parameter Calculation Result Annual Oil consumption 2 units 585 MW 1,000 kW 9,600 Btu x gal x 0.85 x' 24hr x 365 unit MW kWxhr 152,240 Btu day yr 549,352,811 gal oil per year S02 1.6 lb ton 100-95 157 x x x 1,000 gal 2,000 lb 100 x 549,352,811 gal yr 3,450 tons S0 2 per year NO, 26 lb x ton x 100-85 1,000 gal 2,000 lb 100 549,352,811 gal 1,071 tons NO, per year yr CO 5 Ib ton 1,000 gal 2,000 lb 25,000 lb ton 1,000 gal 2,000 lb x549,352,811 gal yr x549,352,811 gal yr 1,373 tons CO per year CO 2 6,866,910 tons C02 per year TSP (9.19 x 1.6) + 3.22 lb ton 100-99 x 549,352,811 gal 1,000 gal 2,000 lb 100 yr 49 tons TSP per year PM 1 0 0.63 tons PMo x 49 tons TSP ton TSP year 31 tons PMjo per year 14 Table V.C-3. Calculation of Solid Waste from Oil Fired Alternative Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station SO 2 Control Method: Wet scrubber Basis: Annual oil consumption

= 549,352,811 gallons Percent of Ash Recycled = 50 %Parameter Calculation Result 157 lb S 549,352,811 gallons oil ton SO 2 generated 1.6 x x x 2000 lb -68,999 tons SO 2 per year 1,000 gal yr 2000 lb 95 SO 2 removed 68,999 x 95 65,549 tons S02 per year ((9.19 x 1.6) +3.22) lb 549,352,811 gal oil 99.9 ton 4,874 tons ash per year Ash generated 1,000 gal oil yr 100 2000 lb Wet Scrubbing

-Lime: CaO + S02 + 2H20 + 1/2 02 ---> CaSO4.2H20 Annual lime 68,999 ton S02 56.1 ton CaO 60,387 tons CaO per year consumption yr 64.1 ton S02 Annual calcium 65,549 ton S02 172 ton CaS04*2H20 175,888 tons CaSO4.2H20 sulfate generation yr 64.1 ton S02 per year Annual scrubber 60,387 ton CaO 100 -95 178,907 tons Scrubber waste x + 175,888 ton CaSO4.2H20 waste generation yr 100 per year Total volume of 178,907 tons 2000 lb ft9 srbewatyrx 40 yr x to x ~ b =98,865,430 ft 3 Scrubber waste scrubber waste yr ton 144.8 lb Total volume of ash 4,874 tons 2000 lb ft2 x 40yr x x 2,7,2- s generated yr ton 73 lb Volue ofash100-50 Volume of ash 2,976,529 fe x 100 1,488,265 ft Ash waste disposed 100 Total volume of solid waste 98,865,430 tt + 1,488,265 fe 100,353,694 ft 3 Solid waste Waste pile area 100,353,694 Wt 3 3,345,123 f Solid waste (ft 2) 30 ft high Waste pile area 3,345,123 ft 2 x acre 77 Acre Solid waste (acre) 43,560 fe 7 Waste pile area (feet by feet square) 3,345123 ft 2 1,829 feet by feet square solid waste mi2 Waste pile area (mi) 77 acre x 0.120 mi 2 Solid waste 640 acre s pMi 2 0.35 mile by mile square Waste pile area (mile by mile square) 40.120 solid waste 15 VI. Input References Fuel characteristics and heat rates EIA (Energy Information Administration).

2002. Electric Power Annual 2000, Volume I1. DOE/EIA-0348(00)/2.

November.

Available at http://tonto.eia.doe.qov/FTPROOT/electricitv/0348002.p)df.

Accessed January 5, 2005.EIA (Energy Information Administration).

2004a. Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants 2001 Tables. DOE/EIA-0191(01).

March. Available at http://www.eia.doe.qov/cneaf/electricity/cq/cq.pdf.

Accessed January 5, 2005.EIA (Energy Information Administration).

2004b. State Electricity Profiles 2002.DOE/EIA-0348(02)/2.

January. Available at http://www.eia.doe.pov/cneaf/electricity/st profiles/profiles.pdf.

Accessed January 5, 2005.Golder Associates.

2004. Sempra Energy Resources Environmental Report in Support of CPCN Application Catoctin Power Project, Frederick County, Maryland.

February.

Available at http://www.catoctinpower.com/aspnetpaqes/Applications.aspx?CPCN.

Accessed January 5, 2005.Emission factors and control devices EIIP (Emission Inventory Improvement Program).

2001. Preferred and Alternate Methods for Estimating Air Emissions from Boilers. May. Available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiip/techreportlvolumeO21iiO2.pdf.

Accessed June 6, 2002.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998a. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources, Section 1.1: Bituminous and Subbituminous Coal Combustion, AP-42. September.

http://www.ega..ov/ttn/chief/ap42cl .html. Accessed November 23, 1999.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1998b. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume I: Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources, Section 1.3, Fuel Oil Combustion.

AP-42. September.

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/

p42c1.html.

Accessed November 23, 1999.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000a. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources, Section 3.1, 16 Stationary Gas Turbines for Electricity Generation.

AP-42. April.http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42pdf/cO3sOl .pdf. Accessed July 24, 2000.EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2000b. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1, Stationary Point Sources and Area Sources, Section 3.1, Stationary Gas Turbines for Electricity Generation Data File. AP-42. April 2000.Available at http//www.epa..ov/ttn/chief/ap42/chO3/related/

CO3s01 .html.Accessed March 12, 2002.1 7 Figure Is -Emissions for Coal Fired Alternative I A IB I C ID 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 15-i -6 17 18 19 22 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation Client Replaces Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)Referenced State/Year WCGS WCNOC 1,170 MWe EIA KS 2002 Bituminous Coal Fired Worksheet, Section 1.1 AP-42 Supplement E Inputs Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw*hr)

Heating Value (BTUJIb)Capacity Factor Percent Sulfur Percent Ash SO. Control Device SOx Control Efficiency

(%)NOx Control Device NO, Control Efficiency

(%)TSP Control Device TSP Control Efficiency

(%)PM 1 0 Control Device PM 1 0 Control Efficiency

(%)Parameter Annual Coal Consumption (tons/yr)Name U E C HR HV CF S A Wet scrubber-Lime SCE Low NOx burners with over-fire air and S NCE Baghouse TSPCE Baghouse PM10CE Formula U'E 1000*HR/(HV*2000)*CF*365"24 Value Source Provides 1125 MWe < WCGS 2 net capacity -1170 MWe 596 6% used onsite 562.5 Input 10,200 EIA 2002, pg. 110 8,648 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 0.85 Assumed 0.40 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 5.53 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-1 95 EPA 199Ba, Table 1.1-2 CR EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 95 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 Value Source 5,236,437 Energy Balance 3._2 33 35 36 377 3.8 39 40 41 43 Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-3 SOx, NOx, and CO emission factors Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-4 TSP and PM 1 0 emission factors PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 Emissions SO,, (tons/yr)NO, (tonslyr)CO (tons/yr)CO 2 (tons/yr)TSP (tons/yr)PMlo (tons/yr)uncontrolled Ib/ton 38S = 15.2 10 0.5 5510 10A= 55.3 2.3A = 12.719 controlled tons/yr Source 1,990 1,309 1,309 14,426,385 145 33 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 EPA 1998a, Table EPA 1998a, Table EPA 1998a, Table EPA 1998a, Table EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 1.1-3 1.1-20 1.1-4 1.1-4 Bold = user defined inputs (e.g., 563)White font = outDuts (e.o.. *.I I WCGS Emissions 2005 Coal 9/19/2005 Figure lb -Emissions for Gas Fired Alternative A B C D 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station WCGS 1,170 MWe Plant Abbreviation Replaces Client Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)EIA Table 28 Referenced State/Year WCNOC Client 5,940 KS GE S207FB 2002 Gas Turbines for Electrical Generation Worksheet, Section 3.1, AP-42 Supplement B Inputs Name Value Source Provides 1125 MWe < WUGCS net 2 capacity of 1170 MWe Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Net Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw*hr)

Heating Value (BTU/if)Capacity Factor Sulfur (%)SO, (lb/MMBTU)

NO, /CO control device NO, (lb/MMBTU)

CO (Ib/MMBTU)

CO 2 (lb/MMBTU)

Filterable TSP (lb/MMBTU)

Condensable TSP (Ib/MMBTU)

Parameter Qf,,m=Annual gas consumption (ft 3/yr)Hi,,,,__Annual Btu input (MMBTU/yr)

Emissions SO, (tons per year)NO, (tons per year)CO (tons per year)CO 2 (tons per year)Filterable TSP (tons per year)Filterable PM 1 0 (tons per year)'Condensable TSP (tons per year)Condensable PM 1 0 (tons per year)'a All particulate matter<1.0 micron (AP Ugas HV9", S 585 562.5 5,940 1,000 0.85 NA 4% used onsite GE S207FB Manutacturer's listed heat rate tor this unit EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 Assumed Use SO,=.94S if available SOXg. 0.0034 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a Selective Catalytic Reduction (with water/steam injection)

NOX 9 8 , 0.0109 EPA 2000, Table 3.1 Database COg" 0.00226 EPA 2000, Table 3.1 Database CO2gas 110 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a TSPFg., 0.0019 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a TSPC 9 , 0.0047 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a Formula U*E*1 000*HR/HV*CF*24*365 Qf,ann*HV/10e IbIMMBTU 0.0034 0.0109 0.00226 110 Value 51,748,210,800 51,748,211 tons/yr Source Energy Balance EIIP 2001, pg 2.4-5, eq 2.4-4 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000, Table 3.1 Database EPA 2000, Table 3.1 Database EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a 0.0019 0.0019 0.0047 0.0047-42 Table 1.3-2)I Bold = user defined input (e.g., 563)White font = outputs (e.a., I WCGS Emissions 2005 Gas 9/19/2005 Figure Ic -Emissions for Oil Fired Alternative I A I -B I. C ID 1 2 3J 4 6 7 8 10 11 f-w 1_22 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22.23 24 25 26 27 28 29 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation Client Replaces Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)EIA Table 28 Referenced State/Year WCGS WCNOC 1,170 MWe EIA KS 2002 Number 6 Oil Fired Worksheet, Section 1.3 AP-42 Supplement E Inputs Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate [BTU/(kw*hr)]

Heating Value (BTU/gal)Capacity Factor Percent Sulfur SO, Control Device SOx Control Efficiency

(%)NO 1 Control Device NOx Control Efficiency

(%)TSP Control Device TSP Control Efficiency

(%)PM 1 0 fraction of controlled TSP Parameter Annual Oil Consumption (gal/yr)Name Value Source Provides 1125 MWe < W;(Xi 2 net capacity of 1170 MWe 585 Cog HR, HVou CF, So, Wet scrubber SCE0 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)NCF., Fabric filter (baghouse)

TSPCE, PM10_JSP Formula U*E*1 000*HR/HV*CF*24"365 562.5 9,600 152,240 4% used onsite 5t;2.5 MWe Uu plant consisting of two 172 MW CTs + 218.5 MW HRSG**EIA 2002, pg. 110 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 0.85 Assumed 1.60 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 95 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 85 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 99 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 0.63 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-4 Value Source 549,352,811 Energy Balance Firing Configuration for Table 1.3-1 SOx, NOx, CO, and filterable TSP emission factors No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing, low NOx burner 30 31 Y2 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1.33 34 35 3._6 37 Y8 39 40 41 42 zA Emissions uncontrolled IibKgal SO, (tons per year) 157S NO, (tons per year) 26 CO (tons per year) 5 CO 2 (tons per year) 25,000 Filterable TSP (tons per year) 9.19S+3.22 Fiterable PM 1 0 (tons per year) 0.63"(9.19S+3.22)

Condensable PM (tons per year)' 1.5 a All condensable PM<1.0 microns (AP-42 Table 1.3-2), no control device identified HRSG output does not contribute to emissions.

4 5 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-12 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-4 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-2 Bold = user defined input (e.g., 563)White font = outputs (e.g., S )44I WCGS Emissions 2005 Oil 9/19/2005 Figure 2a -Calculation of Coal Fired Emissions A IB C I D E IF I G H I I I J I KI L I M N 0 0 1 P 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station COAL Parameter Annual coal consumption sO2 NO, CO Co 2 TSP PM, 0 Calculation nt 596MW 1,000 kW 10200 Btu lb ton 24 hr 365 days 2uunitsx--nit-x MW x kWh x 8,648 Btu X200 x 0.5 x ayx yr 38 x 0.4 lb x ton x (100-95) 5,236,437 tons ton 2000 lb 100 yr 10 lb ton (100- 95) 5,236,437 tons ton 2000 b 100 yr ton 2000 lb yr 0.5 lb ton x5,236,437 tons ton 2000 lb yr 5510 .b x ton x 5,2365437 tons n ton 2000 lb yr 10 x 5.53 Ib x ton (100 -99.y) x 5 r236,437 tons ton 200 IOOb x 100 yr Result 5,236,437 tons of coal per year 1,990 tons SO 2 per year 1,309 tons NO, per year 1,309 tons CO per year 14,426,385 tons CO 2 per year 145 tons TSP per year 33 tons PMlo per year WCG.ssions 2005 C4 q/1 9/2005 0 0 Figure 2b -Calculation of Gas Fired Emissions A B C D E F GH I J K L I M I N P I a I R Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station 2 3 4 5 GAS 6 Parameter Calculation Result 7 8 Annualgas 2 units x 585 MW 5940 Btu 1,000kW W 0f85 24 hr x365days 51,748,210,800 ft3 per year 9 consumption unit x kWh MW 1000 Btu day yr 0 11 Annual BTU 51,748,210,800 ft 3 1000 Btu MMBt- 51,748,211 MMBtu per year 12 input yr x ftj0- X Bt 13 414 15 0.0034 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu 88 tons S02 per year 6 MMBtu x 2000 lb x yr T7 78 19 NOx 0.0109 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu 282 tons NO, per year 20 MMBtu x 2000 b x yr 21 22 23 CO 0.00226 lb ton 51x748 211 MMBtu 58 tons CO per year 2TMMBtu 200 yrX 25 26 2C0 2 110 lb ton 51,748,211 MMBtu 2,846,152 tons CO 2 peryear 28 MMBtu x : 0-00 lb yr 30 31 TSP 0.0019 lb x ton x 51,748,21 1 MMBtu = 49 tons filterableTSP per year 32 MMBtu 2000 lb yr 394 35 PM 1 o 49 tons TSP 49 tons filterable PM 1 o per year 136 yr WCGS Emissions 2005 , Gas-alt 9/19/2005 Figure 2c -Calculation of Oil Fired Emissions A B C D E F G I H I I I J I K L M N 0 P 1 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station 2 3 5 OIL 6 Parameter Calculation Result 7 8Annumpti 2 units x 585 MW x 1000 MkW x 9600 Btu x gal x 0.85 x _24 hr x 365 days 549,352,811 gal oil per year 9 consumption 2utsx unit MW kWh 152240 Btu X .5X day X yr 10 12 1.6 lb ton x (100-95) 549,352,811 ga 13SO 2 157 x 10 x 200lx 0 yr 3,450 tons SO 2 per year 131,000 gal 2000 lb 100 yr 14 15 16 NO, 26 lb ton (100-85) x 549,352,811 a 1,071 tons NO, per year 17 1000 gal 2000 lb 100 yr 81 19 20 5 lb ton 549,352,811 ga 11CO = 1,373 tons CO per year 21 1,000 gal 25 00b x yr 22 23 24 CO 2 25000 lb ton 549'352.811 ga 6,866,910 tons CO 2 per year 25 1,000 gal 2000 lb x yr 26 27 28- ((9.19 x 1.6) + 3.22) lb ton (100-99) 549,352,811 ga -4 osTPprya 29 1,000 gal x2000 lb x 100 x yr 49tonsTSPperyear 30 31 32 PM,, 0.63 x 49 ton 31 tons PM 1 0 per year 3vr 34 WCGSWions 2005 0 Q/19/2005 0 Figure Sa -Calculation of Solid Waste from Coal Fired Alternative A B C D I E F I G I H I J I K L 1 5 6 7 10--9-13 15-1-29 34 35 37-'T 41 52 7-3T 54 W6 37 71 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station SO 2 Control Method: Wet scrubber-Lime Basis: Annual coal consumption

= 5,236,437 tons Percent of ash recycled =50%Parameter Calculation S0 2 generated 0.40 x 64,1 x 5,236,437 tons coal 100 32.1 yr Resuft 41,871 tons SO 2 per year 39,777 tons S02 per year 289,285 tons ash per year SO 2 removed Ash generated 41,871 x 951 100 5.53 5.236,437 tons x 99.9 100 yr 100 Wet Scrubbing

-Ume: CaO + S02 + 2H20 + 1/2 02 -> CaSO4

• 2H20 Annual lime consumption Annual calcium sulfate generation rats 41,871 ton S02 x 56.1 ton CaO yr 64.1 ton S02 39,777 ton S02 x 172 ton CaS0412H20 yr 64.1 ton S02 Annual scrubber waste generation 36,645 ton CaO x I + 106,734 rate yr 100 ton CaS04"2H20

=Total volume of 108,586 tons scrubber waste yr Total volume of 289,285 tons x ash generated yr 40 X2000 lb -r ton 144.8 1, 4oyr x -x fI tn 131 lb Volume of ash 176,662,847 I x M disposed .100 Total volume of 5 ft + 88,331,424 t =solid waste Waste pile area 148.326,086 It 3 (It 2) 30 It hlgh Waste pile area 4,944,203 f X (acre) 43,560 acre Waste pile area (feet by feet square) = / 4,944,203 ft 2 =Waste pile area mie (mie) 114 640 acre-Waste pile area (mile by mile square) b' 0.18 mp=36,645 tons CaO per year 106,734 tons CaSO4*2H20 per year 108,566 tons Scrubber waste per year 59,994,663 fe Scrubber waste 176,662,847 ft 3 Ash 88,331,424 ft 2 Ash waste 148,326,086 fe Solid waste 4,944,203 ft 2 Solid waste 114 Acre Solid waste 2,224 feet by feet square solid waste 0.18 m?2 Solid waste 0.42 mite by mile square solid waste

References:

Notes: 1) King, W. Christopher, 1996, Environmental Engineering P.E. Examination Guide & Handbook, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 287-290.2) Munro, Lloyd. A. 1964, Chemistry in Engineering, Prentice-Hall.

a. All calculations were performed using stoichometric ratios from the chemical equation shown above and molecular weights of the compounds.

b. Calculations assume 100% combustion of coal.c. Lime consumption is based on total S02 generated.

d. Calcium Sulfate Generated is based on total S02 Removed.e. Total sludge generated includes scrubbing media carryover in the waste.f. D.e.nityof Coal Fly Ash is approximately 131 lb/ft 3 Source: User Guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in pavement construction, Table 4-4, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, http://tfhrc.gov/hnr2O/recycletwaste/cbabsl .htm g. Density of Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate is 144.8 lb/ft3 h. Assume plant life (e.g., forty year).i. Assume waste pile height (e.g., 30 ft.).WCGS Emissions 2005 SW-Coal 9/19/2005 1 61 7 10 13 15 29 34i 36 37 40 44 52 54 58 69 72 43 S B P S S¥¢Figure 3b -Calculation of Solid Waste from Oil Fired Alternative A B C D I E I F I G I H I J I K I L Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station%0 Control Method: Wet scrubber Isoa: Annual oil consumption

=Percent of ash recycled =Calculation 549,352,811 gallons 50%Brammeter 02 generated 02 removed 157 bS 549352811 gallons oil ton 1.6 1,000 gal olx yr x 20000 b 68,999 x 95 100 Result 68,999 tons SO 2 per year 65,549 tons SO 2 per year 4,874 tons ash per year U(9.19 x 1.6)+3.22)lb 549352811 Gallons ogl 99 ton 1,000 gal oll yr --00 2000b =Yet Scrubbing

-Ume:;aO + S02 + 2H20 + 1)2 02 -> CaSO4 2H20 unual lime onsumption 68,999 ton S02 56.1 ton CaO yr 64.1 ton SO2 Annual calcium sulfate 65,549 ton S02 x 172 ton CaSO4"2H20 generation rate yr 64.1 ton S02 Annual scrubber waste generation 60,387 ton CaO x 100-95 + 175888 ton CaSO4"21H120 rate yr 100 Total volume of 178,907 tons x scrubber waste yr Total volume of 4,874 tons ash generated yr Volume of ash 2,976,529 fte x disposed 40yr x 2000 b x f1 l ton 144.81 ih 2000 1b ft *40yr x ton 131 ib 100-50 100 60,387 tons CaO per year 175,888 tons CaSO4"2H20 per year 178,907 tons Scrubber waste per year 98,865,430 ft 3 Scrubber waste 2,976,529 ft Ash 1,488,265 ft 3 Ash waste 100,353,694 fe Solid waste 3,345,123 ft 2 Solid waste 77 Acre Solid waste 1,829 feet by feet square solid waste 0.120 m?2 Solid waste 0.35 mile by mile square solid waste Totalvolume of 98,865,430 fe + 1.488,265 =solid waste Waste pile area 100.353,694 it =(ft) 30 ft high Waste pile area 3,345,123 e x 43 acre (acre) 43,560 ft=Waste pile area (feet by feet square) = /3,345,123 t12 =easte pie area Im?2) 77 acrex me 640 acre =Waste pie area (mile by mile square)~1 0.120mt

References:

Notes: 1) King, W. Christopher, 1996, Environmental Engineering P.E. Examination Guide & Handbook, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 287-290.2) Munro, Lloyd. A. 1964. Chemistry in Engineering, Prentice-Hanl.

a. All calculations were performed using stoichometric ratios from the chemical equation shown above and molecular weights of the compounds.

b. Calculations assume 100% combustion of oil c. Limestone consumption is based on total S02 generated.

d. Calcium Sulfate Generated is based on total S02 Removed.a. Total sludge generated includes scrubbing media carryover in the waste.f. Density of Fly Ash is approximately 131 bifte Source: User Guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in pavement construction, Table 4-4, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, httpl/tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/Cbabs .htim g. Density of Calcium Sulfate Dilydrate is 144.8 lb/tt?h. Assume plant life (e.g., forty year).i. Assume waste olle height (e.o.. 30 tt-.WCGS Emissions 2005 SW-Oil 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics A I BI C D E F IGI H L2 1 2 3 4 5 6 3 Worksheet Heating Fired by Value Sulfer Ash 4 coal Year State (BTU/Ib) (Percent) (Percent)5 Firedby Year State HV S A n6Coal 2002 KS 8648 0.40 5.53 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 9 36 37 38 39 40 41 Input Table for Coal Firedby Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Year 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 2001 State AL AZ AR CA CT DE FL GA IL IA KS LA MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NH NJ NY NC OH PA SC TN TX VT VA WA WI HV 10850 10175 8708 8479 13118 12572 12146 11754 9654 8658 8686 7885 12945 13137 10220 8909 11718 8918 8586 13013 12883 13086 12303 11823 12900 12586 11605 7651 13118 12643 8310 9108 S 0.92 0.58 0.28 0.55 1.27 0.67 1.54 0.81 1.1 0.37 0.43 0.74 1.18 0.95 0.57 0.47 0.7 0.36 0.31 1.34 1.57 1.97 0.86 2.07 2.12 1.15 1.36 0.67 1.27 1.02 0.73 0.37 A 8.84 12.37 4.61 8.71 1 6.4 2 11.56 8.88 10.87 6.91 5.38 5.53 9.14 9.16 7.12 6.24 6.6 8.84 5.17 5.07 6.74 9.48 7.92 11.47 11.63 8.96 9.26 8.99 10.44.6.4 2 11.02 11.49 5.26 WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics IA I B I c D E F GH 8 9 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75-76 77 7Z8 79 80 Input Table for Coal Firedby Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Coal Year 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 2002 State AL AZ AR CA CT DE FL GA IL IA KS LA MD MA MI MN MS MO NE NH NJ NY NC OH PA SC TN TX VT VA WA WI HV 11245 10151 8694 11868 11309 12352 12247 11698 9151 8860 8648 7904 12913 12501 9991 8818 9576 8822 8593 13017 12853 12825 12342 11644 11782 12361 11631 7700 10157 12757 8052 9753 S 0.9 0.6 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.9 1.5 0.8 0.7 0.4 0.4 0.5 1.1 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.3 1.2 1.2 1.8 0.8 2 1.9 1.2 1.3 0.7 0.94 1.2 1 0.4 A 8.84 12.37 4.61 8.71 6.4 11.56 8.88 10.87 6.91 5.38 5.53 9.14 9.16 7.12 6.24 6.6 8.84 5.17 5.07 6.74 9.48 7.92 11.47 11.63 8.96 9.26 8.99 10.44 6.4 3 11.02 11.49 5.26'Pacific region average'New England region average 3 National average 2002 percent ash not available.

Assumed 2002 percent ash is the same as 2001 data.WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics IJ K L M 1 1 2 3 4 2 3 Worksheet Heating Fired by Value 4 Gas Year State (BTU/ft 3)5 Firedby Year State HV 6 Gas 2002 KS 1,000 7 8 Input Table for Gas 9 Firedby Year State HV 10 Gas 2001 AL 1029 11 Gas 2001 AZ 1020 12 Gas 2001 AR 1035 13 Gas 2001 CA 1013 14 Gas 2001 CT. 1034 2 15 Gas 2001 DE 1032 16 Gas 2001 FL 1044 17 Gas 2001 GA 1025 18 Gas 2001 IL 1029 19 Gas 2001 IA 1003 20 Gas 2001 KS 1006 21 Gas 2001 LA 1040 22 Gas 2001 MD 1043 3 23 Gas 2001 MA 1031 24 Gas 2001 MI 1014 25 Gas 2001 MN 1008 26 Gas 2001 MS 1027 27 Gas 2001 MO 1005 28 Gas 2001 NE 1003 29 Gas .2001 NH 1074 30 Gas 2001 NJ 1022 31 Gas 2001 NY 1018 32 Gas 2001 NC 1035 33 Gas 2001 OH 1025 34 Gas 2001 PA 1042 35 Gas 2001 SC 1028 36 Gas 2001 TN 1028 1 37 Gas 2001 TX 1026 38 Gas 2001 VT 1012 39 Gas 2001 VA 1035 40 Gas 2001 WA 1015 4 41 Gas 2001 WI 1007 WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics IJ K L M 8 Input Table for Gas 9 Firedby Year State HV 42 Gas 2002 AL 1027 43 Gas 2002 AZ 1018 44 Gas 2002 AR 1019 45 Gas 2002 CA 1019 46 Gas 2002 CT 1023 47 Gas 2002 DE 1023 48 Gas 2002 FL 1026 49 Gas 2002 GA 1022 50 Gas 2002 IL 988 51 Gas 2002 IA 1015 52 Gas 2002 KS 1000 53 Gas 2002 LA 1029 54 Gas 2002 MD 1041 55 Gas 2002 MA 1019 56 Gas 2002 MI 1007 57 Gas 2002 MN 1006 58 Gas 2002 MS 1026 59 Gas 2002 MO 1008 60 Gas 2002 NE 977 61 Gas 2002 NH 1031 62 Gas 2002 NJ 1032 63 Gas 2002 NY 1019 64 Gas 2002 NC 1010 65 Gas 2002 OH 1026 66 Gas 2002 PA 1027 67 Gas 2002 SC 1028 68 Gas 2002 TN 1024 69 Gas 2002 TX 1019 70 Gas 2002 VT 1018 71 Gas 2002 VA 1019 72 Gas 2002 WA 1026 73 Gas 2002 WI 983 74 'East South Central region average 75" "New England region average 76 3 South Atlantic region average 77 4Pacific Contiguous region average 78 79 80 so WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics NI 0 1 P I a I R I S TU 1 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 Worksheet Heating Fired by Value Sulfur 4 Oil Year State (BTU/gal) (Percent)5 Firedby Year State HV S 6 Oil 2002 KS 152,240 1.60 7 8 Input Table for Oil 9 Firedby Year State HV S 10 Oil 2001 AL 138029 1.64 5 11 Oil 2001 AZ 139208 1.64 5 12 Oil 2001 AR 1410701410701.64 5 13 Oil 2001 CA 146958 1.1 14 Oil 2001 CT 151266 1.64 1,5 15 Oil 2001 DE 152515 0.8 16 Oil 2001 FL 151888 1.6 17 Oil 2001 GA 138498 0.05 4 18 Oil 2001 IL 145942 0.3 19 Oil 2001 IA 139423 0.05 4 20 Oil 2001 KS 156312 1.7 21 Oil 2001 LA 151064 0.9 22 Oil 2001 MD 151469 1.64 2,5 23 Oil 2001 MA 144420 0.5 24 Oil 2001 MI 147107 1.7 25 Oil 2001 MN 138002 5.6 26 Oil 2001 MS 154846 3 27 Oil 2001 MO 137780 3.7 28 Oil 2001 NE 138068 1.64 5 29 Oil 2001 NH 152476 0.8 30 Oil 2001 NJ 149974 0.8 31 Oil 2001 NY 151561 0.7 32 Oil 2001 NC 138339 1.64 5 33 Oil 2001 OH 139451 0.05 4 34 Oil 2001 PA 149500 0.5 35 Oil 2001 SC 138119 1.64 5 36 Oil 2001 TN 139900 1.64 5 37 Oil 2001 TX 140536 1.2 38 Oil 2001 VT 151266 1.64 1,5 39 Oil 2001 VA 150331 1.1 40 Oil 2001 WA 143959 1.64 3,5 41 Oil 2001 Wl 140000 5.5 WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 4a -Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics N 0 0 P1 0 R S IT1U 8 Input Table for Oil 9 Firedby Year State HV S 42 Oil 2002 AL 140117 0.1 43 Oil 2002 AZ 138007 0.1 44 Oil 2002 AR 1387051387050.4 45 Oil 2002 CA 96990 1.9 46 Oil 2002 CT 149929 0.4 47 Oil 2002 DE 146095 0.7 48 Oil 2002 FL 147664 1.8 49 Oil 2002 GA 140850 0.4 50 Oil 2002 IL 146974 0.1 51 Oil 2002 IA 137281 0.05 4 52 Oil 2002 KS 152240 1.6 53 Oil 2002 LA 140060 -5.4 54 Oil 2002 MD. 150922 1.1 55 Oil 2002 MA 150202 0.9 56 Oil 2002 MI 146871 1.9 57 Oil 2002 MN 131276 5.8 58 Oil 2002 MS 140924 1.4 59 Oil 2002 MO 134476 3.3 60 Oil 2002 NE 138150 0.2 61 Oil 2002 NH 149660 1.5 62 Oil 2002 NJ 141631 0.4 63 Oil 2002 NY 148476 1 64 Oil 2002 NC 145562 1 65 Oil 2002 OH 138681 0.1 66 Oil 2002 PA 143421 0.5 67 Oil 2002 SC 144638 1.2 68 Oil 2002 TN 138486 0.5 69 Oil 2002 TX 138090 3.9 70 Oil 2002 VT .137760 1.64 5 71 Oil 2002 VA 148645 1 72 Oil 2002 WA 146121 0.3 73 Oil 2002 WI 137686 5.2 74 'New England region average 75 2South Atlantic region average 76 3Pacific Contiguous region average 77 4Published percent sulfur is <0.1, assumed 0.05 percent sulfur.78 5 National average percent sulfur 79 80 WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 o Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative A B C D 1 1 2 3 2 3 SO 2 Control select #from Table 1.1-1 Efficiency 4 below Table 1.1-1 S02 Control Technology

(%)5 1 Wet scrubber-Lime 95 6 7 Table 1.1-1 8 9 Number Technology Efficiency 10 1 Wet scrubber-Lime 95 11 2 Wet scrubber-Limestone 95 12 3 Wet scrubber-Sodium carbonate 98 13 4 Wet scrubber-Magnesium oxide/hydroxide 95 14 5 Wet scrubber-Dual alkali 96 15 6 Spray drying 90 16 7 Furnace Injection 50 17 8 Duct injection 50 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative F G IH 2 3 1 NO. Control select #from Table 1.1-2 below Table 1.1-2 Max.NO, Control Efficency

(%)95 8 Table 1.1-2 NOx control technique Low NOx burners with over-fire air and SCR Table 1.1-2 Number Technique 1 Overfire air 2 Low NO, burners 3 Low NOx burners with overfire air 4 Rebum 5 Selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR)6 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR)7 Low NOx burners with selective noncatalytic reduction 8 Low NOx burners with over-fire air and SCR Efficiency 30 55 60 60 60 85 80 95 I WCGS *sions 2005 Coniv I 005 o Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative N 0 P Q R_ S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 SO., NO,, CO, CO 2 Emissions Select # for Tables 1.1-3 1.1-4, and 1.1-20 firing configuration Firing Configuration from Table 1.1-3 for SO,, NOx, and CO emission factors 12 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS SOx formula (lb/ton)NO, formula (lb/ton)CO formula (Ib/ton)C02 formula (lb/ton)38S 10 0.5 5510 Tables 1.1-3, 1.1-4, and 1.1-20 EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOx, NOx, CO, AND C02 FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL Emission Factors from No. Firing configration Tables 1.1-3, 1.1-17, and 1.1-20 1 PC, dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous Pre-NSPS 2 PC, dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous Pre-NSPS with low-Nox burner 3 PC, dry bottom wall-fired, sub-bituminous Pre-NSPS 4 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, Pre-NSPS 5 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, Pre-NSPS with low-NOx bumer 6 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, sub-bituminous, Pre-NSPS 7 PC, wet bottom, wall-fired, bituminous, Pre-NSPS 8 PC, dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous NSPS 9 PC, dry bottom, wall fired, sub-bituminous NSPS 10 PC, dry bottom, cell burner fired, bituminous 11 PC, dry bottom, cell bumer fired, sub-bituminous 12 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS 13 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, sub-bituminous, NSPS 14 PC, wet bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS 15 PC, wet bottom, wall-fired sub-bituminous 16 Cyclone Furnace, bituminous 17 Cyclone Furnace, sub-bituminous 18 Spreader Stoker, bituminous 19 Spreader Stoker, sub-bituminous 20 Overfeed stoker 21 Underfeed stoker 22 Hand-fed units 23 FBC, circulating bed 24 FBC, bubbling bed SO, NO, CO 38S 22 0.5 38S 11 0.5 35S 12 0.5 38S 15 0.5 38S 9.7 0.5 35S 8.4 0.5 38S 31 0.5 38S 12 0.5 35S 7.4 0.5 38S 31 0.5 35S 14 0.5 38S 10 0.5 35S 7.2 0.5 38S 14 0.5 35S 24 0.5 38S 33 0.5 35S 17 0.5 38S 11 5 35S 8.8 5 38S 7.5 6 31S 9.5 11 31S 9.1 275 31S 5 18 31S 15.2 18 C02 5510 5510 4810 5510 5510 4810 5510 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 5510 5510 5510 5510 m., WCGS ions 2005 Control-coal 0 0/19/2005 0 e Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative U I vw 8 9 10 Select # for Tables 1.1-4 firing Firing Configuration from Table 1.1-4 for TSP and PM 1 0 emission configuration factors TSP formula (Ib/ton)10A PM 1 0 formula (lb/ton)2.3A 2 PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired Table 1.1-4 UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PM AND PM-10 FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION Number Firing Configuration Emission Factors from TSP PM 1 0 10A 2.3A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9*10 11 12 13 14 PC-fired, dry bottom, wall-fired PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired PC-fired, wet bottom Cyclone furnace Spreader stoker Spreader stoker, with multiple cyclones, and reinjection Spreader stoker, with multiple cyclones, no reinjection Overfeed stoker Overfeed stoker, with multiple cyclones Underfeed stoker Underfeed stoker, with multiple cyclones Hand-fed units FBC, bubbling bed FBC, circulating bed 10A 7A 2A 66 17 12 16 9 15 11 15 17 17 2.3A 2.6A 0.26A 13.2 12.4 7.8 6 5 6.2 6.2 6.2 12.4 12.4 WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 4b -Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative X Y Z AA AB AC 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 2 3 Sox NO, CO C0 2 TSP PM 1 0 emission emission emission emission emission emission 4 (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tons/yr)5 1,990 1,309 1,309 14,426,385 145 33 6 7 8 9 10 Sq, NO. CO C02 TSP PM 1 0 11 1,990 2,880 1,309 14,426,385 145 33 12 1,990 1,440 1.309 14,426,385 145 33 13 1,833 1,571 1,309 12,593,632 101 38 14 1,990 1,964 1,309 14,426,385 29 4 15 1,990 1,270 1,309 14,426,385 956 191 16 1,833 1,100 1,309 12,593,632 246 180 17 1,990 4,058 1,309 14,426,385 174 113 18 1,990 1,571 1,309 14,426,385 232 87 19 1,833 969 1,309 12,593,632 130 72 20 1,990 4,058 1,309 14,426,385 217 90 21 1,833 1,833 1,309 12,593,632 159 90 22 1,990 1,309 1,309 14,426,385 217 90 23 1,833 943 1,309 12,593,632 246 174 24 1,990 1,833 1,309 14,426,385 246 174 25 1,833 3,142 1,309 12,593,632 26 1,990 4,320 1,309 14,426,385 27 1,833 2,225 1,309 12,593,632 28 1,990 1,440 13,091 14,426,385 29 1,833 1,152 13,091 12,593,632 30 1,990 982 15,709 14,426,385 31 1,623 1,244 28,800 14,426,385 32 1,623 1,191 720,010 14,426,385 33 1,623 655 47,128 14,426,385 34 1,623 1,99Q 47,128 14,426,385 35 WCGS ,,sions 2005 Control-coal 0 9/19/2005 0 Figure 4c -Emission Control Technologies for Gas-Fired Alternative B C D E 2 3 4 Select # from Tabli 3.1-1 or 3.1-2 1 e NO, Emission CO Emission (lb/MMBTU) (lb/MMBTU)

NOX/CO Control Selective Catalytic Reduction (with water/steam 6 injection) 0.0109 0.00226 Source Table 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 1 Uncontrolled 2 Water Injection 3 Steam injection 4 Lean-Premix 5 Selective Catalytic Reduction 6 Selective Catalytic Reduction (with water/steam injectio 7 Steam/Water Injection with SCR & CO Catalyst 1 Source: AP-42 Table 3.1 Database NOx 0.32 0.13 0.13 0.099 0.0128 0.0109 0.00899 CO 0.082 0.03 0.03 0.015 0.0168 1 0.00226 0.06 1 WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-gas 9/19/2005 Figure 4d -Emission Control Technologies for Oil-Fired Alternative A B C D E F G H 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 2 3 4 5 Table 1.3-1 Table 1.3-2 Select # Table 1.3-1 Table 1.3-1 Table 1.3-1 Table 1.3-1 Filterable PM Condensable from Table Table 1.3-1 Firing Configuration for SO 2 Emission NOx Emission CO Emission CO 2 Emission Emission PM Emission 6 1.3-1 below >1 00MMBTU/hr boilers (lb/Kgal) (lb/Kgal) (lb/Kgal) (Ib/Kgal) (lb/Kgal) (lb/Kgal)7 4 No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing, low NOx burner 157S 26 5 25000 9.19S+3.22 1.5-8 9 Table 1.3-1. CRITERIA POLLUTANT EMISSION FACTORS FOR FUEL OIL COMBUSTION 10 1 No. 6 oil fired, normal firing 157S 47 5 25000 9.19S+3.22 1.5 11 2 No. 6 oil fired, normal firing, low NO, burner 157S 40 5 25000 9.19S+3.22 1.5 12 3 No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing 157S 32 5 25000 9.19S+3.22 1.5 13 4 No. 6 oil fired, tangential firing, low NO, burner 157S 26 5 25000 9.19S+3.22 1.5 14 5 No. 5 oil fired, normal firing 157S 47 5 25000 10 1.5 15 6 No. 5 oil fired, tangential firing 157S 32 5 25000 10 1.5 16 7 No. 4 oil fired, normal firing 157S 47 5 22300 7 1.5 17 8 No. 4 oil fired, tangential firing 157S 32 5 22300 7 1.5 18 9 No. 2 oil fired 157S 24 5 22300 2 1.3 19 10 No. 2 oil fired, LNB/FGR 157S 10 5 22300 2 1.3 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WCGSf sions 2005 Contr 1 11 6 9/19/2005 0 o Figure 4d -Emission Control Technologies for Oil-Fired Alternative I I J I K I L M M I N 0-I 1 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 2 3 4 S02 NO, CO C02 TSP PM 1 o Condens Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission Emission able-PM 6 (tons/yr) (tons/yr) (tonslyr) (tonslyr) (tonstyr) (tonstyr) (tonslyr)7 3450 1071 1373 6866910 49 31 412 8 9 Emissions 10 3450 1936 1373 6866910 49 31 412 11 3450 1648 1373 6866910 49 31 412 12 3450 1318 1373 6866910 49 31 412 13 3450 1071 1373 6866910 49 31 412 14 3450 1936 1373 6866910 27 17 412 15 3450 1318 1373 6866910 27 17 412 16 3450 1936 1373 6125284 19 12 412 17 3450 1318 1373 6125284 19 12 412 18 3450 989 1373 6125284 5 3 357 1f9 3450 412 1373 6125284 5 3 357 20_o 21 22 23 24 25 26 WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-oil 9/19/2005 Figure 4d -Emission Control Technologies for Oil-Fired.Altemative P Q R S T U 1 2 3 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 Select # SO2 Control Select # NO, Control for SO 2 efficiency for NOx efficiency 6 Control S02 Control Device (%) Control NO, Control Device (%)7 2 Wet scrubber 95 4 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 85 8 9 Control Efficiencies from §1.3.4;10 1 Flue gas desulfurization 95 1 Flue gas recirculatlon 50 11 2 Wet scrubber 95 2 Low NO, bumer (LNB) 55 12 3 Dry scrubber 90 3 Low NO, burner with overfire air 60 13 4 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 85 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 WCGSsions 2005 CIO 11 04'/2005 Figure 4d -Emission Control Technologies for Oil-Fired Alternative 0 V w x Y 1 2 3 4 2 3 4 5 Select # for TSP Control TSP & PMIo Efficiency PM 1ý6 Control TSP/PM 1 0 Control Device (%) TSP 7 3 Fabric filter (baghouse) 99 0.63 8 9 PM10 Control Efficiencies derived from Table 1.3-4 10 1 High-efficiency cyclonic collector 85 0.63 11 2 Electrostatic precipitator (ESP) 90 0.63 12 3 Fabric filter (baghouse) 99 0.63 13 4 Scrubbing system 60 1 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 WCGS Emissions 2005 Control-oil 9/19/2005 Figure 3b -Calculation of Solid Waste from Oil Fired Alternative A I B I C 1 D 1 E I F I G I HI I J I K I L 6 7 10"13 15 31 36 7 40 415 52"IT 34 37 34O 40 4-6-47 72 4T Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station S02 Control Method: Wet scrubber Basis: Annual oil consumption

=Percent of ash recycled =Calculation 549,352,811 gallons 50%Parameter SO 2 generated S02 removed 1.2 157 lb S 549352811 gallons ol x ton 1.6 1,000 gal on yr 2FO006l 68,999 x.100.-Result 68,999 tons SO 2 per year 65,549 tons S02 per year 4,874 tons ash per year Ash generated

((9.19 x 1.61 + 3.22) lb 5449352811 gallons oil x 99 ton 1,000 gal o x yr 100 2000 b -Wet Scrubbing

-Ume: CaO + S02 + 2H20 + 1/2 02 -> CaSO4 -2H20 Annual lime consumption 68,999 ton S02 x 56.1 ton CaO yr 64.1 tonSO2 Annual calcium sulfate 65,549 ton S02 172 ton CaS04"2H20 generation rate yr 64.1 ton S02 Annual scrubber waste generation rate 60,387 ton CaO x 100 -95 + 175888 ton CaSO4"2H20 yr 100 Total volume of 178,907 tons x scrubber waste yr Total volume of 4,874 tons x ash generated yr Volume of ash 2,976.529 ft x disposed Ion a 144.8, -2000b ft 40yr x 2 13 x lb ton 131 lb 100-50 100 60,387 tons CaO per year 175,888 tons CaS04*2H20 per year 178,907 tons Scrubber waste per year 98,865,430 fe Scrubber waste 2,976,529 fte Ash 1,488,265 fe Ash waste 100,353,694 fe Solid waste 3,345,123 fF Soid waste 77 Acre Sold waste 1,829 feet by feet square solid waste 0.120 mi 2 Solid waste 0.35 mile by mile square solid waste Total volume of 98,865,430 .ft + 1,488,265 f =solid waste Waste pie area 100,353,694 fe (fe2) 30 ft high Waste pile area acre (acre) 3,345,123 ft 2 x 4 -Waste pile area (feet by feet square)= y3,345,123 ft=Waste pile area (m?) 77 acrex me2 640 acre=Waste pile area (mile by mile square)0.1201 MP

References:

Notes: 1) King, W. Christopher, 1996, Environmental Engineering P.E. Examination Guide & Handbook, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 287-290.2) Munro, Lloyd. A. 1964, Chemistry in Engineering, Prentice-Hali.

a. All calculations were performed using stoichomeiric ratios from the chemical equation shown above and molecular weights of the compounds.

b. Calculations assume 100% combustion of oil c. Limestone consumption is based on total S02 generated.

d. Calcium Sulfate Generated is based on total S02 Removed.e. Total sludge generated includes scrubbing media carryover in the waste.f. Density of Fly Ash is approximately 131 lb/fr3 Source: User Guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in pavement construction, Table 4-4, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, http:thnrc.govmhnr2O0recycle/waste/cbabsl .hl g. Density of Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate is 144.8 Ib/ft 2 h. Assume plant life (e.g., forty year).i. Assume waste oile heiaht (e.o.. 30 ft.).WCGS Emissions 2005 SWV-OUl 9/19/2005 Figure 3a -Calculation of Solid Waste from Coal Fired Alternative A B C D E I F I G I H I J I K I L Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station SO Control Method: Wet scrubber-Lime Basis: Annual coal consumption

=Percent of ash recycled =5,236,437 tons.50%Parameter Calculation so, ~ .4 geertd ....i 5,236,437 tons coal S02 generated 100x 31 x yr SO 2 removed Ash generated 95 41,871 x 10 100 553 x .,a36,437 tons x 99.9"-0'-0 yr 100 Result 41,871 tons S02 per year 39,777 tons SO 2 per year 289,285 tons ash per year Wet Scrubbing

-Ume: CaO + S02 + 21120 + 1/2 02 -> CaSO4 -2H20 Annual ime consumption Annual calcium sulfate generation rate 41,871 ton S02 x 56.1 ton CaO yT 64.1 ton SO2 39,777 ton S02 x 172 ton CaSO4"2H20 yr 64.1 ton SO2 Annual scrubber waste generation 36.645 ton CaO 11x i + 106,734 rate yr 100 ton CaSO4"2H20

=Total volume of 108,566 tons x scrubber waste yr Total volume of 289,285 tons x ash generated yr 40 y x 2000lb _____40 yr x 2000 lb ~ f Volume of ash 176,662,847 ft x 100 M so disposed 100 Total volume of 59,994,663 ft 3 + 88,331,424 f =sold waste Wate ple area 148,326,086 ft (fe) 30 fthigh Waste pile area 4,94,203 e x f (acre) 43,560 acre Waste pile area (teet by feet square) = -4,944,203 ft 2 =Waste ple area ml 2 (mWs) 1a4acrex 640 are Waste pile area (mile by mllesquare) 0.18mt3 =36,645 tons CaO per year 106,734 tons CaSO4"2H20 per year 108,566 tons Scrubber waste per year 59,994,663 ft3 Scrubber waste 176,662,847 fte Ash 88,331,424 fte Ash waste 148,326,086 fe Solid waste 4,944,203 fte Solid waste 114 Acre Solid waste 2,224 feet by feet square solid waste 0.18 me 2 Solid waste 0.42 mie by mile square solid waste

References:

Notes: 1) King, W. Christopher, 1996, Environmental Engineering P.E. Examination Guide & Handbook, American Academy of Environmental Engineers, Annapolis, Maryland, pp. 287-290.2) Munro, Lloyd. A. 1964, Chemistry in Engineering, Prentice-HalL

a. All calculations were performed using stoichometric ratios from te chemical equation shown above and molecular weights of me compounds.

b. Calculations assume 100% combustion of coal.c. Lime consumption is based on total S02 generated.

d. Calcium Sulfate Generated is based on total S02 Removed.a. Total sludge generated includes scrubbing media carryover in the waste.f. ýDeniy Coal Fly Ash is approximately 131 lb/fte Source: User Guidelines for waste and byproduct materials in pavement construction, Table 4-4, Turner Fairbank Highway Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, httpJ/tfhrc.gov/hnr20/recycle/waste/cbabs1 .hin g. Density of Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate is 144.8 lb/fP h. Assume plant life (e.g., forty year).i. Assume waste pile heiclht (e.o., 30 ft.).WCGS Emissions 2005 SW-Coal 9/19/2005 Rg.ý 5 -FmmLwm for E..IW-.. lot Cood PlrW AIItwmll A 6C I I sudmt ~~~WonCo&erdk ba 2 3 Pd, Albt.iot WCGs 4 CIOI W2540 5 Rqýoto III* MW.IF ViW RM. 8.1, ICUM EIlA) I I If Clot. EtI., H.W Rd. (Bho.I)-r R.Ivdld Stao'Ywt Ks 2=t-LO Oft-*- Cd P21.d Wo.*O.i. S.A1. 1.1 AP-42 SuPPI-.9 E 12 6,1.A. N.,. ti.1.u.13 N,..Eo..1UrLb.

u a .CotCATEMATErP.KU.C..U

'MW* .W d .S~ ~ -.*. M4WV)15 Cq.217R(MWA,0)

C "is Irw IS 4.M RM. BTLUPoI,.

MR ARB%0HA.1U0SB1 WF(SYW~AEIPA R= w. lr.CQ4CATENAJE(184 alpo-1.d).L7 14..1hg VA. (B61)12 HA Fud91DG .IV(CS.t94

.32A 20 Tdb Zr.OOCATENATE('M 2Wft ,80SSS. T01)IS C.otEVFt.l, CF 0.55 02.5,06 IS P-..o a"4. S -S 4(CSO~.M.*M MWW T.M.1.GOaGATENATE(515 D41 *.D$W.TOWIf))

20 P.s..4A~h A -F.WIFO .IF( bICS. .EIA204 TAW ,CONCATERATE(EA 2114% .BU,'Tabb I)21 SO.0,2104206,. .C.d.dUEPA 15Gb. T~b 1.1-1 23 SQ. Cý,40 EIIk-y (5.) SCE T.6*4-o6Cs EPAIt~b.T~M 5.-R 23j NO. C-Od Ok. .T.onbmoearin EPA 1008% T.0s 1.1-4 24 NO6 COSSI Ell4. (5. NCE Nk0*dl..as EPA I1Daft Tdb 1. t-2 25TSP C.214006,. .C.6BEPA 1990L 11.1.41 TSP COfd Ollidoty (5.) 1252 'C.0.lK EPAIM5K, 1.1A.1 27 PM,. Co'd D0.&. Twft.J.ol-coa EPA I1f 11.1.4.1 25 PU,. 004,42014001

(%M) PW4100 -XkrE,.061ILS EPA 10fti1.1 .4.32 P21,1 C5,g-§.I5 lb, T.M. 11.360,. NN., oH CO00., l60ln fact-.o~O EPA 1990k T.W 1.1-8 33 PFkVQ001060106lotTi".1.1-4TSP

.4PM,.-0,.06 ltlS EPA 150k, lii 1.1-4 38 SO. (t--"1 C0ONCATENATE(twX~d..WP5.*.

..P00dSS) ___ _____________________EPA I1St T~b 1.143 37 No. (l04-o) -xkd06ld-0IoI AMT 11 R Co(i-w) r~ird-IRSEPA 1998L T"o 1.1-3 39 CO. (lt.o-1) -I.oots.l¶ss EPAi2M50~k IA.. .-W z0 TSP (I5.4." .0COCATENATE(Un4sd..OiV5

'-lIiEA loft Tab4.t.14 41 PU.. (--,F)~ -0CNCATENATEC0.b,I.o1Wr, * -'.IA2A PIDOT 1-CONCATENATI~~~r~EP d1ld bft t45.1.1-4C5A) 1.002 E.l..*711 0 7b low"'m Figure 5- Formulas for Emissions for Gas Fired Aiterative I A 7-B=CoatlA1=CoallA3=Coal!A5 Client Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)It Client, Enter Heat Rate (Bulukwh)EIA Table 28 Referenced StateNear=CoaltB3-CoallBS=CosliB4 Client 5940=CoalIB8 Gas Turbines for Electrical Generation Worksheet, Section 3.1, AP-42 Supplement B Inputs Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unIt)Net Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw*hr)

Heating Value (BTU/ft 3)Capacity Factor Sulfur (%)SO, (Ib/MMBTU)

NO, /CO control device NO, (Ib/MMBTU)

CO (tb/MMBTU)

CO 2 (Ib/MMBTU)

Filterable TSP (Ib/MMBTU)

Condensable TSP (b/MMBTU)Name Ep.Ce., HR,., S so;.,='Control-gass165 NO)(,.CO,,.C04,.TSPFg., TSPCQ,n Parameter Q0,.--Annual gas consumption (felyr)

Btu Input (MMBTU/yr)

Formula U*E*I000HR/HV*CF24*365 Emissions SO, (tons per year)NOx (tons per year)CO (tons per year)CO 2 (tons per year)Filterable TSP (tons per year)Filterable PM, 0 (tons per year)'Condensable TSP (tons per year)Condensable PM1, (tons per year)*'All particulate matter<1.0 micron (AP.42 Table 1.3-2)0, .,H iV/o-~C20=noxgas=COgaa-C24=TSPFgas=BW7 nTSPCgas 5,839 ib(MMBTU=CONCATENATE('Bold

= user defined Input (e.g., ",ROUND(C15,0),")")

White font .outouts (e.o..WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Gas 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emissions for Gas Fired Alternative C-CoaflC5 ScoallCS GE S207FB Value 2-(I+LEFT(D14.2))IC16 562.6=lF(B6w"EtA*,$20,B7)

=FuesisL6 DAS=IF(CI9<>'NA%,0.94*C19.O.0034)

NA=noxgas=COgas 110=IF(O Value=Ugas*Egas*HRgas~i 000CFgasfl-Vgas*24*365

=Ugas*Egas*HRgasI1000000*CFgasi1000*8760 1431 I 144M WCGS formulas 2005 c 5 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emissions for Gas Fired Alternative 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 12 Source 13 =CONCATENATE('Provldes ,Cgas*Ugas, MWe < ',83,* net capacity of '84,* MWe')14 4% used onsite, 15 GE S207FB 16 =lF(B6="EIA-,EIA 2002, pg. 1 10"'Manufacturer's listed heat rate for this untr)17 =iF(C$8=2001,'EIA2004b, Table 14",CONCATENATE('E1A200.4a, 1,B$8, Table 6"))18 Assumed 19 Use SOi=.94S If available 20 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a 21 22 =lF('ControI-gas'l$A$5>4,'EPA 2000, Table 3.1 Oatabase','EPA 2000, Table 3.1-1 or 3.1-2')23 =lt:('ontrol-gas~l$A$5>4,'EPA 2000. Table 3.1 DatabasW,'EPA 2000, Table 3.1-1 or 3.1-2')24 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a 25 =IF(ORCContml-gaslS$A$S=2,'Controigas'l$A$5S4,ConlUl-gaslI$A$5,6.'ControlgaslsA$5-7),'EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a*,1 998 Poululon Engineering')

26 =lF(ORCCoritrol~gaslI$A$5=2,'Controi-gas'i$A$5=3,'Control-gas't$A$5s64,Control~gasl$A$5=7),'EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2e',*no data 1998 Pollution Engr.')2T 28 Source 29 Energy Balance 30 EHIP 2001, pg 2.4-5, eq 2.4-4 31 32 33 EPA 200, Table 3.1-2a 34 =1F(Con$l80-gas'l$A$5I4,"EPA 2000, Table 3.1 DaTabase('EPA 2000, Table 3.1-1 or 3.1-2')35 =lF('EontroI-ga,$A$5204,EPA 2000, Table 3.1 n atubaseeEPA 2000, Table 3.1 -1 or 3.1-2')36 EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a 37 =F(OR('ControgsA$5=2Contro-gas'$A$5-3,'Contro-gasA

'EPA 2000, Table 3.1-2a,°'1998 Pollution Engr.')38 =D37 39 2000, Table 3.1-2a',°no data 1998 Pollution Engr.')40 =0339 42 431 442 WCOGS Emissions formulas 2005 Gas 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emissions for Oil Fired Alternative A B 1 =CoallA1 2 3 Plant Abbreviation CoallB3 4 Client =CoallB4 5 Replaces =Co0ilB5 6 Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA) EIA 7 If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btu/kwh)8 EIA Table 28 Referenced State/Year

=CoallB8 9 10 Number 6 Oil Fired Worksheet, Section 1.3 AP-42 Stplernent E 12 Inputs Name 13 Number of Units Ud 14 Emrission per unit (MW/unit)

Ed 15 Capacity (MWunit) C.1 16 Heat Rate [BTU/(kw~hr)]

HRd 17 Heating Value (BTU/gal)

HV, 1 18 Capacity Factor CFd 19 Percent Sulfur Sd 20 SO Control Device ='Control-oil'lQ7 21 SO. Control Efficiency

(%) SCEF 22 NO. Control Device ='Control-oil'fl7 23 NO, Control Efficiency

(%) NCE, 24 TSP Control Device ='Control-oI'IWT 25 TSP Control Efficiency

(%) TSPCEF, 26 PMj, fraction of controlled TSP PM10TSP 28 Parameter Formula 29 Annual Oil Consumption (gel/yr) U*E1000"PHRWtCF*24365 30 Firing Configuration for Table 1.3-1 SOx, NOx, CO, and filterable TSP emission factors ='Control-oil'B7 31 32.33 Emissions uncontrolled llbKgal 34 SO, (Ions per year) ='Cortrol-ol'lC7 35 NO. (tons per year) =eContrc-odl'lD7 38 CO (tons per year) ='Controd-oll'IE7 37 CO 2 (tons per year) =GConIroI-oiIF71 38 Filterable TSP (tons per year) ='Control-olrlG7 39 Rterable PMo (tons per year) =CONCATENATE(PM10_TSP,"(,B38.')')

40 Condensable PM (tons per year)' ='Control-oll'H7 41 All condensable PM<1.0 microns (AP-42 Table 1.3-2), no control device identified 42 43 44 White font -outputs (e.u.WGS Er* formutas 2005 0 E1w005 Figure 5-Formulas for Emissions for Oil Fired Alternative II C -ID 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1B 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28'MWe.=Coallce Value 2 56.(1+LEFT(014,2))*Cl5 iIF(B6='EIA",9600,07)

I=F~uelslR6 0.85=FuelstS6=sceatl=flceoil=TSPGEoiI=PM10-TSP Source=CONCATENATE('Provdes

'.CoilrUoil,'

MW. < '.B3,' net capacity of ".B5,' MWeO)4% used onsite Assumed=IF(B6="EIA",'EIA 2002, pg. 1 10*.'Manufacturmes listed heat rate for tls unit)=IF(C$8=2001,CONCATENATE('EIA 2003a, ",BS8," Table 6"),CONCATENATE('EIA 2004a, ',8$8,' Table 6"))Assumed=IF(C$8=2001,CONCATENATE('EIA 2003a, '.B$8," Table 6"),CONCATENATE(EIA 2004a, '%658"" Table 6'))EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b, §1.3.4 EPA 1998b. Table 1.3-4 Source Energy Balance EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998M, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-12 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-1 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-4 EPA 1998b, Table 1.3-2 Value 29 30='Uoil'*'Eoil1000OD'HRoll'fHVoll'CF'24*365 143 I=CONCATENATE("Bold

= user defined Input (e.g., ',R0UNDUP(C15,0),*))

144 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 O)if 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Calculetlan of Coal Fired Emissions A I B I C I I E I F I H I I I J I K I L I M N 0 0 P COAL TParameter Cabjastlon RsI AmuM -a .CGWIC4 x 1.000_NW AIIClaC6oBtf) "I toIM 24hr 3X65daI twol wpo a Tcomtmp9On

=CONCATENATE(CoaRC13,'

WUOS) ult MW .Coi08T1C17 BODCoitltte day yr -CodC31t so. -CONCATENATEC

".LEFT(CoIepV." .',CovICgT~f

",CoaCS2,'t

• _ _ _ _O.tn 20D03b 100 yr tornC3 I S0, per ywe 16 NO. -CONCtTENATE(CTQB37," b') ton =CONCATENArr(100-".oancC4.')) -Ne ko nsN% perP ton NOOOh 100 x yr ,COORCS?CO -CONCATENATE( B38," Ib) ton -=8 toWi W tCO par year 24 CO, ,CONCATENATE(lIoalB3," b) ton N8 Io" to CO. p ton E00O yr caHc39 TSP =CONCATENATEF

",LEFTNCodIB4O.2)." xCO 1 IC2U6ONCATENATEfl100.,OIC2B' N t"n tr TSP per yea 29 ton 2000I Go00 yr -Co.G40 P 32 PM,, =CONCATENATE('

".LEFT(CodB41.3).

INS8 PM,. per IN ton 2000m 100 yr WCGS EMISO UoS 20051 O9119,2005 Figure5. FOrmulms for Calculellon of Gas Fired Emission A 1 0 1rIF 1 OHJ I IJ K IL I M N 10 p 0 I I =cdaAl"rGAS 8 Annualgas -OStCS14 MIN " Bt 00S~N1 2 4 LS dn_F c, .r..ptin onNAERT(esC1, unks x. Bh.) .OWlATENATE(--.GaWC$IB)

ýL II dn' perYW I I .atnoeSTU

=G..C29 le .o t 12 Input UG"WMenuI-pIr-S02C1TATI sB33,'W 0. Wl __ MMBI lrsO p mmatL x _55b InImWc wI 10 ?40. -CONCATENATE(GaaI34 I. Tll atCS 23Co nVONCA~TEATEIGO.1D5.w Inn .pit mmDLan.t urya C%0 -CONCATIENATEMIGOI3D.

b" Ion P011 MMDLU 31 TSP .;ONdCATENATE(GSIRV.-

W) a Ion qsI1I MMEUD~ a .~TPpry Want 200Db3 I-MbTPp o 35 PM,. .CtnCATENATEI(ROUR4fl{GaaC37.0)).*

lans TSP I --GOC3D 1n low arbis PM,. yes yea WCGS formulsas 2005 C." WlIDM0M Figure 5 -Formulae for Calculationl of ONl Fired Emishlofla A 0 c0 E F I J I K I L I M N I =CoallAl rOIL mf 6 pa-Cl. 4alolal,-rAonu. 61I CONCATENATE(0HICI4.'MW*I

______ 1000 kWY WCNCATENATE(ORICIGWU*lbI*

~ i~?*b)011 241w 365 dnffl ~12 SoCONCATEMATSIOI!CIUM b) Co ONCATENATFTlI00-*.O~lC2I.*Jl -NM4 o.1 MIC3' SO, pw Ye 1-3 =CONCATENATEILEFT(OII!B34.3).

elo.* 0 lOW~o 2000Gb 100 yr 013~~L4 NO CNAENATE OH!635., lb) tn -CONCATFNATII0-.OiPC23.,fl

.5245 0 *Io.M NO. pr yew 10005. 200G- b toG yr-WCOCONCATGNATEIO1ILe36b" ton .54U ow osI .Y 2T1,000 .1 2000Gb yr w o COONCATENATEIOIB37.'

6-1 10G gal to ..II37 pw V-CONCATENATErII(.LEFTIO4iIB38.41.*

• . 061C10.1 %*RIQWT(OIHlM.4).

In-CONCATENATEI 10 ~2.).65 e ~ 0 TSP 1,000~ IS200 b 1oo r(0 2'p-Y yra.3 WCGS F.] 9 ulas 2005 @19P.4060 Figure 5 -Formulas for Calculation of Solid Waste from Coal Fired Alternative A I C 7 uCoaltAI-50 Control Method: .Coel.B21 6 Basis: Annual coal consumption

• 7 Percent of ash recycled .-"Parmtm Clcito 10 SO2 generated ACIt 64.1 100 32.1 13. o M a .COallC22 tIF(CS:'Sprmy drying","Catclum Hydroxide (Dry) Scrubbng:',iF(CS=.Wet actubber-LUrnt","Wet Scrdftn -Unma-.'.Wet Scrubbing

-UmnetotII))" F(C5='Spray

)2H20 + 112 02 + S02 --->CaSe4 20".IF(CS='Wa scnfrber-Llte.V'aO 802 21420 +112 02- -C804

• 2H0.2CaCO2

+ H20 2802-> 2CaSOS + 2002 + H20"))fF(CS='Spray dryrg,'A-nual calcium hydroxide asursripiWon.lF(CS="Wet scrubber .rne'.'Annual nm cwrnO.'Annual limestone consumpntonl)

--=113=IF(SC$S-'Wel scrnbber-ULmestone',"Annual waklkwn suItle gnermlton nte'Annual calcbln sulte. generatIon Me)29 U ,2F($CS-pray reW,'tn Ca(OH)2"H20".'ton COO')Annual scrubber waste generation rate-'3:;!- 131"3 Total volume of scrubber waste 36"j" .-1i Total volume ol ash generated 41 Volume of ash disposed -37 44 Total volume ol solid waste .{04 IT -143 4 West. ple, ruse (tt) '=815 S. Waste pte area (acre) -W6 52 Waste pte area (tet tey lost square) =Waste plta area (irntl'MWaste pIle wae (mile by mile square)9/GIFINI WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 SW-Coall Figure 5 -Formulas for Calmulation of Solid Waste from COal Fired ARMltentve D E T-F = G IH I K 6 =Coallc3l tons 7 so0 7T .010W(B10y'(CIO/32.066ylOD 13-M -CaOC2 fomas e year=2TIF(C6='Spoy dr~tg',T12.lF(C5.'Wat orubbor-Liknoolon..Tll.TIO))

IF(C5=Spmyyc*W.1w1nCa(OH)2*H20',IF(CS-'Wslsmbb4JOt-LnoDon.*tm

=T6 -M'2023,D24 -F(S$C-SS=Sroy

&rg*,1os C&(014)2142 par yea'dF(C6=-Wet .vrubbor-Lkooslooo.,T9.T)

=IF($C$SS*Wot mnrbber-Lkoooone.'lon GaSO3rton C&BOV21-20)

-16 92r27025 =Ir(CS.'Wel vot ber-Liedorw*.`Io CsSG3 pertI 29 rCoMIC22 osS fwwseprya 100 W17 wI(WCS.-Wst vcnAor4JmsoIone.tn CaSO3.-Wn CaSO4-2H2O

=83V(1.E3111001)+F31I-S14 144.768 ~4320FS ~ mt.314 131 =833D37'2000IP38

~=CONCATENATE('100

-',E?) te90.7~10 Ash Waster 45 44 =140 .~14.(157(00-~l tte Sam5 wads 52 =16.s~nT(146) fool by feet squar waild wadte.1410140 F Soid1 waste=-154 ~SGtT(154)mk5m u.oI1eot WCGS E mls@104s 2005 SI'V 62005 Figure 6- Formulas for Calculation of Solid Wasts from CHI Fired Aitarostiw A 1 B C I =CoallAl 5SOm Conroal Method: .001320 6 Beat.: Annual ol onsmo~ol2n-7 Perced of adshrecyd 10 SgeedtCONCATENATE(L(f 8MET03).*l b S)SROI ga000sgal d 13 .0110wd CV2l SOTraro .410 t00--fTAsh generated .C0I4CATENATEIC.C9.15.

9!~~ x S)b oIF(Ch?'Sprey drYN'.*Catchza Ifydroodd (Dry) Scntf:,IF(CS=*W0 scrtbbwSWd Scrubbhing

-Lbns:*.WaI Sonibbir -Likeane).110=0fS dry4sg Annua eototlmhdo e wmnph*WC.

dsubrAr m naos- .W.113-=F(0C35=-WsI wrbW14soWAntnu.1 aktt, *Me. gorwaflbo cg~0 aloch. 51g faubl tOp b Wte)20 31 .123 .F(SC0WfSpy dOV- Ian caf0It)H2COOlott CIY)MAnnual scrubber waste gonartalen rtae.01 NTonal -wurwa o.ft an -da a.36 17 .tie Tot.-als ofh, sash generated 40 41Volumeaof ash dlaposad .0 44 Total volumel of WOM Wofs w134 .140.143 wavte pae am Iea (f's15 l2 Waste pk aera (fea by rest square).-w. astti aren (ne( .149 Vwast. ohl ufs (fob bv rteb scumr) I WCGS Emissons formulas 2005 Ftgur 5S- Formulm for Calculallon of Solid Weals fram 0)1 Fhrd Arlt~inhtv 0 I F i Q I K I 6 =011C29 gOld-7 'SW4)COI~ET 10 =CONCATENATE(ROUND(SES6,O)-" gdon.. oW) l(010)F&6 13 umoc~o SN P. ym 15-W COI4CATEKATE(ROUNO(20860) ,lmo) '2 o ohp e 100I .(9.1r0ýMloM.n)ODVE6FIeNr,7I200s

=CONATENTE(FC5~Srft".Ti 2.Tl0).IF(CS9Sprv dyW.,g'bo Cm(O44)2W20*

too C"?))COCTNEITOmo S02-) Clryhg'j23T24.BWTlb16:F~P01dly.gS l Ca(OH)21420

p. eW.F)C5.Wde sm ruoWt ~lbb--.Lk-tneoo.T9,T9) -IF(C0W$5 aodt-bWkOnlo.¶9oo Ca=tloo C*0042H20')

29 31 CONCATENATE(-100

--.CIC21) ONT6A(tIOW70F(Cb.

ob.4ogw O e3)-ullO.R05Sats50PEf 7W 1 1".768 o340342060tFW

?Su5wWtl'X -i4 As), 40 .CONCATENATE(*100

-,V0)41 too -9or(i00-E7ylact ts " 44 fl{7l06y0)It" So ftal.10-/30 r? sowl weol 5=16 MROTfW) tea by %d ms e iW" W"=14814F ~soilm W."0-154 .SORTr.)04 ibm aa olwl WCGS EbIloas 2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics A B C ID E IG 1 1 =1+AI =1+81 =1.+CI =1.O1 =1+EI 2 3 Work e Fired by 4 coal Year State Healina Value (BTU/b) Suffer (Percent)

Ash (Percent)5 Fnedby Year State HV S A 6 Coal =Coalc8 =CoallS8 =OGET(128cO

=DGET t2ScoaIES, SWAM5CS) =OGET(28coW,F$1 SASSCSS)7 8 Input Table for Coal BFiredby year State MV S A 10 Coal 2001 AL 10850 0.82 8.84 II Coal 2001 AZ 10175 0.58 12.37 12 Coat 2001 AR 8708 0.28 4.61 13 Coal 2001 CA 8479 0.55 8.71 l4 Coal 2001 CT 13118 1.27 6.4 2o Coal 2001 DE 12572 0.67 11.56 16 Coal 2001 FL 12146 1.54 8.88 17 Coal 2001 GA 11754 0.81 10.87 18 coal 2001 IL 9654 1.1 6.91 19 coal 2001 IA 8858 0.37 5.38 25 coal 2001 KS 8688 0.43 5.53 21 Coal 2001 LA 7885 0.74 9.14 2272 coa 2001 MD 12945 1.18 9.16 23 coal 2001 MA 13137 0.95 7.12 24 Coal 2001 MI 10220 0.57 6.24 25 Coal 2001 MN 8909 0.47 8.6 26 Coal 2001 MS 11718 0.7 8.84 27 Coal 2001 MO 8918 0.36 5.17 28 Coal 2001 NE 8586 0.31 5.07 29 Coal 2001 NH 13013 1.34 6.74 Coal 2001 NJ 12883 1.57 9.48 31 coa 2001 NY 13086 1.97 7.92 32 Coal 2001 NC 12303 0.86 11.47 3 Coal 2001 OH 11823 2.07 11.M3 34 Coal 2001 PA 12900 2.12 8.98 SCoal 2001 SC 12586 1.15 9.26 38 Coat 2001 TN 11605 1.36 8.99 37 Coal 2001 TX 7651 0.67 10.44 38 Coal 2001 VT 13118 127 6.4 2 39 Coal 2001 VA 12643 1.02 11.02 40 Coat 2001 WA 8310 0.73 11.49 1 Coal 2001 WI 9108 037 5.26 WCGS Emissions tormulas 2005 Fuels 9/19/005 Figum 5 -Formulas for Energy Information Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristis A B C ] .I 0 E F G 8 Input Table for Coal 9 Flredb Year State HV S A 42 Coal 2002 AL 11245 0.9 8.84 43 Coal 2002 AZ 10151 0.6 12.37 44 Coal 2002 AR B694 0.3 4.61 45 Coal 2002. CA 11868 0.5 8.71 46 Coat 2002 CT 11309 0.9 6.4 47 Coat 2002 DE 12352 0.9 11.56 48CoaW 2002 FL 12247 1.5 8.88 49 Coal 2002 GA 11698 0.8 10.87 S"Coal 2002 IL 9151 0.7 .891 TT Coal 2002 IA 8860 OA 5.38 52 Coat 2002 KS 8846 0.4 5.53 3CO 2002 LA 7904 0.5 9.14 54 co 2002 MD 12913 1.1 9.16 65 coat 2002 MA 12501 0.7 7.12 86 Coal 2002 PI 9991 0.6 6.24 57 Coal 2002 MN 8818 0.4 6.6 58 Coal 2002 MS 9576 0.6 8.84 59 cold 2002 MO 8822 0.4 5.17 9 Cold 2002 NE 8593 0.3 5. 07 61 coal 2002 NH 13017 12 6.74 62 Coal 2002 NJ 12853 1.2 9.48 83 Coat 2002 NY 12825 1.8 7.92 Coal 2002 NC 12342 0.8 11.47 65 coal 2002 OH 11644 2 11.63 6 Coal 2002 PA 11782 1.9 8.96 67 Coat 2002 SC 12361 1.2 9.26 COW 2002 TN 11631 1.3 8.99 89 Coal 2002 TX 7700 0.7 10.44 70 Coal 2002 VT 10157 0.94 6.4 3 71 Coat 2002 VA 12757 1.2 11.02 72 Coal 2002 WA 8052 1 11.49 73 Coal 2002 wI 9753 0.4 5.26 74 'Pacflc region average 7T 'New England region average 76 National average 779 2002 pent ash not available.

Assumed 2002 percent ash is the same aa 2001 data.WCGS Emissions lormulas 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figue 5 -Formulas for Energy Information Adrnlnistration (EIA) Fuel Characteristics H I j I K I L IMI N 1 1 =1+11 =14,J1 =1+K1 3 Worksheel Fired by 4 Gas Year State Heaft Value (BTUt)4 FiGedby Year State HV 8 Gas ,,GaslC8 ,GessB8 =DGET(t2,LS 15SS:$K$)7 a Input Table for Gas 9 Flredby Year State HV 10 Gas 2001 AL 1029 11 Gas 2001 AZ 1020 12 Gas 2001 AR 1035 13 Gas 2001 CA 1013 14 Gas 2001 CT 1034 2 15 Gas 2001 DE 1032 16 Gas .2001 FL 1044 17 Gas 2001 GA 1025 T8 Gas 2001 IL 1029 1W Gas 2001 IA 1003 20 Gas 2001 KS 1006 21 Gas 2001 LA 1040 22 Gas 2001 MD 1043 3 23 Gas 2001 MA 1031 24 Gas 2001 MI 1014 25 Gas 2001 MN 1008 276 Gas 2001 MS 1027 27 Gas 2001 MO 1005 28 Gas 2001 NE 1003 29 Gas 2001 NH 1074 30 Gas 2001 NJ 1022 31" Gas 2001 NY 1018 32 Gas 2001 NC 1035 33 Gas 2001 OH 1025 34 Gas 2001 PA 1042 35 Gas 2001 SC 1028 36 Gas 2001 TN 1028 3 Gas 2001 TX 1026 38 Gas 2001 VT 1012 Gas 2001 VA 1035 40 Gas 2001 WA 1015 4 41 Gas 2001 Wl 1007 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Energy Information Administration (EtA) Fuel Characteristlcs H I J I K, IMI N , Input Table for Gas 9 Fildby Year State NV 42 Gas 2002 AL 1027 43 Gas 2002 AZ 1018 44 Gas 2002 AR 1019 45 Gas 2002 CA 1019 48 Gas 2002 CT 1023 47 Gas 2002 DE 1023 48 Gas 2002 FL 1026 79 Gas 2002 GA 1022"0 Gas 2002 IL 988 T1 Gas 2002 1A 1015 Gas 2002 KS 1000 Gas 2002 LA 1029 75 Gas 2002 1D 1041 55 Gas 2002 MA 1019 56 Ga 20o2 MO 1007 w_ Gas 2002 MN 1006 5T8 Gas 2002 MS 1026 Gas 2002 MO 1008 Gas 2002 NE 977 71 Gas 2002 NH 1031 82 Gas 200D2 NJ 1032 63 Gas 2002 NY 1019 64 Gas 2002 NC 1010 85 Gas 2002 OH 1026 66 Gas 2002 PA 1027 Gas 2002 SC I026 86 Gas 2002 TN 1024 69 Gas 2002 TX 1019 70 Gas 2002 VT 1018 71 Gas 2002 VA 1019 72 Gas 2002 WA 1026 73 Gas 2002 Wl 983 74 'East Soult Central regionr average 75 'Now England region average 76 3Soufth Atlantic region average 77 4 Padfc Contguous region average 4791 1801 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Fuels 9/1912005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Energy Inorrnation Administration (EIA) Fuel Characteristfi 0p 1 S 1 I S ts I7 U 1 =1 =1+01 =1+P1 =1+01 =1+R1 2 3 Worksheet Fired by 4 Oil Year State Heatn Value.(STU/ga.

Sulfur (Percent)5 Firedby Yew State HV S 6 oil =-oHcs ,.0o81 =DGET(t28o,RS lSO.65 =DGET t28o,SSI.506S:

7 8 Input Table for 01 9 Rredby Year State NV S 10 Oil 2001 AL 136029 1.64 5 11 o0 2001 AZ 139206 1.64 5 12 06 2001 ARt 141070 1.64 5 13 On 2001 CA 148958 1.1 14 06 2001 CT 151266 1.64 1.5 15 01 2001 DE 152515 0.6 16 on 2001 FL 151888 1.6 77-011 2001 GA 138498 0.05 4 W1 04 2001 IL 145942 0.3 1900 2001 IA 139423 0.05 4 2f0 0 2001 KS 158312 1.7 21 0n 2001 LA 151064 0.9 2206 2001 MD 151469 1.64 2.5 2306 .2001 MA 144420 0.5 24 06 2001 MI 147107 1.7 25O0 2001 MN 138002 5.6 26 CHI 2001 MS 154846 3 27 70 .2001 MO 137780. 3.72001 NE 138088 1.64 5 290 2001 NH 1152476 0.6 3Ol0 2001 NJ 149974 0.8 31 2001 NY 151581 0.7 326O 2001 NC 138339 1.64 5 2N0 2001 OH 139451 0.05 4 34 90 2001 PA 149500 0.5 35 oil 2001 SC 138119 1.64 5 36Oil 2001 TN 139900 1.64 5 37 06 2001 TX 140538 1.2 38 06 2001 VT 151266 1.64 1.5 39 00 2001 VA 150331 1.1 40 OI 2001 WA 143959 1.64 3,5 0410 2001 WI 140000 5.5 WCGS Emissions 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Energy information Adminastrlfon (EiA) Fuel Characterastica 0 P 0 I S T U 8 Input Table for Ol 9 redby Year State HV S 42 o0 2002 AL 140117 0.1 43 0n 2002 AZ 138007 0.1 4408 2002 AR 138705138705OA 45 on 2002 CA 96990 1.9 46 04 2002 CT 149929 OA 47 00 2002 DE 146095 0.7 48 O9 2002 FL 147664 1.8 W49 o 2002 GA 140850 0.4 5Oil 2002 IL 146974 0.1 51 on 2002 1A 137281 0.05 4 52 O9 2002 KS 152240 1.6 53 09 2002 LA 140060 5.4 54 Ol 2002 MD 150922 1.1 55 0o 2002 MA 150202 0.9 56 OCI 2002 MI 146871 1.9 57 09 2002 MN 131276 5.8 58 oil 2002 MS 140924 1.4 59 ON 2002 MO 134476 3.3 60 0il 2002 NE 138150 0.2 6109 2002 NH 149660 1.5 82 go 2002 kiJ 141631 0.4 6309 2002 NY 148476 1 64 09 2002 NC 145562 1 65 09 2002 OH 138661 0.1 66 on 2002 PA 143421 0.5 67 09 2002 SC 144638 1.2 6 oil 2002 TN 138486 0.5 8909 2002 TX 138090 3.9 70 0i9 2002 VT 137760 1.64 5 71 ON 2002 VA 148645 1 72 09 2002 WA 146121 0.3 73WO 2002 Wl 137686 5.2 74 'New England region average 75 'Soulh Atantic region average 78 3Padfkc Contiguous region average 77 Publihed percent sulfur Is .0.1, assumed 0.05 percent sulfur.78 5 Nalional average percent sulfur 79 80 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Fuels 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative A BC D 2 3 2 3 4 SO 2 Control select # from Table 1.1-1 below Table 1.1-I SO 2 Control Technology Efficiency

(%)5 =VLOOKUP($A5,1t.1.1,B$I)

=VLOOKUP($A5,tl.1.1,C$1) 6 7 Table 1.1-1 8 9 Number Technology Efficiency 10 1 Wet scrubber-Ume 95 I1I =1+AIO Wet scrubber-Limestone 95 12 =1+A11 Wet scrubber-Sodium carbonate g9 13 =1+A12 Wet scrubber-Magnesium oxIde/hydroxide 95 14 =1+A13 Wet scrubber-Dual alkali g8 15 =I+A14 Spray drying 90 16 =1+A15 Furnace Injection 50 17 =1+A16 Duct Injection 50 1s 19 205 21 Y2 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Altemative E -TF 13 H 2 3 2 3 4 NO. Control select 4 from Table 1.1-2 below Table 1.1-2 NO. control technique Table 1.1-2 Max. NO. Control Efficency

(%)5=8 VLOOKUP($E5,t11.1.2,F$)

=VLOOKUP($ES,t1.1.2,G$I) 6 7 Table 1.1-2 8 9 Number Technique Efficiency 10 1 Overlire air 30 11 =1+E1O Low NO, burners 55 12 =1+E11 Low NOx burners with overfire air 60 13 =1+E12 Rebum 60 14 =l+E13 Selective noncatalylio reduction (SNCR) 60 15 =1+E14 Selective catalytic reduction (SCR) 85 16 =1+E15 Low NOx burners with selective noncatalytic reduction 80 17 =1+E18 Low NOx burners with over-fire air and SCR 95 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 WCGS Emformulas 2005 Coil 9/19/2005 0 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative I I .I K L M I =1+CoaltAl15

=1+11 =.,11 =1+K1 2 3 4 TSP and PM,. Control select #from §1.1.4.1 below AP-42 §1.1.4.1 Particulate Matter Control AP-42 §1.1.4.1 TSP control efficiency

(%) AP-42 §1.1.4.1 PMtO control efficlanct

(%)5 =I I =VLOOKUP($15,S1.11.4.1,J$1)

=VLOOKUP($l5,S1.1A1.K$I)

=VLOOKUP($15,SI..1.1.L$1) 6 7 8 9 No. Device TSP control efficiency PM 1 o control efficiency 1Q 1 Electrostatic Precipitator 99 99 TT =1+110 Baghouse 99.9 99.9 12 =1+111 Wet Scrubber 99 99 13 =1+112 Cyclone collector 95 78.3 14 1p6 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 309 312 33 34 3, WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Corntrot-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative N 0 11 =I+N1 2 3 4 SO, NO., CO, CO, Emissions Select f for Tables 1.1-3 1.1-4, and 1.1-20 firing configuration Firing Configuration from Table 1.1-3 for SOS, NOx. and CO emission factors 5 12 =VLOOKUP($N5.Tabtel 13,O$1)7 Tables 1.1-3, 1.1-4. and 1.1-20 EMISSION FACTORS FOR SOY. NOx, CO. AND C00 FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBIT.8_9. No. Firing configrellon 10 11 =1+N10 PC. dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous Pre-NSPS 12 =1+N1l PC, dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous Pre-NSPS with low-Nox burner 13 =I+N12 PC, dry bottom wall-tfired, sub-bituninous Pra-NSPS 14 =l+N13 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, Pre-NSPS 5 =1+N14 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, Pre-NSPS with Iow-NOx burner 16 =I+N15 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, sub-bituminous, Pre-NSPS 17 =1+N16 PC, wet bottom, wall-fired, bituminous.

Pre-NSPS 18 =1+N17 PC, dry bottom, wall-fired, bituminous NSPS 19 =1+N1B PC, dry bottom. wall fired. sub-bituminous NSPS 20 =1+N19 PC, dry bottom, cell burner fired, bituminous 21 =1+N20 PC, dry bottom, cell burner fired, sub-bituminous

_22 =1+N21 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous.

NSPS 23 =1+N22 PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired. sub-bituminous, NSPS 24 =1+N23 PC, wet bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS 25 =1+N24 PC, wet bottom, wall-fired sub-bituminous 2_6 =t +N25 Cyclone Furnace, bituminous 27 =1+N26 Cyclone Furnace, sub-bituminous 28 =1+N27 Spreader Stoker, bituminous 29 = 1 +N28 Spreader Stoker, sub-bituminous 30-20 Overfeed stoker 31 =1+N30 Underfeed stoker 32 =1+N31 Hand-fed units 33 =1+N32 FBC, circulating bed 34 =1+N33 FBC, bubbling bed 35 WCGS EImO rmuias 2005 , I C". 0/I e Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative P I a I RI I S=1+01 SO. formula (Ib/ton)=VLOOKUP($NS,Tablel 13,P$1)VINOUS COAL COMBUSTION SO0 38S 38S 35S 38S 38S 35S 38S 38S 35S 38S 35S 38S 35S 38S 35S 38S 35S 35S 35S 38S 31S 31S 31S 31S=1+P1 5 5 NO, formula (Ib/on) CO formula (Ibhton)=VLOOKUP($N5,Table 113,Q$1) =VLOOKUP($N5,Table113,R$1)

CO 2 formula (Ib/ton)=VLOOKUP($N5,Tablel 13S$I)22 11 12 15 9.7 8.4 31 12 7.4 31 14 10 7.2 14 24 33 17 11 8.8 7.5 9.5 9.1 5 15.2 Emission Factors from Tables 1.1-3. 1.1-17. and 1.1-20 (IbAon)NOx CO 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 5 5 6 11 275 18 18 5510 5510 4810 5510 5510 4810 5510 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 4810 5510 5510 5510 5510 5510 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative T U V w 1 =1+S1 =1+T1 =1+U1 =1+V1 2 3 TSP PM, 4 Select # for Tables 1.1-4 firing configuration Firing Configuration from Table 1.1-4 for TSP and PM, 0 emission factors formula (Ib/ton) formula (IbAon)52 =VLOOKUP($T5,emfac,U$1)

=VLOOKUP($T5,emfac,V$1) -VLOOKUP($T5,emfac,W$1) 6 7-Table 1.1-4 UNCONTROLLED EMISSION FACTORS FOR PM AND PM-1O FROM BITUMINOUS AND SUBBITUMINOUS COAL COMBUSTION 9 Number Firing Configuration Emission Factors from Tables 1.1-4 (Ibdton)10 TSP PM, 11 1 PC-fired, dry bottom, wall-fired 10A 2.3A 12 =1+T11 PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired IOA 2.3A 13 =1+T12 PC-fired, wet bottom 7A 2.6A 14 =1+T13 Cyclone furnace 2A 0.26A 15 =1+T14 Spreader stoker 66 13.2 1_6 =1+T15 Spreader stoker, with multiple cyclones, and relnjectlon 17 12.4 17 =1+T16 Spreader stoker, with multiple cyclones, no reinjectlon 12 7.8 18 =1+T17 Overfeed stoker 16 6 19 =1+T18 Overfeed stoker, with multiple cyclones 9 5 20 =1+Ttg Underfeed stoker 15 6.2 21 =l+T20 Underfeed stoker, with multiple cyclones 11 6.2 22 =1+T21 Hand-fed units 15 6.2 23 =1+T22 FBC, bubbling bed 17 12.4 24 =1+T23 FBC. circulating bed 17 12.4 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 372 33 34 35 WCGS Em*ormuas 2005 Coriel 4V Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative I Y yz AA 2 4 SO. emistsion (tonslr) NO. emission ttonstyi)

CO emission (tofl5~y)

CO 2 emission (tonalyr)5 =VLOOKUP($N5.ernlac,XS1)

=VLOOKUP($N5,errdacY$1) -VLOOKUP($N5.ernfaoZSI)

=VLOOKUP($NSemldac,AA$1) 6 7 6 9 10 so. NO. Co CO, 11 LEFT(P1 1 ,2)-S'Coaii$CS31/2000'(1.-Control-coal'1CS5/1

00) -011 *Coall$CS3 i/2000*(l NCEIIO00)

=RI I'Coail$C$311200D

-811I *Coalf$C$31/2000 12 =LEFT(P12,2)'S'Coall$C$31/2000*(1.Controt-coal'IC$5/100)

=012'CoallSC$3112000'(1-NCEJIO0)

-.Rl2*CoaliSC$31I2000 -S12*Coall$C$31/2000 1F3 =LEFT(P13.2)'S'Coall$C$31r,*M*00'(Control-coallC$5/100) 013'*Coall$C$3112000*(1-NCEJIIO)

=R13*Coall$C$31M200

=Sl3*Coail$O$31/2000 1-4 =LEFT(P14,2)'S'Coaii$C$3li20W0(I-'ConitrocoaVKl5I~OO)

=0t4'Coall$M1312000(1(-NSCEI101))

=F14*Coall$C~$3112000 -S1 4Coall$C$3112OC0 15 =LEFT(PI 5,2)'S-CoaiiSC$31/20001( -'Control-coaIiC$5/1

00) =015'Cosll$C$3Ir2M-0(j-NCEI10O) -R15'Coaii$O$31/2000 -S15'Coalt$C$31/2000 16 =LEFT(P16.2r'S'Coali$C$3t112000'(1Control-coallGC$51100)

=016-Coall$C$311200'(I-NCE/100) -FI16'CoaiIliC$31r200

-=816*Coall$C$31/2000 17 --LEFT(P17.2*S'Coall$C$3112000*(I .Conlroi-coai'lC$5I1i00)

Ci 7-Coait$C$3i/2ooo0(1 -NCeI100) -lR1rcoaliC$31ir20o -S17Coall$C$3112W00 18 =LEFr(Pl8.2)*S'CoaliSC$3lI2000l'(1Controi-coait'I$5/100)

-018'Coali$C$31/2000'(1-NCE/100) -RlB'Coall$CS3112000

=SIB*CoaliftC$31/20DO 19 =LEFT(P19,2)'S'Coali$C$3112000'(1-'Control-coafl'C$51100) -OIWCoali$C$3ll2000'(1-NCE/100)

=R19'Coali$C$3112000

=S 9*Coall$C$31/2000 20 =LF-TP20.2)'S'Coati$C$31I20O'(I1-Controt-coilCW1ioo) -Q0OCosll$C$3II200011-NCEJI00)

=FR2WCoall$C$3iI200 -SW0COalt$C$3112000 21 =LEFT-(P21,2)'StCoaiiSC$31/2000*(1-Control-coaricss/100)

-0121 'Coall$C$31r2M0'(1 NCE/1 00) -Rt21 'Coall$C$31/2000

=S21'Coaii$C$3112000 T22 =LEFT(P22.2)'SCoali$C$31/2000*(1.Vontrol-coal'IC$51100)

=-022'CoelISC$3II2000'(l.NCEIIOO)

=R22-Coall$C$311200

=S22*Coait$C$31ri000 23- =LEFT(P23,2)'S'CoaiiSC$3lt2000'(1-'Contro1.oal'lC$5Il00)

=023'CoallSC$31/2000'(1-NCEJI00) -Ft23*Goali$C$31r200

=S23*CoaliSC$3112M0

_24 =LEFT(P24.2y'S'CoaliSC$3112000'( -'Control-coal'IC$51100)

O024'CoallSC$3lI2000-(1-NCEJI00)

=R24*Goalt$C$31#200 -S24*Coall$C$31/2000 25 =LEF-r(P25,2)'S'Coali$C$31I2000'(1-'Cotntrol-coa'IC~$5Il00)

-025-CoaillS1312000'(1-NCE/100)

=R25'Goali$G$31/2000 -S25'Coail$GS3lI2000 26( --LEFT(P26,2)'SCoati$C$31128000'(1.Conlrol-coafl'C$51100)

-026-Coall$t$31/2000'(1-NCEI10O)

=R28'CoalI$C$31/2000

=S26*Coaii$C$3112000 27 &LEFT(P27,2)'SCoaiiSC$311200'(1-'COntrolkcolC$51100)

=OQ2rCoaIl$C$3112000(1.NCEIIOO) -R2?-Coall$C$3lr200

=S27'CoalISCOMOM00 28 LEFT(P28.2)'SCoali$C$31/2000*(1.Control-coal'IC$5/100)

-028'CoaiiS$C31M200(1-NCE/IOO)

=R2S-CoaliSC$31r2000

=S28*CoaIISC$31 100 29=LEFI(P29,2)*SCoall$C$3112000(1-ýConlml-coal'IC$5110o)

=029CoeilSO$31r2000-(1.NCE/IOO) -R29-Coal$C$31I2000

=829*Coali$SC31I2000 30 =LEFT(P30.2)'S'Coa~iSC$31P2000'(1-ConMtrol-coarlC$5lOO)

=O3(Otoail$O$3112000'(1-NCEI100) -R30-Coall$S$31I200

=S30*toall$CS31r200 31 =LE-FT(P31

,2)'s'CoaiiSC$31l20O(1-ýCortm4-rcat$5I11o) -Q31.'Coalt$C$3ltf2000(1-NCE/100)

_Rw1coali$C$311200 wI'oallSC~$31Mw00 32 =LEFT(P32,2)*SCoali$C$3112000'(1.Cootrol-coarlC$5I100)

-032'Coal?$C$31/2000-(l-NCE/100)

=R32'Coall$C$31/200

-=S3CoaliSC$31r200 33 -LEFT(P33.2)'S'oaii$C$31/2000F(1-'Control-coaIiC$5/100)

-033aCoaii$C$3112000-(1-NCE/100)

=R33'Coali$C$311200

=S33Coaii$C$31re000 34T LEFT(P34,2)'S'Coall$C$31/2000'(1-ýCotrol-coarl'[$5/100) -Q34-CoafiSM3I/2000'(1l-NCEi100)

=R34'CoeliP$$31/200 -S34*Coail]$$31/2000 WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Control-coal 9/19/2005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Coal-Fired Alternative AS I AC 2 3-I+AAi=I+ABI 4 TSP emission (tonstyr)PM 1 0 emission (tonslyr]5 6 7 8 9 10 11 13 14 15 1_7 18.L2 2L3 2.4 25 26 27 28 31=VLOOKUP($T5.emfacAB$1)

=VLOOKUP($T5.emfac,AC$1)

=LEFT(V1 1,2)*A*CoalI$C$31/200O'(1 -tspce/100)

=LEFT(V12,2)ACoall$C$312000"1

-'ConMroI-coeItK$51100)

=LEFT(V1 3,1)*A°Coalt$C$31/2000"(1-'Controi-coarfK$5/100)

=LEFr(V14,1)*A*CoalI$C$3112000*(1-'Control-coal'IK$5/100)

=LEFT(Vi5,3)'A'CoslI$C$31/2000(1-'Control-oarlIK$5/100)

=LEFT(V16,3)ACoalt$C$311200*(1-'Contro-ooatIK$5I100)

=LEFT(V17,3)*A*Coali$C$31/2000°(1-Conirol-'eI'K$5/100)

=LEFT(V18.3)'A*CoalI$C$31/200(I-'Contro-eorlK$L/100),LEFT(V19,3)-A-Coalt$C$31/2000"(l-*Control-coal'IK$5/100)

=LEFT(V20,3)*A*Coalt$C$31i2000(1-'Control-oal'lK$5I100)

=LEFT(V21,3)'A*CoaI!$C$312000'(1-'Control-coal'IK$51100)

=LEFT(V22,3)'A'CoalI$C$31/20 (I-'Controi-col'lK$5/100)

=LEFT(V23,3)'A'CoaIi$C$31/200O"(1-'ControI-coarIK$5/100)

=LEFT(V24,3)-A'CoaIt$C$31/2000(1-'Controk-ooarfK$51100)

TSP=MIN(AB1I1.LEFT(W1 1,3)IACoani$C$312000*( 1-plo 1ce/OO ))-MINABi12.LEFT(W12.3)WA°Coalt$C$31/2000 (1-mlOce/loo))

=MIN(AB13.LEFT(W13,3)*AtCoai$C$31/2000"(1-pmloclOO))

=MIN(AB14,LEFT(W14.4)'A*CoaIt$C$31/2000"(I-pmlOce/100))

=MIN(AB15.LEFT(W15.4)*A'Coalt$C$31/2000(1-poi10oeI100))

=MIN(AS16.LEFT(W16,4)A*Coati$scs1i2000"(1 -pmicioo))-MIN(ABI7.LEFT(WI7.4)'A°Coa1t$C$31/2000(1 -pmn0cel100))

=MIN(AB18,LEFT(W18,4)*A*Coalt$C$31/2000(1-pm1Oe/i100))

=MIN(AB19.LEFT(W19,4)*A'C6alI$C$31/2000*( 1-pmlOce/100))

=MIN(A820.LEFT(W20,4}rA°Coaei$C$31/2000"(1-pmlOce/loo))

=MIN(AB21

=MIN(AB22,LEFT(W22,4)-A-Coalf$C$31/2000"(1-pm1oe100))

=MIN(AB23,LEFT(W23,3)*A'CoalI$C$31/2000"(1-pml0ce/100))

=MIN(AB24,LEFT(W24,3)*A*CoalI$C$31/2000"(1-pmlOce/100))

PMI 0 WCGS En olrmulas 2005 1 005 Figure 5 -Formulas for Emission Control Technologies for Gas-Fired Alternative I A I B I C 1 0 RE S2 3 4 3 4 Select # from Table 3.1-1 or 3.1-2 NOCCO Control NO, Emission (Ib/MMBTU)

CO Emission (Ib/MMBTU) 5 6 =VLOOKUP($A5,t3.l.1or2,B$1)

=VLOOKUP($A5.t3.1 lor2,C$1)

=VLOOKUP($A5.t3.1.1or2,D$1) 6 7 9 Source Table 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 NOx CO 10 1 Uncontrolled 0.32 0.082 11 2 Water Injecion 0.13 0.03 12 3 Steam injection 0.13 0.03 13 4 Lean-Premix 0.099 0.015 14 5 Selective Catalytic Reducton 0.0128 0.0168 15 6 Selective Catalytic Reduction (with watelsteam inrection) 0.0109 0.00226 s8 7 SteamrWater Injecton with SCR & CO Catalyst 0.00899 0.06 1.Al7 is 1 lSou~rce:

AP,-421Table 3.1 Database WCGS Emissions formulas 2005 Control-gas 9/19/2005 A- 13 C I ~ B B -F 10 6 5.ti 0 from Table 1.3-1 before Table 1.3-1 F~tg Confownalonfo I00AIB11Jt boiles T5abe1.3-180 Embanf~lm tdg TOMt ia-1 NOX Ends" 0(SS'p) Taje1.3-l CO~rnm on(Ib/pg&

Ts~io l~aIC0.EmjsIosAW9 Tabe t.3- Fb~w"sPM Cmm i(Mbg S4 -VLOOKUP(2A7.II.3I.865) -VLOOKUP(SA7,I.a1..1cI) .VLOOKUIP(SA7.11.&1.0SI)

..VLOOKtuP(2A7.ll.S.I.ESI) -VLOOQJP(8A7.fl.S&lFS .VLOOK(UP($A7l.3.l.Gsl) 9 Table la-i. CRWITRA POLLUTAN4T ENM1S0IO FACTORS FOR FU EL 02. COMABUSTION4 10 1 No. 6ofIIfrd, normaIl lftV 157247 S250= 9.19W322 I 1AONo. 0olldk. nomal M. l.ow N0. burn 1576S40. 2500 9.19W4.22 12 =I.AII No.8o6 atgrdIsugartle!

M 157S32 5 25O 9.198+3.22 13 =IA12 No. 6olIbWu. twguw6,kg.

lw NO, burne 15792 5 22000 9.19W.322 14 =IAI3 No. 5 ol lW nomal ftVn 157247 5 25M 10 aS =lA14 m4O.5 601 ih.I irgerSeiIfk 1573225 2S000 10 16 1:IAIS No*.4 011 1W. normal lift I 57847 52307 7? +lA1S NO' 4 flnia, targartdluiaM 157832 5 223M0 7 IS =I+tAl No.2,Atfd 157824 S 223002 IS 9I.AIS No. 2OR Wd. LNBIFOR 157810 5 22300 2 20 21 22 23 25 26 WCGS Er oks 20 4I*68005 Ftmu 5 -Focmuia for Ernbon 9oror faooogeor O-FFM Alweffll H-I --- --3 S_4 1."i1 Table 1.32 Cordoe" PM EmfsJ*M W("ad 7 =VLOOKUP(9A7,.l.3.1.H$I) 10 1.5 12 IS 13 1.5 W" 1.5 15 1.5 AS 1.5 lg 1.5 I8 1.3 19 1.3 20 21 22 23 24 9fl"or06 WCGS EmWsdons forutias 2005 Flgzfe 5 -Forminsfm Entm Control~ Tocibo f~or -Pbu Alte,1tit JK -T .LM N 10 2 3 4 6SO, EmtIop (Wt$V9) NO% En4hon qsry) CO EMlaWM Om&Ibi2 CO, E,41~n 0=40~ Tap Embdm, Pro"lp PM,, Emision (Ows" COWN-bleS PM P1 7 VLOOKUP(5A74.lI.13.I.) -VLOOKUP(SIA1.I3.1.J4l) .VLOOKLIP(&A7.ll.S.1,KSi) .VLOOKUP(SAYAI.3

.1181) -VLOOKUP(SA7AI.SI~)X

.=VLOOKUW($A7.tlJ l1.N$I( -VLOOKUP(SA7.tII.&tS) 9 Embsdu 10 =157 SOWIOOOOOOO(1 sC9IO)Oll0$C$29

-.O1 (IIOOUMW(l400IOOr'OIISCS2B -EIW026112600SlllC$21

=F105000110W01$C$29

.(g.lOSoI 2)O000O(1-TSPCEOW'100)0E9IC829 .PMGLTBP-MID .Ml042(0W0hoEolscs2l I =157 SOWISOOSOCO(I scecWlOO)WOI$C$29

-011 1000Gr 0(I 4=usd100UIOl CSU .51115W1260'aSC$2O

=FlU21OO'OI1SMC$29

.49.19-69+382Yl000002(I.TSPCEd'l00l0Il$CSSS PM1Q.TSP-Mi I .H1II200W1~006*I$C$29 12 =I57-SOWl000/2=(l-.cmWI00)'OI$C$29

-0l2nl00000c(InCevWI0)OylCU!c29

=EIMMM0O1WORI~S29I

=F212I0onM10WSOMSMS (9lW1Bag422YtOO~iOW-1-TSPCECSMW2)'OM$C$29 .PMIOJSPMI2 41lI22rMW1'OII$CS29 13 157Bulwl00rm,(I-scooWI )OO)0$c$29 I.0101000rW(1-nonedf00)W*C$C26 .E132DtI200'/0lICS~

F32W00$29 -lr OtM 91-9.IlrSol#221000I20O0 I-TSPCEdV1WY)WSC*29 -PM1OJTSP'MS .MS/0W1000011RS082 a 14 -ISo? SnN/1200( (I sced~oW1)-OSCS29 -D411o0MWW(14eogMOW1)'OlRSC$29

=E14i2OWl-01lSG29 J1I4r~lWWWl Xl2$CS29 -G14FA20~lr0I-TSPCEOW1OO)-U1scm2 4191108P'M14 -H41141200011000061$29 15 =157 SOIVIOOOd2000(l-scoWIO0yOOl$C$29 lMI0W/20WM(I-oneW126)X~l$$29

=EI5F2DOMOOO~llC$29

=F1V200Il0tODlSCI29 -l52.OWOnl'I~-TSPCEOVI/m)'OII$C$29 PMIO-TspNts -Hl181200W100011C$29 WS l575oWi~OnD!=(1-9nSOW100)CESCS29

=D1W/lOV002Dl-udoIO)Oln~$C$9 -ElfWAWloOOO*lfSM2 -FIGP200WMI0DWIWS29 lS/20~00fo0iI-TSPCEd,10)'CM$CS2U .PMIO-BPMtS

.*tlSrOOnOWI*c0l$$29 TT =157SVnIO001S5 l-scoUJ00y0SI$C$2 O17/100W2000'(14vEoW10ESOlsc2S

=E17l2MIC)D'RcISCSU .FI2000MOOGOMC$2cP -al7r"l000 -I.TSPCEoW100)-lS0S2S 41M103SP-MI7 441I7P.W00*00SICS29 To-5SW000~~eWI~ClO2 ISI8IOl2~0W(l1owGMOG)-O~ll$CS -ElS120WIOW'0SlSO$29 -F1SPAI2I0IW

$2 01200 I2 WI-TSPCEOW1O0)-OUS29" 41IOTBP-I8I ulIIS200M000*0P1$S29 iS l7-0qn(lot0OIc2 D0IgJIOWrAW2I4mwo0d"OD)-CW$C -E1SfODMlW00USOS -F191200Mw1D0110C26c9 -GIlour(W1.(TSPCEOwWoo)*Cms29

=PMOTBP-Mlo

.*IISISUO'lOOOI$C$29 221 25 216 WCGS Efl*iI. 2-0.I 5200 e Figure 5 -FortAss lor EmlMm CWMb Todn~a lot IM* P ,. R S T U=l+PI =1+01 1 2 3 2 3 4-.sd # fr SO car" SO, Caso" Do ba CoW Wncy() Sed 6 for No. NO. Contrd Do"f NOk ofldw"y (%)7 2 -VLOOKUP(SP7A.QOO$1 ) =VLOOKUIP(SP7.eodR$1) 4 -VLOOKLP($S7JocdI.T3I) -VLOOKUP($S7TMLU l)SCodrll Effklens from §1.3A4: 10 I Flue gam doludxolmimo 06 1 Fle gas ,umdmidn 50.. 2 Weatnibr.

96 2 Lw NO. burr (LM) 5,5 12 3 Dry o-hber oa 3 Low NO,,h tsiu h amrs air 6O 13 4 Sace oala mudocdn (SCR) e5 14 15 17 is 19 20 le 21 22 23 24 25 26 WCGS Emrsdons lonuLis 2005 9I"WlSO fgure S -Foimulan icw Erfdsn Coreid TeodgdM Ior 09~ Aftruvo w x V 112 3 4_3 4 96S0led for TSP & PM. CreSoI TSPjPI. CWorM Devim TSP Cored Eftihi" (%) PMjir a 3VtOOKUP(SVIbpcW$S1) -VLOOKUP($V7.tsqcX$l) .VLOOKUP($WV.pMyS)

S OPMIO CordO Efftldv desdw d frm TM" 1.1-4 10 I H.-efdcy cyd cebdW as o0.3 II 2 EfecthadacpedRsa b (ESP) go 0.03 12 3 Faiciclkll

@o ý) 99 O.AS 13 4 00t~rid 80 14 15 17 I?19 20 21 22 23 24_261 WCGS 9200S Figure la -Emissions for Coal Fired Alternative A B C -D 1-2 3 4 6 T 8 9 10 711 122 13 14 15 16 27 18 19 32 22 235 247 257 39 41 28 49 30 31 3_ 2 33 35 38 39 40 41 72-43 Station: Wolf Creek Generating Station Plant Abbreviation Client Replaces Heat Rate Basis (Client or EIA)If Client, Enter Heat Rate (Btulkwh)Referenced State/Year WCGS WCNOC 1,170 MWe EIA KS 2002 Bituminous Coal Fired Worksheet, Section 1.1 AP-42 Supplement E Inputs Number of Units Emission per unit (MW/unit)Capacity (MW/unit)Heat Rate (BTU/(kw*hr)

Heating Value (BTU/Ib)Capacity Factor Percent Sulfur Percent Ash SOx Control Device SO, Control Efficiency

(%)NO, Control Device NO, Control Efficiency

(%)TSP Control Device TSP Control Efficiency

(%)PM 1 0 Control Device PMl 0 Control Efficiency

(%)Parameter Annual Coal Consumption (tons/yr)Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-3 SOx, NOx, and CO emission factors Firing Configuration for Table 1.1-4 TSP and PM 1 0 emission factors Name.U E C HR HV CF S A Wet scrubber-Lime SCE Low NOx burners with over-fire air and S NCE Baghouse TSPCE Baghouse PM10CE Formula U*E*1000 HR/(HV*2000)*CF*365-24 Value Source Provides 1125 MWe < WCGS 2 net capacity -1170 MWe 596 6% used onsite 562.5 Input 10,200 EIA 2002, pg. 110 8,648 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 0.85 Assumed 0.40 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 5.53 EIA 2004a, KS Table 6 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-1 95 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 CR EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 95 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-2 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 99.9 EPA 1998a, §1.1.4.1 Value Source 5,236,437 Energy Balance PC, dry bottom, tangentially fired, bituminous, NSPS PC-fired, dry bottom, tangentially-fired EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 Emissions SO. (tons/yr)NO. (tons/yr)CO (tons/yr)CO 2 (tons/yr)TSP (tonslyr)PMio (tonslyr)uncontrolled lb/ton 38S = 15.2 10 0.5 5510 1OA= 55.3 2.3A = 12.719 controlled tons/yr-I Source EPA 1 998a, Table 1.1-3 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-3 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-20 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 EPA 1998a, Table 1.1-4 Bold = user defined inputs (e.g., 563)White font = outputs (eu.c., 44 I White font = outputs (e.o., WCGS Emissions 2005 Coal 9/19/2005 A62 REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Report No. Report Date KG&E #1-84 August 1984 Title and Subtitle WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION PRE-OPERATIONAL PHASE WILDLIFE MONITORING PROGRAM, MAY 1983-APRIL 1984 Author(s)Stephen M. Williams and Daniel L. Williamson Performing Organization Name and Address Kansas Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Supplementary Notes Abstract Wildlife monitoring studies were conducted in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas from May 1983 through April 1984. These results were compared with previous studies dating back to 1973. One hundred fifty-one avian species were observed during the study. Species lists compiled since 1973 now include 221 avian, 30 mammalian, and 31 herptile species. The only construction-related effect noted since monitoring began ip 1973 has been a substantial increase in avian species richness and abundance with the creation of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake. Large numbers of waterfowl, waterbird, and raptor species have been attracted to this newly created habitat. Decreased numbers of waterfowl and bald eagles were reported as compared with results from 1982-1983, but this reflected a statewide trend attributable to severe winter conditions.

No significant trends in waterfowl and bald eagle usage of the cooling-lake have yet developed.

There has been no indication of a significant amount of mortality due to impaction with transmission facilities near the cooling lake.Waterfowl in the area preferred John Redmond Reservoir over the cooling lake except during a few short time periods, primarily when John Redmond had ice cover and the cooling lake did not.Factors that contribute to the high species richness and abundance found in the area include the relatively clear water and seclusion of the cooling lake, availability of foraging, loafing, and nesting habitat, and aggressive land management activities on the site environs.Originator's Key Words Wolf Creek, Construction-related effects, Wildlife, Threatened and endangered, Bald Eagle, Waterfowl, Common Loon, Greater Prairie Chicken, Double-crested Cormorant KG&E #1-84 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATIWN PRE-OPERATIONAL PHASE WILDLIFE MCNITORING PROGRAM MAY 1983 -APRIL 1984 Stephen M. Williams and Daniel L. Williamson Kansas Gas and Electric Company P.O. Box 208 Wichita, Kansas 67201 Published August 1984 Annual Report for May 1983 -April 1984 Authors r-Steofhen M. Williams Daniel L. Williamson Site Approval Corporate Approval.______________

Gene P. Rathbun Table of Contents List of Figures .................................

v List of Tables .........................

....vi RULTNISN.....

...RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

....oooo.~*~ 5, CONCLUSIONSo.............................

• 14 Bibliography

.....................

4 V List of Figures Figure P age 1. Wolf Creek Generating Station and vicinity, Coffey County, Kansas .. ................................

..............

17 2. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir, Coffey County, Kansas .............................

18 3. 20-mile roadside survey route near Wolf Creek Generating Station ....................................................

19 4. Collision survey study areas, Wolf Creek Generating Station ....................................................

20 vi List of Tables Table Page 1. Wildlife monitoring schedule, Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1983-1984.0.00...0..0

.00.00. 21 2. Species list, residency status, and method of observance of avifauna near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1983-1984

............

22 3. Avian species observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1983 ..........

... .........................

...............

..... 27 4. Species diversity and number of new species observed annually near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1983

........ ..........

34 5. Number of avian species and individuals observed along a 20-mile wildlife survey route near Wolf Creek Generating Station, May 1973 -January 1984 ......................

35 6. Waterfowl and waterbird census data collected during ground surveys of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, 1983-1984....................

36 7. Heron, shorebird, gull, and raptor census data collected during ground surveys of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, 1983-1984.............

37 8. Cnmparison of mean number and results of statistical analysis of ducks, geese, and bald eagles observed during ground surveys at Wolf Creek Cooling Lake in 1981-1982, 1982-1983, and 1983-1984....

38 9. Aerial and ground waterfowl and eagle census data of John Redmond Reservoir and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, 1983-1984

..........

.......39 10. Species list, area, and number of mortalities observed during collision surveys of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, September 1983 -April 1984.......

.. ...... 40 11. Northern bobwhite call counts along a 20-mile wildlife survey route near Wolf Creek Generating Station, May and June 1983 ....... 41 12. Mourning dove observations along a 20-mile wildlife survey route near Wolf Creek Generating Station, May and June 1983..............

42 13. Mammals observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1983-1984

.... 43 14. Mammals observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1983....

44 15i Comparison of seasonal eastern cottontail densities along a 20-mile wildlife survey route, 1979-1983

.............................

45 16. Herpetofauna observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1983-1984

......................

Herpetofa.na 46 17. Herpetofauna observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station, 1974-1983..

..............

47 INTRODUCTION Objectives This report presents results of wildlife monitoring studies conducted in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) from May 1983 through April 1984. Wildlife studies were initiated in 1973 to fulfill commritments made by Kansas Gas and Electric Cnmpany to the Nuclear Regulatory Qzmission as a condition of the construction permit.The general objective of the 1983-1984 monitoring program was to document and assess environmental effects of construction of the power plant and cooling lake. Specific objectives included: 1. Establish use of the cooling lake by wildlife, especially water-fowl, waterbirds, and bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus).

2. Document mortality due to collision with transmission facilities in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL).3. monitor populations of avian, mamnalian, and herptile species in the vicinity of WCGS.Description of the Study Area Wolf Creek Generating Station is located in Coffey County, approximately 5.6 kilometers (km) [3.5 miles (mi)] northeast of Burlington, KS (Figure 1). The site encompasses 3,973 hectares (ha) (9,818 acres), of which 2,060 ha (5,090 acres) is a lake utilized for once-through cooling during station operation.

The remainder of the site is composed of range, cropland, and woodland typical of southeastern Kansas. At the present time the entire site is closed to public access. The plant is in the final phases of construction and scheduled to go operational in early 1985.Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was formed by impounding Wolf Creek, an intermittent stream, approximately 8.8 km (5.5 mi) upstream of its confluence with the Neosho River. A surface elevation of 331.3 meters (m)(1087 feet) Mean Sea Level is maintained by precipitation and make-up water pumped via an underground pipeline fran the Neosho River below John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) over a distance of approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi).Fluctuation of only a few feet in elevation is expected during operation under normal weather conditions.

Average depth for WCCL is 6.6 m (21.5 feet). Two baffle dikes force water leaving the plant discharge structure to circulate through the main body of the lake before re-entering the intake structure.

Clearing of most of the lake basin was completed prior to filling. However, approximately 49 ha (120 acres) of standing timber were left in sane of the eastern coves and upper reaches of the lake. There are two small islands located in the southern portion of the main body of the lake.John Redmond Reservoir, a flood control project completed in 1964 on the Neosho River, lies approximately 5.9 km (3.6 mi) west of the station Page 2 (Figure 2). The reservoir has a surface area of 3,804 ha (9,400 acres) at conservation pool and a total project area of 12,829 ha (31,700 acres).Average depth of the reservoir is approximately 1.4 m (4.5 feet). Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, managed as part of the national migratory waterfowl program, occupies 7,487 ha (18,500 acres) in the upper reaches of the project.P .

METHODOL=GY Wildlife studies were conducted frao May 1983 through April 1984 following the schedule given in Table 1. Ongoing studies included a 20-mile roadside survey route, waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle surveys of the cooling lake, and collision surveys of selected portions of the transmission facilities near the cooling lake. Any unusual or uncommon species of wildlife observed or evidenced during other field activities were documented as supplemental observations.

Avifauna A 20-mile roadside survey route (Figure 3) was used to census game and nongame bird species. The route was driven in the early morning twice during each sampling period. Sampling periods were chosen to identify both resident and migratory populations during each season of the year (spring, suimmer, fall, and winter). Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus) call counts were conducted in May and June at 20 listening points (2 minutes at each stop) along the route. Species and numbers of all birds were recorded by mile segment. The number of mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) observed per mile in May and June was used as an annual index to evaluate developing trends in the population.

Waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of the cooling lake was surveyed during the migratory season beginning in early fall and continuing through late spring. Two ground counts were conducted during each biweekly period (one in the morning and one in the evening).

Numbers and distribution of all species were identified with the use of binoculars and spotting scope. Local diurnal movements of waterfowl were identified by observation of flight patterns during these surveys. Concentratign.

areas, roost trees, feeding habits, and behavior of bald eagles were noted whenever possible.

Aerial surveys of the cooling lake and JRR were conducted monthly to obtain estimates of total number and distribution of waterfowl and bald eagles using the two water bodies.Waterfowl and waterbird collisions with transmission facilities were monitored by surveying those areas shown in Figure 4. These surveys were canpleted three times in each area during each sampling period. Sampling periods were chosen to coincide with peak periods of migration for various avian species utilizing the cooling lake. Surveys were acconplished by walking the shoreline and vicinity in designated areas as early in the morning as visibility permitted.

For all observed mortalities the location, species, number of carcasses, cause of death, and other pertinent information were recorded as needed.Observations of any rare or unusual birds during other field excursions were recorded and used to supplement survey data.Identification and nanenclature followed Robbins et al (1966) and the American Ornithologists' Union (1957, 1973, 1976, 1982).

Page 4 Mammals Any game or nongame mammals observed while driving the 20-mile roadside survey route were recorded by mile segment. Incidental sightings of mammals or mammal sign on or near the site ere recorded.Identification and namenclature followed Bee et al (1981) and Schwartz and Schwartz (1981).Herpetofauna Any reptiles or amphibians observed during the 20-mile roadside survey route or observations made on other field excursions were recorded.Identification and ncmenclature followed Collins (1974).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Avifauna One hundred fifty-one avian species were observed during the 1983-1984 monitoring program (Table 3). This number represents a 4% increase fran the number of species observed during 1982-1983 monitoring, but is still below the record number of 160 observed in 1981-1982.

The list included 42 summer, 38 permanent, 58 migrant, and 13 winter resident species.Eight new species were documented during 1983-1984 field studies: white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi), cinnamon teal (Anas c, noptera), Mississippi kite (Ictinia mississippiensis), western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), glaucous gull (Larus hyperboreus), barn owl (Tyto alba), swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana), and rusty blackbird (Euphagus carolinus).

Of the 383 species reported to occur in Kansas (Johnston, 1965), 221 have been documented in the WCGS environs since monitoring began in 1973 (Table 3). Twenty-seven of these species had not previously been recorded in Coffey County. Sane of these county records were common birds that had not been documented, but many were unusual species for this area which were attracted by WOCL.Table 4 exhibits the substantial increase in species diversity associated with the establishment of the cooling lake. Filling of the lake began in late 1980, and full pool was achieved 18 months later. The 26 new species observed during the 1981-1982 monitoring program, most of which were waterfowl and waterbirds, were indicative of the impact this newly created aquatic habitat has had on local avifauna populations.

While species diversity has remained below the level of the 1981-1982 results (primarily due to reduced survey efforts), the number of species observed in each-year since has been approximately 50% above levels recorded prior to 1981.20-mile Wildlife Survey Route Seventy-nine avian species were observed along the wildlife survey route during 1983-1984 monitoring studies. Considerable variance in species diversity and abundance reflected seasonal patterns and habitat diversity along the route (Table 5). Greatest species diversity was observed during the spring and summer (62), and lowest occurred in the winter (28). The 62 species recorded in June was the highest summer number reported since monitoring began in 1973.Avian abundance varied seasonally with the number of individuals observed ranging between 2,313 in May to 3,446 in September.

These counts also represent higher than previously recorded numbers of individuals observed for these months.Results of the 20-mile survey indicate no unusual trends in variation of species diversity and abundance.

Observed seasonal and annual variations reflect normal seasonal changes, population fluctuations, and variable weather conditions during campletion of the survey.

Page 6 Waterfowl and Waterbird Survey Thirty species of waterfowl and waterbirds were observed during the 1983-1984 ground surveys (Table 6). Species diversity ranged between 4 species in Jand&ryý-26ýspecies in March and April. Bitter cold weather from December through early January is reflected by the relatively low species diversity and abundance recorded during the winter months. As an indication of the harsh winter conditions, data provided by the National Weather Service in Topeka, KS revealed that the average temperature for December 1983 was 14.4 F, which is 17.4 F below normal temperatures for that month.Average numbers of ducks observed on WXCL during ground surveys varied from 38 in late April to 5,798 in early December.

A maximum ground count of 7,361 was recorded on December 12. This number is considerably less than the maximum ground count of 37,897 during 1982-1983 monitoring.

Average ground counts of geese utilizing the cooling lake varied between 1 in April and 618 in late January. The maximum number observed was 1,018 during a survey on January 18. This flock was composed of Canada geese (Branta canadensis) that consistently utilized water that was kept open in the discharge cove by plant start-up flushing activities during bitter cold weather. The discharge channel was one of the few places in the vicinity that open water could be found during this time period.Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), as in 1982-1983, was the most abundant species and was observed during, al biweekly periods. Other cannon migrants observed during most of the surveys included ccnmon merganser (Mergus merganser), gadwall (Anas strepera), American wigeon (Anas -americana), common goldeneye (Bucephala clangula), and bufflehea--(Bucephala albeola).

An unusually high number (33) of hooded merganser (Lophodytes cucullatus) was observed on December 12. Although this species is frequently observed, usually only a few individuals are present at a given time.Three species of geese were observed during the surveys: greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons), snow goose (Chen caerulescens), and Canada goose. Canada goose was most comon and most abundant throughout the study period. Canadas were observed in all but two of the biweekly periods. A flock of sixteen Canadas observed repeatedly in early fall were part of the Kansas Fish and Game Commission (KFGC) reintroduction project. Information obtained through neck band identification revealed they had been released on a large pond approximately 40 miles southwest of the site only a few days before being initially observed on WCCL. These birds remained on the lake through early winter. However, no Canadas with neck bands were observed during spring surveys, and it is not known if these birds will return in the future.Waterbird species comnonly observed included American coot (Fulica americana), double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) pied-billed grebe (Podilymbus podiceps), and common loon (Gavia imer).

Page 7 The frequency and number of common loons observed on WOCL were unusual for this area. Seven loons were observed repeatedly during the sumner on the main body of the lake. Common loons had not been previously documented to remain in Kansas throughout the summer months. During the spring mi-gration, a maximum count of 17 was recorded on April 11. This is a record number of individuals observed in the state (Marvin Schwilling, personal communication).

Throughout April, several loons were consistently observed during ground surveys and other field activities.

Relatively clear water and seclusion due to lack of public access combine to make IACL attractive to this species.Several species of waterfowl and waterbirds have nested and reared young on WCCL. During 1983-1984 monitoring, double-crested cormorant, mallard, and wood duck were documented.

Twelve cormorant nests were observed dur-ing the summer, and at least seven were successful.

The decline fran 21 nests in 1982 can be'attributed to deterioration of the flooded trees in which the nests are built. As reported last year (Williams, 1983), WCCL is only the third lake in the state where nesting of this species has been documented.

Several broods of wood duck and mallard were observed during summer field activities.

During previous years, blue-winged teal (Anas discors) had also been documented to nest on the cooling lake. Whil--it has not yet been documented, nesting of Canada geese is expected to occur in the future. Canadas released in the area by KFGC will probably be attracted to the lake, as evidenced by the presence of banded birds previously mentioned.

Data on herons, shorebirds, gulls, and raptors observed during 1983-1984 ground surveys are given in Table 7. Ring-billed gull (Larus delawarensis) was observed most frequently but, unlike previous years, were absent during the winter months. Great blue heron (Ardea herodias), killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and Franklin's gull (Larus pipixcan) were other common species observed.

Least tern (Sterna antillarum),an uncommon visitor to the area, was observed on three separate surveys. An unusually high number of 9 individuals was observed on September 8.Raptor species observed utilizing the cooling lake included osprey.(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) , bald eagle, Cooper's hawk (Accipiterand short-eared owl (Asio flaumeus).

Osprey continue to be observed frequently and in relatively high numbers. Six osprey were observed during surveys on both September 15 and September

27. As noted before, water clarity and seclusion probably combine to make the lake attractive to many of the water-related species observed.Bald eagles were first noted utilizing the cooling lake in late October and were observed regularly through early March. None were seen during ground surveys in late December and early January when most of the lake was frozen. Twenty-three individuals were observed on February 3. This is the highest count of bald eagles on the cooling lake recorded to date.Overall, there were fewer eagles observed during 1983-1984 than were re-ported in 1982-1983.

Usage of the cooling lake as a foraging and loafing area is expected to continue due to the presence of wintering waterfowl, the abundance of natural perch sites, and seclusion of the area.

Page 8 A student T-test at the p=.05 level of significance was used to statistically analyze waterfowl and bald eagle ground count results from monitoring in 1981-1982, 1982-1983, and 1983-1984 (Table 8). These analyses were performed to determine whether or not the observed variations in numbers of these birds using WOCL were significant, and if these variations indicated any developing trends.Comparison of numbers of ducks observed in 1981-1982 with those reported in 1982-1983 revealed no significant difference between these two years.However, the number of ducks observed in 1983-1984 was significantly lower than numbers reported in both 1981-1982 and 1982-1983.

Analysis of numbers of geese reported during the three study periods showed significantly higher counts in 1981-1982 than in either 1982-1983 and 1983-1984.

There was no significant difference between the numbers of geese observed in 1982-1983 and 1983-1984.

The number of bald eagles observed in 1983-1984 was not significantly different from count results in 1981-1982 or 1982-1983.

However, the number of eagles observed in 1982-1983 did show a significant increase over the number observed in 1981-1982.

These analyses do not indicate any trends developing in duck, goose, and bald eagle usage of WCCL at this time. The decrease in the number of these birds observed on WCCL in 1983-1984 as compared with 1982-1983 reflected a statewide trend (Marvin Kraft, personal cOILUIunication).

Decreased numbers of ducks were probably due to a combination of a declining Central Flyway population and severe winter conditions that froze the surface of most lakes and rivers in the state. For similar reasons, winter conditions were probably responsible for lower numbers of geese. Bald eagles migrate seasonally into the state and forage in areas of open water for fish and crippled waterfowl.

Frozen water surfaces and lower numbers of waterfowl were most likely the reason for decreased numbers of eagles both at CCL and throughout the state.Waterfowl and bald eagle usage of WOCL in the future will be affected by a variety of factors. As the cooling lake ages, and in combination with a fairly stable water level, it may become less attractive to waterfowl, particularly ducks. On the other hand, seclusion and expanding mats of aquatic vegetation will help keep the lake attractive to migrating waterfowl.

The quality of available aquatic habitat in the vicinity, particularly on JRR, will greatly affect the number of waterfowl in the area, and how much time these birds spend on the cooling lake. Population trends and weather conditions will also play a major role in migratory behavior.

Bald eagle usage will be dependent on the number of waterfowl on the cooling lake and water conditions that affect their fishing behavior.

Once the plant goes operational, heated effluent will keep large areas of WOCL open throughout the winter. This condition may substantially alter behavior patterns of wintering waterfowl and bald eagles.Table 9 presents results of aerial surveys, and compares these with ground Page 9 counts of the cooling lake and KFGC/U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service ground counts of JRR. The data indicate that waterfowl and bald eagles continued to greatly prefer JRR over WOCL, although a few surveys revealed short periods of time when larger populations could be found on WCCL.An aerial survey conducted in mid-December recorded much greater numbers of ducks on the cooling lake than JRR .(33,324 vs. 5,973). When this survey was conducted JRR was canpletely frozen while the main body of WCCL was still open. These conditions lasted only a few days, after which both water bodies remained frozen for about 45 days. Aerial surveys in September and October also recorded greater numbers of ducks on WCCL than JRR but comparison with results of ground surveys indicates greater usage of JRR throughout these months. Generally, ducks utilizing WCCL represented only 1% -40% of the local population throughout the migration period.Goose usage of the two water bodies continued to differ substantially, with JRR attracting 67% -99% of birds in the local area.There was no substantial amount of diurnal movement by flocks of waterfowl between JRR and WOCL. Waterfowl leaving the cooling lake traveled in various directions, depending on which grain fields were being utilized for feeding. Double-crested cormorant and ring-billed gull were the only waterbird species observed moving between the two water bodies. Their movements were noted less often than in previous years, but it is anticipated these birds will continue to exhibit this behavior during migration.

Bald eagles continued to utilize the local area throughout the fall and winter months. The maximum number of eagles observed during the study period occurred on January 24 during an aerial survey. This count re-vealed 4 eagles on WCCL, 12 on JRR, and 41 on the Neosho River downstream of the two water bodies. Although this number is below the maximum of 132 observed fran the air in February, 1983, it represents the highest concentration known to be in the state during the winter of 1983-1984 (Marvin Schwilling, personal communication).

Collision Survey Data fran collision surveys documented 24 mortalities representing 10 species (Table 10). In contrast with the 1982-1983 results, these data reveal a 48% decline in the number of individuals observed.

This decline is most apparent in the number of avian mortalities documented near the Cemetery Cove (0.5 mortalities/month observed in 1983-1984 as opposed to 4.5 mortalities/month observed in 1982-1983).

In February, a third transmission line was constructed over the Firing Range Cove. Analysis of data gathered following installation of the line indicated no increase in impaction mortality.

The most connon species observed were mallard, blue-winged teal and red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), with two individuals each. The most common species of the 1982-1983 study, great blue heron, was not Page 10 docunented during this study period. In cases where identification of the carcass was possible, line impaction was the most cnmmon cause of mortality.

In those cases where only partial carcasses or feathers remained, the cause of mortality could not be determined.

Decomposition and scavenging by mammalian predators were the primary reasons for inability to determine cause of mortality.

Although statistical analysis was not performed on the data due to small sample size, a significant difference in the amount of collision mortality appears to exist between the two survey areas (0.5 mortalities/month in the Cemetery Cove vs. 5.5 mortalities/month in the Firing Range Cove).This is most likely due to the fact that the Firing Range Cove is traversed by three separate transmission lines while the Cemetery Cove has but one line crossing it. However, the ratio of water-related species to total species killed was the same for each area. This indicates no selectivity in the type of birds susceptible to collisions between the two areas.Fifty percent of those individuals identified were determined to not be water-related species, and were therefore considered coincidental mortality.

A decline in the number of observed mortalities per month, along with a strong contrast in ccmmonly observed species between 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 studies, also indicated a continued coincidental pattern to avian mortality.

The above mentioned factors lead to the conclusion that avian mortality due to transmission line impaction in close proximity of WOCL is not a significant problem.There were two cases of mortality observed during other field activities that merit notation.

In November company personnel observed an oldsquaw (Clangula hyemalis) strike a power line in one of the plant parking lots.Although this uncommon species was not observed during surveys in 1983-1984, it had been previously documented on the cooling lake. In a separate incident in late sumer, a juvenile Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni) was found floating in the cooling lake. Post-mortem examination revealed no apparent cause of death, but there was water in the lungs and chitinous insect remains in the stomach. It is believed this young bird flew too low while feeding on insects just above the water surface. once in the water, it was probably unable to get airborne again and eventually drowned.Game Species.Northern Bobwhite Northern bobwhite were observed along the wildlife survey route during most surveys in 1983-1984.

This species was noticeably absent during January surveys. Severe winter conditions may have decimated local populations.

Bobwhites were observed only occasionally when conducting other field activities during March and April, 1984 in the site environs.The average number of calls/stop in May and June was 2.5 and 12.3, respectively (Table 11). The May number was slightly below last year's Page 11 level, but June results were substantially higher than 8.3 calls/stop in June 1982. Call counts have continued to show a generally increasing trend since 1979.Data fran the KFGC Rural Mail Carrier Surveys (Roger Wells, personal comamunication) have shown a similar trend over the past five years. The harsh winter of 1978-1979 drastically decreased bobwhite population.

The increasing trend observed since 1979 reflects the gradual recovery of the population from conditions of high stress. January data fran both the 20-mile survey route and KFGC and subsequent observations during the spring indicate that populations have again pluimmeted.

Mourning Dove As with bobwhite quail, mourning dove was observed along the wildlife survey route during all surveys except in January. The breeding population index, best represented by results from the June surveys, was 2.4 birds/mile (Table 12). This was a decrease fran June 1982 results of 3.6 birds/mile but was comparable to the June 1981 level of 2.3 birds/mile.

The observed annual variation in population indices can be attributed to survey weather condition and normal population cycling.Greater Prairie Chicken Greater prairie chicken (Tympanuchus cupido) was observed during 20-mile surveys, ground surveys of the cooling lake, collision surveys, and during other field activities in 1983-1984.

Birds utilized leks identified in last year's report. Boaming was also heard several times coming fran the east side of the lake, but the exact location of this lek was never identified.

While the populations of prairie chicken in the site environs have probably followed the slightly decreasing cyclic trend noted statewide over the past few years, these birds continue to prosper due to proper tallgrass prairie management activities.

Ring-necked Pheasant Ring-necked pheasant (Phasianus colchicus) was observed during a 20-mile survey and during other field activities.

This species was first documented in 1980 but had not been observed since. As this exotic game bird continues to expand its range eastward in the state, it is expected that observation of this species will become more comon.Threatened and Endangered Bald eagle, listed as federally and state endangered in Kansas (Kansas Fish and Game Commission, 1980; USDI, 1979), was regularly observed during 1982-1983 monitoring.

The cooling lake was used as a foraging and loafing area; no roosting has yet been documented.

Although a record number of eagles was documented on WCCL, overall there were fewer individ-uals observed in the local area than in previous years. This trend paral-leled a statewide decrease in wintering bald eagles, due probably to the harsh weather conditions in late December and January. John Redmond Res-Page 12 ervoir has been a traditional wintering area for large concentrations of bald eagles. Usage of WCL is expected to continue and possibly increase as the local wintering population utilizes the additional foraging habitat provided by CCL.Peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), federally and state endangered, was not observed during the 1983-1984 study period. This species has been observed in previous years and is expected to be an occasional visitor in the area during migration.

Prairie falcon (Falcon mexicanus), listed as threatened in Kansas, was observed several times during various field activities in 1983-1984.

This species migrates through this area and can be expected to be observed in the future.Least tern, another threatened species in Kansas, was observed during ground surveys of the cooling lake. Nine individuals were observed during one of these surveys. Migrating seasonally through the area, these birds should continue to be attracted to the lake.Mammals Twenty mamialian species were observed or evidenced during the 1983-1984 monitoring (Table 13). This list included four species not previously documented:

woodchuck (Marmota monax), plains pocket gopher (Gecmys bursarius), Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), and mink (Mustela vison).Mink, attracted to the area by new foraging habitat provided by WCCL, were observed numerous times on the rip rap of the baffle dikes. Since monitoring began in 1973, 30 species have been recorded at or near the.WGS project (Table 14).Six species were documented along the wildlife survey route. Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) and fox squirrel (Sciurus niger) were most ccnmmonly observed.

Mink was observed during surveys of the cooling lake, and 13 additional species were documented during other field activities.

Eastern Cottontail Census Highest rabbit density was recorded in June (0.60/mile), and lowest was in September (0.03/mile).

Table 15 provides a comparison of reported densities fram 1979 through 1983. These data show a steadily increasing trend throughout this five-year period. Data provided by KFGC follow a similar trend, and indicate a recovery from the harsh winter of 1978-1979 as described previously for northern bobwhite.

January results indicate that the severe winter months of 1983-1984 may have again drastically reduced cottontail densities in this area.Threatened and Endangered No mammalian species listed as threatened or endangered were observed near WCGS during the 1983-1984 monitoring program.

Page 13 Herpetofauna Eighteen herptile species were recorded during the 1983-1984 monitoring (Table 16). Three of these species had not been previously documented near WCGS: Texas brown snake (Storeria dekayi), blotched water snake (Nerodia erythrogaster), and diamond-backed water snake (Nerodia rhombifera).

Since monitoring began in 1973, a list of 31 species has been compiled (Table 17). Most commonly observed species included eastern ornate box turtle (Terrapene ornata), western massassauga (Sistrurus catenatus), and western slender glass lizard (Ophisaurus attenuatus).

Threatened and Endangered No herptile species listed as threatened or endangered were observed near WGCS during the 1983-1984 monitoring program.

CONCLUSIONS Wolf Creek Generating Station and the surrounding area support moderate to high avian densities and diversity.

During 1983-1984 monitoring, 151 species were documented.

Species diversities recorded in previous years range between 83 (1974) and 160 (1981). Eight new species were added to the species list. Since monitoring began in 1973, 221 species have been documented in the WCGS environs.Establishment of WCCL has resulted in a significant increase in species diversity and richness in the local area. Annual species diversity has increased to levels approximately 50% above those observed prior to lake filling. Twenty-seven county records have been documented during monitoring since 1973. Most of these represent uncommon water-related species attracted to the area by the cooling lake. Factors that make WCCL attractive to these species include the relatively clear water, abundance of foraging, loafing, and nesting sites, and seclusion of the area.Seventy-nine avian species were observed along the 20-mile wildlife survey route during the study. A record number of species for the summer season was observed in June. Record numbers of individuals for spring and fall were recorded in May and September, respectively.

observed seasonal and annual fluctuations during the surveys were not excessive or unusual.Fifty-nine water-related species were observed on the cooling lake during ground surveys. Large numbers of waterfowl, waterbirds, and gulls utilized WCCL during migration.

Generally, the number of waterfowl using the lake was significantly less than numbers observed during the previous year. Results of ground surveys were well below previous levels (a maximum of 7,361 ducks reported compared with 37,897 last year). Species diversity and abundance were extremely low in December and early Jan~ary due to harsh winter conditions.

During this time period, open water in the plant discharge cove was regularly utilized by a large flock of Canada geese. Most common species observed included mallard, common merganser, Canada goose, American coot, and ring-billed gull. Uncommon species or species observed in unusually high numbers included conmon loon, hooded merganser, osprey, and least tern.Results of both aerial and ground surveys support the conclusion that waterfowl continue to be attracted to JRR in much greater numbers than to WCCL. Surveys consistently showed substantial differences in the numbers using the two water bodies, with JRR generally holding 60-99% of the ducks and geese known to be in the local area. No substantial amount of diurnal movement by waterfowl between the two water bodies was observed during the study.Bald eagles were observed from late October through early March. Twenty-three individuals, the highest count recorded to date, were observed on CCL in February.

Aside from this record, the number of eagles in the area was down from the previous year (a maximum of 57 as opposed to 132 last year).Comparison of three years of data from ground counts on WCCL indicated no developing trends to date. The decreased numbers of waterfowl and bald Page 15 eagles observed during 1983-1984 as compared with 1982-1983 reflected a statewide trend which can be attributed primarily to severe winter conditions.

Usage of the cooling lake by these species in the future will be affected by factors such as water conditions on WCCL and JRR, population trends, and weather conditions.

Several species of waterfowl have been documented nesting and rearing young on WXCL. These species include double-crested cormorant, wood duck, mallard, and blue-winged teal. A small flock of Canada geese, released in the area as part of the KFGC reintroduction program, was observed on the lake in the fall. Future nesting of these species on WCCL is probable.Results of collision surveys revealed lower observed mortality rates than previously documented.

Ten species were identified during the study, but no more than two individuals of a given species were observed.

Fifty percent of the identifiable carcasses were not water-related species.Great blue heron, the most common species identified during the 1982-1983 study, was not documented in 1983-1984.

To date there has been no significant amount of observed avian mortality due to collision with transmission facilities in close proximity of WCL.Special attention was given to selected game bird species. Quantitative surveys of northern bobwhite in spring and summer revealed continuation of a generally increasing trend over the past five years. Winter surveys indicated a drastic reduction in bobwhite population, probably due to the harsh winter. Mourning dove populations remained at levels within the range of data from previous years. Greater prairie chicken was regularly observed and appeared to be prospering due to tallgrass prairie management activities.

Ring-necked pheasant was observed several times during the study, and is becoming more prevalent in the vicinity as this species expands its range.Mammals were qualitatively censused along the wildlife survey route and during other field activities.

Twenty species were observed during the study with eastern cottontail and fox squirrel most abundant.

Four new species were added to the species list. Thirty species have now been documented since monitoring began in 1973.Qualitative surveys of herpetofauna recorded 18 species during the study period. The addition of 3 new species brings the total species list to 31.Bald eagle, listed as federally and state endangered, and prairie falcon and least tern, listed as state threatened, were the only endangered or threatened species observed during the study. All of these species were noted on numerous occasions.

Bald eagles winter in the area and utilized the cooling lake for foraging and loafing. Prairie falcon migrates through the area, and is commonly found in habitat typical of the site environs.

Least tern utilized the cooling lake during migration.

All of these species will continue to be attracted to WOCL and the local area.A substantial increase in avian species richness and abundance is the only Page 16 construction-related effect noted since monitoring began in 1973. This increase is directly attributable to the creation of WCCL. The cooling lake continues to attract large numbers of waterfowl, waterbirds, and bald eagles. Many uncommon species have been noted since the lake was filled.Although inundation displaced terrestrial species inhabiting the lake basin, there has been no indication of reduction in local populations.

There continues to be no indication of significant mortality due to collision with transmission facilities near the cooling lake. Land management activities on the site environs continue to maintain healthy populations of local wildlife species.

17 KILOMETERS 2 3 4 0 I 5 s6 6ý4 0.I 2 3 4-MILES NEW 8TR JOHN REDMOND oSn ci-PLANT SITE INTAKE BAFFLE DIKE "A" SCREEN HOUSE COOLING LAKE 3" .m AREAS OF FLOODED TIMBER FIGURE 1. WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION AND VICINITY, COFFEY COUNTY, KANSAS.

= m -m m m m = = = = m m = = m = m -FIGURE 2. WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE AND JOHW REDMOND RESERVOIR, COFFEY COUNTY, KANSAS 19 I FIGURE 3. 20-MILE ROADSIDE SURVEY ROUTE NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 20 FIGURE 4I. COLLISION SURVEY STUDY AREAS, WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION TABLE 1. WILDLIFE MONITORING SCHEDULE, WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1983-1984.

M June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr 20-mile Roadside Survey Route X X X X Waterfowl, Waterbird A Bald Eagle Survey X X X X X X X X Transmission Line Collision Survey x X X

--m m-m- -m-m,-m m m m- m TABLE 2. SPECIES LIST, RESIDENCY STATUS, AND METHOD OF OBSERVANCEOF GENERATING STATION, 1983-1984.

AVIFAUNA NEAR WOLF CREEK Scientific Name Residency Status(1)20-mile Survey Water fowl.,Survey_Collision Survey, Supplemental Observation Common Loon Pied-billed Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe American White Pelican Dbl .-crested Cormorant Great Blue Heron Great Egret Little Blue Heron Cattle Egret Green-backed Heron Yellow-crnd.

Night Heron White-faced Tbus Gr. White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Canada Goose Wood Duck Green-winged Teal American Black Duck Mallard Northern Pintail Blue-winged Teal Cinnamon Teal Northern Shoveler Gadwall American Wigeon Canvasback Red head Ring-necked Duck Lesser Scaup Gavia immer Podilymbus podiceps Podiceps auritus Podiceps nigricollis Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Ardea herodias Casmerodius albus Egretta caerulea Bubulcus ibis Butorides striatus Nocticorax violaceus Plegadis chihi Anser albifrons Chen caerulescens Branta canadensis Aix Anas crecca Anas rubripes Anas platyrhynchos Anas acuta Anas discors Anas cyanoptera Anas clypeata Anas strepera Anas americana Aythya valisineria Aythya americana Aythya collaris Aythya affinis x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x"U)

TABLE 2. (CONT.)Residenc Status(f1 20-mil e Survey Species Scientific Name Waterfowl Survey Collision Survey Supplemental Observation Old squaw Common Goldeneye Bu ffl ehead Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Ruddy Duck Turkey Vulture Mississippi Kite Osprey Bald Eagle Northern Harrier Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Swainson's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Rough-legged Hawk American Kestrel Merlin Prairie Falcon Ring-necked Pheasant.Greater Prairie Chicken Northern Bobwhite American Coot Black-bellied Plover Killdeer American Avocet Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Spotted Sandpiper Clanmulahyemalis Bucephala clangula Bucephala albeola Loghodytes cucullatus Mergus merganser Merrus serrator Oxyura ijamaicensis Cathartes aura Ictinia mississippiensis Pandion haliaetus Haliaeetus leucocephalus Circus cyaneus Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperii Buteo lineatus Buteo swainsoni Buteo jamaicensis.Buteo lagopus Falco sparverius Falco columbarius Falco mexicanus Phasianus colchicus Tympanuchus cupido Colinus virainianus Fulica americana Pluvialis squatarola Charadrius vociferus Recurvirostra americana Tringa melanoleuce Tringa flavipes Actitis macularia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K x x x K K x r')t.A X TABLE 2. (CONT.)Species Scientific Name Residenc Status(I)20-mile Survey Waterfowl Collision Survey Survey Supplemental Observation Upland Sandpiper Sanderling Western Sandpiper Semipalmated Sandpiper Common Snipe Woodcock Wilson's Phalarope Franklin's Gull Ring-billed Gull Glaucous Gull Herring Gull Caspian Tern Forster's Tern Least Tern Black Tern Rock Dove Mourning Dove Yellow-billed Cuckoo Barn Owl Great Horned Owl Barred Owl Short-eared Owl Common Nighthawk Chimney Swift Belted Kingfisher Red-headed Wood pecker Red-bellied Woodpecker Downy Woodpecker Hairy Woodpecker Northern Flicker Olive-sided Flycatcher Bartramia longicauda Calidris alba Calidris mauri Calidris pusilla Gallinago gallinago Scolopax minor Phalaropus tricolor Larus pipixcan Larus delawarensis Larus hyperboreus Larus argentatus Sterna caspia Sterna forsteri Sterna antillarum Chlidonias niger Columba livia Zenaida macroura Coccyzus americanus Tyto alba Bubo virginianus Strix varia Asio flammeus Chordeiles minor Chaetura pelagica Ceryle alcyon Melanerpes erythrocephalus Melanerpes carolinus Picoides pubescens Picoides villosus Colaptes auratus Contopus borealis x x x x x x'C x'C x'C'C'C'C'C'C'C x X X X X X X X X X X X X X'C'C'C'C'C'C TABLE 2. (CONT.)Residenc Status(f)20-mil e Survey Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Survey Survey Observation Species Scientific Name Eastern Wood-Pewee Eastern Phoebe Great Crested Flycatcher Western Kingbird Eastern Kingbird Scissor-tld.

Flycatcher Horned Lark Purple Martin Tree Swallow N. Rough-winged Swallow Cliff Swallow Barn Swallow Blue Jay American Crow Black-capped Chickadee Tufted Titmouse Brown Creeper House Wren Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Eastern Bluebird American Robin Gray Catbird Northern Mockingbird Brown Thrasher Water Pipit Cedar Waxwing Loggerhead Shrike European Starling Warbling Vireo Yellow Warbler Yellow-rumped Warbler contopus virens Sayornis phoebe Myiarchus crinitus Tyrannus verticalis Tyrannus tyrannus Tyrannus forficatus Eremophila alpestris Progne subis Tachycineta bicolor Stelidopteryx serripennis Hirundo pyrrhonota Hirundo rustica Cyanocitta cristata Corvus brachyrhynchos Parus atricapillus Parus bicolor Certhia americana Troglodytes aedon Polioptila caerulea Sialia sialis Turdus migratorius Dumetella carolinensis Mimus polyglottos Toxostoma rufum Anthus spinoletta Bombycilla cedrorum Lanius ludovicianus Sturnus vulgaris Vireo gilvus Dendroica petechia Dendroica coronata x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ix x x N)%,n x TABLE 2. (CONT.)Species Scientific Name Residency Status(1)20-mile Survey Waterfowl Collision Survey Survey Supplemental Observation Common Yellowthroat Northern Cardinal Indigo Bunting Dickcissel Rufous-sided Towhee American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Lark Sparrow Grasshopper Sparrow Song Sparrow Swamp Sparrow White-crowned Sparrow Harris' Sparrow Dark-eyed Junco Red-winged Blackbird Eastern Meadowlark Western Meadowlark Yellow-headed Blackbird Rusty Blackbird Great-tailed Grackle Common Grackle Brown-headed Cowbird Orchard Oriole Northern Oriole Pine siskin American Goldfinch House Sparrow Geothlypis trichas Cardinalis cardinalis Passerina cyanea S2pza americana Pipio erythrophthalmus Spizella arborea Spizella passerinai Spizella pusilla Chondestes grammacus Ammodramus savannarum Melospiza melodia Melospiza georgiana Zonotrichia leucohrys Zonotrichia querula Junco hyemalis Agelaius phoeniceus Sturnella magna Sturnella nelecta Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Euphagus carolinus Quiscalus mexicanus Quiscalus quiscula Molothrus ater Icterus spurius Icterus galbula Carduelis pinus Carduelis tristis Passer domesticus S P S S P W S P S S W M W W M P P P M M S S P S S W P P x x x x X, x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x 0%(1)M = Migrant P = Permanent resident S = Summer resident W = Winter resident TABLE 3. AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974 -1983.Year Cczmon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ccinmon won Pied-billed Grebe Horned Grebe Eared Grebe Western Grebe American White Pelican Double-crested Cormorant American Bittern Least Bittern Great Blue Heron Great Egret Little Blue Heron Cattle Egret Green-backed Heron Black-crnd.

Night Heron Yellow-crnd.

Night Heron White-faced Ibis Gr. White-fronted Goose Snow Goose Canada Goose Wood Duck Green-winged Teal American Black Duck Mallard Northern Pintail Blue-winged Teal Cinnamon Teal Northern Shoveler Gadwall American Wigeon Canvasback Redhead Gavia imner Podilymbus podiceps Podiceps auritus Podiceps nigricollis Aechmophorus occidentalis Pelecanus erythrorhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Botaurus lentiginosus x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ixobrychus exilix Ardea herodias Casmerodius albus Egretta caerulea Bubulcus ibis Butorides striatus Nycticorax nycticorax Nycticorax violaceus Plegadis chihi Anser albifrons Chen caerulescens Branta canadensis Aix sponsa Anas crecca Anas rubripes Anas platyrhynchos Anas acuta Anas discors Anas cyanoptera Anas clypeata Anas strepera Anas americana Aythya valisineria.

Aythya americana x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TABLE 3. (CONT.)Year Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Ring-necked Duck Lesser Scaup Oldsquaw Comrmon Goldeneye Bufflehead Hooded Merganser Common Merganser Red-breasted Merganser Ruddy Duck Black Vulture Turkey Vulture Mississippi Kite Osprey Bald Eagle Northern Harrier Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper's Hawk Red-shouldered Hawk Broad-winged Hawk Swainson's Hawk Red-tailed Hawk Bough-legged Hawk American Kestrel Merlin Peregrine Falcon Prairie Falcon Ring-necked Pheasant Greater Prairie Chicken Northern Bobwhite King Rail Sora American Coot Aytha collaris Aythya affinis Clangula hyemalis Bucephala clangula Bucephala albeola Lophodytes cucullatus Mergus merganser Mergus serrator Oxyura jamaicensis Coragyps atratus Cathartes aura Ictinia mississippiensis Pandion haliaetus Haliaeetus leucocephalus x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x _x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Circus cyaneus Accipiter striatus Accipiter cooperii Buteo lineatus Buteo platypterus Buteo swainsoni Buteo jamaicensis Buteo lagopus Falco sparverius Falco columbarius Falco peregrinus Falco mexicanus Phasianus colchicus Tympanuchus cupido Colinus virginianus Rallus elegans POrzana carolina-Fulica americana x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x K)OD x x TABLE 3. (CONT.)-Year Ccrnton Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Sandhill Crane Black-bellied Plover Lesser Golden Plover Semipalmated Plover Killdeer American Avocet Greater Yellowlegs Lesser Yellowlegs Solitary Sandpiper Willet Spotted sandpiper Upland sandpiper Hudsonian Godwit Ruddy Turnstone Sanderling Semipabmated Sandpiper Western Sandpiper Least Sandpiper White-rumped Sandpiper Baird's Sandpiper Pectoral Sandpiper Dunlin Short-billed Dowitcher Long-billed Dowitcher Ccmmon Snipe American Woodcock Wilson's Phalarope Franklin's Gull Ring-.billed Gull Glaucous Gull Herring Gull Caspian Tern Grus canadensis Pluvialis squatarola Pluvialis dominica Charadrius semipalmatus Charadrius vociferus Recurvirostra americana Tringa melanoleuca Tringa flavipes Tringa solitaria Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Actitis macularia Bartramia long icauda Limosa haemastica Arenaria interpres Calidris alba Calidris pusilla Calidris mauri Calidris minutilla Calidris fuscicollis Calidris bairdii Calidris melanotos Calidris alpina Limnodromus griseus Limnodrcmus scolopaceus Gallinago gallinago Scolopax minor Phalaropus tricolor Larus piplxcan SLarus delawarensis Larus hyperboreus Larus argentatus Sterna caspia x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x TABLE 3. (CONT.)Year Ccmmon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Forster's Tern Sterna forsteri Least Tern Sterna antillarur Black Tern Chlidonias niger Rock Dove Columba livia X X Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura, X X Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus X X Barn Owl Tyto alba Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus x Snowy Owl Nyctea scandiaca Barred Owl Strix varia X Long-eared Owl Asio otus x Short-eared Owl Asio flamneus Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor X Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica X X Ruby-throated Hunmingbird Archilochýis colubris X X Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X X Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X X Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens X X Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus x x Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus X X Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus X Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus borealis Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens X X Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus X Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe X X Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus x x Western Kingbird Tyrannus verticalis x x Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus" X X Scissor-tailed Flycatcher Tyrannus forficatus x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xýx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x X x X x x x x x x x x x x w0 0 TABLE 3. (CONT.)Year 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Name Scientific Name Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Purple Martin Progne subis Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor N. RFugh-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Cliff Swallow Hirando pyrrhonata Barn Swallow Hirando rustica Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata American Crow Corvu? brachyrhynchos Black-capped Chickadee Parus atricapillus Carolina Chickadee ,Parus carolinensis Tufted Titmouse Parus bicolor White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Brown Creeper Certhia americana Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus House Wren Troglodytes aedon Winter Wren Troglodytes troglodytes Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa Ruby-crowned Kinglet Regulus calendula Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis Veery Catharus fuscescens Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x American Robin Gray Catbird Northern Mockingbird Brown Thrasher Water Pipit Cedar Waxwing Northern Shrike Loggerhead Shrike European .Starling Turdus migratorius Dumetella carol inlnsis x x x x x Mimus polyglottos 1Toxostoma rufum Anthus spinoletta Bombycilla cedrorum x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x Lanius excubitor Lanius ludovicianus Sturnus vulgaris x x x .x x x x x x x x L&J TABLE 3. (CONT.)Year Caumon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Bell's Vireo Solitary Vireo Yellow-throated Vireo Warbling Vireo Red-eyed Vireo Nashville Warbler Northern Parula Yellow Warbler Chestnut-sided Warbler Magnolia Warbler Yellow-runped Warbler Blackburnian Warbler Bay-breasted Warbler Cerulean Warbler Black-and-White Warbler American Redstart Ovenbird Northern Waterthrush Kentucky Warbler Common Yellowthroat Wilson's Warbler Summer Tanager Northern Cardinal Rose-breasted Grosbeak Blue Grosbeak Indigo Bunting Dickcissel Rufous-sided Towhee American Tree Sparrow Chipping Sparrow Field Sparrow Vesper Sparrow Vireo bellii Vireo solitarius Vireo flavifrons Vireo gilvus Vireo olivaceus Vermivora ruficapilla x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Parula ame'ricana Dendroica petechia Dendroica pensylvanica Dendroica magnolia Dendroica coronata Dendroica fusca Dendroica castanea Depdroica cerulea Mniotilta varia Setophaga ruticilla Seiurus aurocapillus Seiurus novebbracensis Opororohis formosus Qeothlypis trichas Wilsonia pusilla 1 .-Piranga rubra Cardinalis cardinalis Pheucticus ludovicianus Guiraca caerulea Passerina cyanea Spiza americana Pipilo erythrophtalmus Spizella arborea Spizella passerina Spizella pusilla Pooecetes gramineus x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x X x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x La)

_ -,-- --- m low -m- ---m -m TABLE 3. (crNT'.)Year Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Fox Sparrow Passerella iliaca Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia Lincoln's Sparrow Melospiza lincolnii Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana White-throated Sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis White-crowned Sparrow Zonotrichia leucophrys Harris' Sparrow Zonotrichia querula Dark-eyed Junco Junco hyemalis Lapland Longspur Calcarius lapponicus Snow Bunting Plectrophenax nivalis Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus Great-tailed Grackle Quiscalus mexicanus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula Brown-headed Gowbird Molothrus ater Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius Northern Oriole Icterus galbula Purple Finch Carpodacus purpureus Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis House Sparrow Passer domesticus x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x X X X X K K K K K K K K K x K x K x K X X X X K X K K X x X X X X X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X K X K X K X X X X K X IjJ 34 TABLE 4. SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NUMBER OF NEW SPECIES OBSERVED ANNUALLY NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974-1983.

Year 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Total Species 84 90 99 97 88 87 98 160 145 151 New Species 84 20 41 19 7 5 4 26 7 8 p 35 TABLE 5. NUMBER OF AVIAN SPECIES AND INDIVIDUALS OBSERVED ALONG A 20-MILE WILDLIFE SURVEY ROUTE NEAR MAY 1973 " JANUARY 1984.WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATICN, Variable Month Jun Sep Nov Jan Number of Species 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Number of Individuals 37 42 45 55 50 50 51 61 57 63 62-(a)45 41 55 53 48 48 49 (c)56 56 62 27 43 42 46 34 35 43 53 37 50 39 37 35 34 40 52 40 33 31 33 26 (b)35 23 (b)33 33 37 32 28 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 471 837 1,452 2,292 1,862 1,792 1,382 1,450 1,883 1,890 2,313 955 1,065 2,396 1,576 2,247 1,588 1,622(c)1,568 2,585 2,376 530 1,288 678 1,536 766 550 870 1,991 3,395 1,989 3,446 1,806 2,104 2,568 3,236 5,810 2,692 1,714 5,218 2,242 1,060(b)3,424 1,063(b)2,279 2,154 2,967 6,118 2,702 (a)(b)(c)Not censused.Partial census, several miles not included.Census performed using a different technique.

TABLE 6. WATERFOWL AND WATERBIRD CENSUS DATA COLLECTED DURING GROUND SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE, 1983-1984.

1983 1984 Species Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Common Loon 5 1 -1 5 -2 .......-1 11 5 Pied-billed Grebe 6 14 19 16 18 7 5 1 ---1 3 10 6 Horned Grebe ---2 2 .......4 5 10 1 Eared Grebe --..... ..... 1 2 12 10 Grebe spp. ---3 ... ..... 2 1 --White Pelican 1 .-. .1 -------36 154 Dbl.-crested Cormorant 56 244 326 248 135 31 4 ....!3. 19.._6i3'Gr.--Whitl--t-ose --2 -5 ....- -75 1 -( Snow Goose ---140 1 --. 26 275 101 1 Canada Goose 16 16 22 142 153 26 47 80 325 618 172 25 -191 .1 Goose spp. ---15 100 --- ---!_ iuur° d -D u o k ---2 6 -- t1 -.......-

-- .... ..........-... ..-.... ... ..-Green-winged Teal ---11 8 ........55 8 2 American Black Duck ---1 -2 1 -..-..Mallard 19 9 63 108 290 1.280 5,188 658 265 209 179 34 20 98 11 8 Northern Pintail -3 16 -7 2 2 .- 5 -Blue-winged Teal 172 36 43 ..- -.... 5 15 1 6 Cinnamon Teal ---------1 Northern Shoveler --5 6 7 4 ......2- -16 6 Gadwall -' 157 112 141 1 50 --24 61 84 9 1 American Wigeon -98 149 41 14 13 21 --.7 31 11 86 -Canvasback

---

2 --.Redhead -.- 6 15 3 -. 1 60 26 -Ring-necked Duck --7 2. 10 -----3 17 1 -Lesser Scaup .--328 9 1 --2 89 159 858 -Common Goldeneye

-- -13 54 -7 55 54 34 9 7 3 -Bufflehead

.... 13 31 23 19 ..-.12 19 35 21 8 Hooded Merganser

..- -4 17 ---3 '1 3 4 -Common Merganser

--. .- 38 -15 87 152 2,442 805 506 41 3 Red-breasted Merganser

..- 1. 1 t Ruddy Duck -5 4 ---5.... ..20 6 3 5 Z.Du c k s p p ..0 3 .9 ..... .. 7 9 1 5 2 0 7 0 4 0 8 .......-=can oC.ot... -192 1,033 5273 2,012 42 ----858 2,859 463 TOTAL GEESE TOTAL DUCKS 16 16 22 297 258. 26 124 80 325 618 172 51 .275 105 1 1 W M'247 203 533 1,101 1,361 1,418 5,798 658 286 35i 396 2,639 1,187 1,332 1,129 38 619'Ni'to 1 q2..3(j I5-it 5 1 "8ýIla I I 10a~

TABLE 7. HERON, SHOREBIRD, GULL, AND RAPTOR CENSUS DATA COLLECTED DURING GROUND SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE, 1983-1984." 1983 1984 Species Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Great Blue Heron 27 19 24 12 14 1 1 .. .. ..--1 1 4 Great Egret 1 2 2 2 ..... ..-----Little Blue Heron 1 1 1 -. ....* .. .. .. .White-faced Ibis -........ .. .Osprey 4 4 1 1 1 2. .------2 Bald Eagle ---1 1 7 23 2 1 ---Cooper's Hawk ------Black-bellied Plover ---1 ---..-.. ...Killdeer 10 20 29 9 4 -.... 1 6 14 7 6 Plover spp. -1 3 --1 ... ....-1 -American Avocet ---19 -.... .------Greater Yellowlegs 1 1 3 1 ..... .. ....--Spotted Sandpiper 2 1 ....... ...... 5 Sanderling --" --....... .Setnipatroated Sandpiper

---....- ... 1 Western Sandpiper

--3 ---....... .Sandpiper spp. 9 10 10 6 9 -. ... .....13 Comnon Snipe --1 1 ..... ..- --Shorebird spp. .......- ---Wilson's Phalarope

---" -------3 Frn ' Gull -28 2,358 20,868 4,502 ----... .-' 3 226 Ring-billed Gull 111 94 122 --" --227------

2 f50.Herring Gull ---2 1 1 ..-.. 1 -Glaucous Gull .... ..- --. 2 ---.Gull spp. -... ...... .. .. .. 175 Caspian Tern -1 1 -.... .. -----Forster's Tern --........ ...... 10 Least Tern 5 1 --1 ...-Short-eared Owl ......-" -1 .... -----Belted Kingfisher

-1 1 1 .... ... .. .Water Pipit ' --... ....1 ---.1 38 TABLE 8. COMPARISON OF MEAN NUMBER AND RESULTS OF STATISTICAL ANALYSIS OF DUCKS, GEESE, AND BALD EAGLES OBSERVED DURING GROUND SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE IN 1981-1982, 1982-1983, AND 1983-1984.,YEAR 1981-1982 1982-1983 1983-1984 DUCKS GEESE MEAN NUMBER OBSERVED 6,512.3 696.8 7,'041.8 220.4 1,191.9 165.3 BALD EAGLES 0.9 3.4 1.7 81-82 vs 82-83 81-82 vs 83-84 82-83 vs 83-84 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS RESULTS'No Yes Yes Yes Yes No No Yes No No -not a significant difference at the p=.05 level Yes -is a significant difference at the p=.05 level p

---

---------- --TABLE 9. AERIAL AND GROUND WATERFOWL AND EAGLE CENSUS DATA OF JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR AND WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE, 1983 -1984.Taxa/Location Number Observed Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Ducks(Aerial) 288 2,365 3,326 33,824 10 1,990 1,913 82 JRR (Aerial) 146 400 36,320 .5,973 16,048 4,552 16,103 513 WCCL (Ground)1 225 817 1,389 3,228 318 1,891 1,967 583 JRR (Ground)2 323 4,230 33,970 32,602 19,160 13,333 7,561 -Geese WCCL (Aerial) 16 300 450 790 700 15 8 JRR (Aerial) 0 600 5,434 12,560 5,310 40 0 7 wCCL (Ground)1 16 160 142 -102 472 91 190 1 JRR (Ground)2 0 573 9,161 21,803 6,100 4,523 624 -Bald Eagles WCCL (Aerial) 0 1 0 3 4 6 1 0 JRR (Aerial) 0 1 2 18 12 25 2 0 WCCL (Ground)1 0 1-2 11 2(, 4 1I 921 1 0 JRR (Ground)2 0 1 3 12 13 35 7 -1 Figure given represents average of two biweekly sets of data each month.2 Ground survey data for John Redmond Reservoir provided by Kansas Fish and Game Commission.

Figure given represents average of two sets of data each month.

--- --- ----- ---m ---m --m TABLE 10.SPECIES LIST, AREA, AND NUMBER OF MORTALITIES OBSERVED DURING COLLISION SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE, SEPTEMBER 1983 -APRIL 1984.Month Species September 1983 Mallard Blue-winged Teal Avian spp.Scientific Name Anas platyrhynchos Anas discors Cemetery Cove Firing Range Cove 1 1 2 November Duck spp.1983 Gull spp.Song Sparrow Red-winged Blackbird Rusty Blackbird Passerine spp.Avian spp.February Mallard 1984 Duck spp.American Coot Red-winged Blackbird Eastern Meadowlark April Blue-winged Teal 1984 Gr. Prairie Chicken Killdeer American Crow Melospiza melodia Agelaius phoeniceus Euphagus carolinus Anas platyrhynchos Fulica americana Agelaius phoeniceus Sturnella magna Anas discors Tympanuchus cupido Charadrius vociferus Corvus brachyrhynchos 1 1 0) 41 TABLE ii.NORM'IERN BOBWHITE CALL COUNTS ALONG A 20-MILE WILDLIFE SURVEY ROUTE NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, MAY AND JUNE 1983.Number of Bobwhite Calls/2 Minute Stop Mile May 17 24 June 20 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 2 6 2 8 2 8 4 2 3 3 15 15 33 14 7 22 3 11 3 12 19 4 16 26 9 34 32 3 281 6 13 10 9 5 5 7 16 6 22 4 12 8 22 14 3 19 31 P 212 13 1 22 4 2 13 4 2 92 Total No. Calls No. Calls/Stop 9 0.5 4.6 14.1 10.6 Avg. No. Calls/Stop 2.5 12.3 42 TABLE 12.MOURNING DOVE OBSERVATIONS ALONG A 20-MILE WILDLIFE SURVEY ROUTE NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, MNY AND JUNE 1983.Number Observed/Mile Mile May 17 24 June 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 2 1 14 3 7 1 1 2 1 3 15 8 2 1 2 2 1 1 4 1 2 2 4 2 1 2 2 3 3 9 4 2 3 2 5 1 7 1 10 1 1 5 59 2 2 1 1 5 3 2 2 2 5 4 1 3 1 4 1 2 3 3 3 To~tal No. Observed No. Cbserved/mi.

Avg. No. Cbserved/mi.

45 54 38 2.2 2.7 3.0 1.9 2.5 2.4 43 TABLE 13. MAMMALS OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1983 -1984.Comnon Name Virginia Opossum Eastern cottontail Scientific Name Dipelphis virginiana Sylvilagus floridanus Woodchuck Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Marmota monax Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Fox squirrel Plains pocket gopher Beaver White-footed mouse Hispid cotton rat Prairie vole Muskrat Norway rat House Mouse Coyote Raccoon Mink Badger Striped skunk Bobcat White-tailed deer Sciurus niger Geomys bursarius Castor canadensis Peromyscus leucopus Sigmodon hispidus Microtus ochrogaster Ondatra zibethicus Rattus norvegicus Mus musculus Canis latrans Procyon lotor Mustela vison Taxidea taxus Mephitis mephitis Felis rufus Odocoileus virginianus P .

TABLE 14. MAMMALS OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974-1983.

Year Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Virginia Opossum Dipelphis virginiana S. short-tailed shrew Blarina carolinensis Least shrew Cryptotis parva Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Red bat Lasiurus borealis Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus Woodchuck Marmota monax Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus Fox squirrel Sciurus niger Plains pocket gopher Geomys bursarius Beaver Castor canadensis Western harvest mouse Reithrodontcnys megalotis Deer mouse Peranyscus maniculatus White-footed mouse Peromyscus leucopus Hispid cotton rat Sigmodon hispidus Eastern woodrat Neotoma floridana Prairie vole Microtus ochrogaster Woodland vole Microtus pinetorum Muskrat Ondatra zibethicus Norway rat Rattus norvegicus House mouse Mus musculus Coyote Canis latrans Fox Vulpes or Urocyon spp.Raccoon Procyon lotor Long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata Mink Mustela vison Badger Tax idea taxus Striped Skunk Mephitis mephitis Bobcat Felis rufus White-tailed deer Odocoileus virginianus x ---x -X x x " X -x X -x x -x ..... .--x ---x -x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x-x -----x-x ----x x -x x x x -x x x x x x x x x x x x -x --x x -x -x --x ---x -------x x x x x x x x x x x x x* x x x x------x x-x -----x--x x --x x x x x x x x x x x x x -x x-x x x x x-x-x x-x x x--- x x x x x-x x x x x x x-x*x x x x x x x x 45 TABLE 15.COMPARISON OF SEASONAL EASTERN COCIONTAIL DENSITIES ALXNG A 20-MILE WILDLIFE SURVEY ROUTE, 1979-1983.1 Year 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 Month 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.13 0.25 June 0.10 0.15 0.40 0.00 0.60 Sept 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.03.0.00 0.04 0.05 0.15 0.05 Jan 1 Densities given in cottontails observed/mile.

46 TABLE 16. HERPETOFAUNA OBSERVED NEAR 1983 -1984.WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION,Nane Blanchard

's cricket frog Bullfrog Plains leopard frog Northern snapping turtle Eastern ornate box turtle Western painted turtle Red-eared turtle Prairie lined racerunner Western slender glass lizard Eastern yellow-bellied racer Black rat snake Prairie king snake Speckled king snake Red-sided garter snake Texas brown snake Blotched water snake Diamond-backed water snake Western massasauga Scientific Name Acris crepitans Rana catesbeiana Rana pipiens Chelydra serpentina Terrapene ornata Chrysemys picta ChryseMys scripta Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Ophisaurus attenuatus Coluber constrictor Elah obsoleta Lampropeltis calligaster Lanpropeltis getulus Thamnophis sirtalis Storeria dekayi Nerodia erythrogaster Nerodia rhombifera Sistrurus catenatus TABLE 17. HERPE'OFAUNA OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974 -1983.Year 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983Name American toad-,Great Plains toad Rocky Mbuntain toad Blanchard's cricket frog Western chorus frog Cope's gray treefrog Northern crawfish frog Bull frog Plains leopard frog Rio Grande leopard frog Northern snapping turtle Eastern ornate box turtle Map turtle False map turtle Western painted turtle Red-eared turtle Western spiny softshell Ground skink Prairie lined racerunner Western slender glass lizard.Eastern yellow-bellied racer Black rat snake Bullsnake Prairie kingsnake Speckled kingsnake Red-sided garter snake Lined snake Texas brown snake Blotched water snake Diamond-backed water snake Western massasauga Scientific Name Bufo americanus Bufo cognatus Bufo woodhousei Acris crepitans Pseudacris triseriata Hyla chrysoscelis Rana areolata lana catesbeiana Rana ,pipens Rana berlandieri Chelydra serpentina Terrapene ornata Graptemys geographica Graptemys pseudogeographica Chrysemys picta Chrysýmns scripta Trionyx spiniferu's Leiolopisma laterale Cnemidophorus sexlineatus Ophisaurus attenuatus Coluber constrictor Elaphe obsoleta Pituophis -melanoleucus Lampropeltis calligaster Lampropeltis getulus'Thamnophis sirtalis Tropidoclonion lineatum Storeria dekayi Nerodia erPErogaster Nerodia rhcmbifera Sistrurus cabenatus--X ---X X -X-4 Bibliography Xmerican Ornithologists' Union. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds.5th ed. AOU, Baltimore.

691 pp.American Ornithologists' Union. 1973. Thirty-second supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American birds.Auk 90:411-419.

American Ornithologists' Union. 1976. Thirty-third supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American birds.Auk 93:875-879.

American Ornithologists' Union. 1982. Thirty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American birds.Auk 99.Bee, J.W., G.E. Glass, R.S. Hoffman, and R.R. Patterson.

1981. Manuals in Kansas. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

302 pp.Collins, J.T. 1974. Amphibians and Reptiles in Kansas. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

283 pp.Johnston, R.F. 1965. A Directory to the Birds of Kansas. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

67 pp.Kansas Fish and Game Commission.

1980. Nongame, Threatened and Endangered Species. Mimeo.Kraft, M.J. .1984. Waterfowl Project Leader, Kansas Fish and Game Commission.

Personal communication.

Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America.Western Publishing Co., Racine. 340 pp.Schwartz, C.W. and E.R. Schwartz.

1981. The Wild Mammals of Missouri.University of Missouri, Columbia.

356 pp.Schwilling, M.D. 1984. Project Leader Nongame and Endangered Wildlife, -Kansas Fish and Game Comission.

Personal communication.

U.S. Department of Interior.

1979. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants. Fed. Reg. 43:3635-3654.

Wells, R. 1984. Small Game Biologist, Kansas Fish and Game Commission.

Personal communication.

Williams, S.M. 1983. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Phase Wildlife Monitoring Program, May 1982 -April 1983. Kansas Gas and Electric Co. 34 pp.

REI(W DOOFWIrTION PAM Report NO. TRe~ rt Date K,&E EM03-86 Wildlife April 1986 Title andl S tle Wolf Creek Generatinq Station 1984-1985 Preoperational Wildlife Monitoring Report Author Daniel E. Haines Performinq Orq~ff zati&Pfiaiýi xV Kansas Gas and Electric Comnoany P.O. Box 309 Burlinqton, KS 66839 Abstract Wildlife monitorinq studies were conducted in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Coffey County, Kansas from Mav 1984 throuqh Aoril 1985. These results were compared with previous studies performed since 1973. Durinq the study 145 species were observed.

Species lists compiled since 1973 include. 226 bird, 31 ma, mal, and 33 herptile soecies. With the inundation of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, an increase in species diversity and abundance was the major construction and start-up related effect noted. Numbers of waterfowl and Bald Eagles were comparable to numbers reported durinq 1982-1983 after a low observed during 1983-1984.

Waterfowl preferred John Redmond Reservoir over the cool nq lake except durinq short time periods Primarily when ice formation was delayed and pondweed concentrations were qreatest on the cooling lake. Usaqe of the cooling lake was qreatest for most waterfowl and waterbird species on areas of pondweed develorment.

There has been no indication of a siqnificant amount of mortality due to imoaction with transmission facilities near the cooling lake. No disease or depredation problems were identified.

Factors that contribute to the attractiveness of the area include relatively clear water, seclusion, nondweed development on the cooling lake, and availability of foraqinq, loafing and nesting habitats due to land manaqement activities on the site environs.;-c---Wolf Creek, Construction-related effects, Wildlife, Threatened and endangered, Bald Eagle, Waterfowl, Waterbirds, Pondweed KG&E: P.7403-86 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1984-1985 PREOPERATIONAL WILDLIFE M(NITORING REPORT'Daniel E. Haines Kansas Gas and Electric Com panv P.O. Box 309 Burlinqton, Kansas 06839 Published April 1-986 Annual Report for May 1984 -April 1985 Author Daniel E. aines Supervisory Approval Wedd Manaqerial Approval Otto Maynard Table of Contents List of Fiqures ..................................

List of Tables ......INTRO(JCTIGN METHODS ......................................

RESULTS AND DISCUSSICN

............................

CONCLUSIONS LITERATURE CITED .... ...................

Appendices A Avian Species observed near Wolf Creek Generating Station ....... ..............

.............

B Species list, residency status and-method of observance of avifanna near Wolf Creek Generating Station .....I...... .......Paqe v vii 8 72 75 79 87 V List of Fiqures Fiqure Page 1. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and associated structures

..........

3 2. John Redmond Reservoir and Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake, Coffey County, Kansas ........................................

5 3. Annual totals of waterfowl and waterbird usaqe of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from fall 1982 throuqh spring 1985 ...... 21 4. Combined duck usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985 ...................

.........

22 5. Biweekly lake level elevation

('"SL) averages for Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through April 1985 .24 6. Mallard usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985 ..........................

..................

30 7. Gadwall usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from Sentember 1984 through March 1985 ............

o ..........

..... ....... 33 8. Common merganser usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 ....................................

35 9. American wiqeon usaqe comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 ....... .***. **....................

37 10. Northern pintail usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 ........ o ............

...............

39 11. Green-winged teal usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 ".........

41 12. Blue-winged teal usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 .................

..............

43 vi List of Figures (Cont.)Fiqure Paqe 13. Bay duck usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 .....................

45 14. Bucephala spp. usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Colinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985 ........ ..... ....... 47 15. Combined geese usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985 ... .50 16. Snow goose usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985 ...... 53 17. Canada goose usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 .................................................

55 18. Greater white-fronted qoose usage canparisons between Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March lqSc; .....,.............

5 19. American coot usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 19P5 .....................

..............

61 20. Double-crested cormorant usage conparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and -rohn Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985 .........................

64 vii List of Tables Table Page 1. Wildlife monitoring schedule, 1984-1985

......................

q 2. Species diversity and number of new species observed annually near Wolf Creek Generatinq Station, 1974-1984

...... 12 3. Bald Eagle usage of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) during the winters of 1982-1983, 1983-1984, and 1984-1985

.... 13 4. Waterbird and waterfowl census data collected during ground surveys of Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake, 1984-1985

........ 16 5. Ground count frequency and percent composition of waterfowl and waterbirds using Wolf Creek Cooling Lake fram September 1984 throuqh April 1985 ......................

18 6. Ground count frequency and oercent camposition of ducks using Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1984 throuqh April 1985 ........................

..................

.... 25 7. Siqnificant differences between ranked location means of ducks using Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1q83 through April 1984 and from Seotember 1984 throuqh April 1985 ... ...o".......

o ... ...........

................

25 8. Ground count frequency and percent composition of qeese using Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1984 through April 1985 2... ............

.... ...... 52 9. Significant differences between ranked location means of geese using Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1983 through April 1984 and fram September 1984 through April 1 5 .. ...............

..o ...... ........ * ...........

..........

54 10. Ground count frequency and percent camposition of waterbirds using Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake from September 1984 through April 1985 ..........

0............................0...........

60 11. Significant differences between ranked location means of waterbirds usina Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1983 through April 1984 and from September 1984 through April 1985 ..............

..............................

62 viii List of Tables (Cont.)Table Paqe 12. Species list, area, and number of mortalities observed during collision surveys of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake from September 1984 to April 1985 ..............................

66 13. Mammals observed near Wolf Creek Generatinq Station, 1974-1984

......................

He.o.. .......................

7o 14. Herpetofauna observed near Wolf Creek G~eneratinq Station, 1974-1984

............

• ...*...........71 IRT1WDUCTION Objectives This report presents results of the final oreoverational wildlife monitoring studies conducted in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station (W(IS) from May 1984 through April 1985. Wildlife studies were initiated in 1973 to fulfill commitments made by Kansas Gas and Electric Company to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) as a condition of the contruction permit.The general objectives of the 1984-1985 monitoring proqramn were; to document and assess envirornental effects of construction of the plant and cooling lake, and to provide historical baseline data for evaluation of possible WGCS operational effects. Specific objectives included: 1. document and assess use of the cooling lake by wildlife, especially waterfowl, waterbirds, and Bald Eaqles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

2. document and assess mortality due to collision with transmission facilities in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake (WCCL)3. maintain records of supplementallv observed wildlife species or siqn in the vicinity of WCGS.Description of Study Area Station Description Wolf Creek Generating Station is located in Coffey County approximately 5.A km (3.5 miles) northeast of Burlington, Kansas. The area within the 2site boundary encompasses 3973 ha (9818 acres), composed primarily of ranqe, cropland, and woodland habitats tynical of southeastern Kansas. Surroundinq land use within five miles of wCiGS was comoposed of 4n percent aqricultural land, 40 percent ranqeland, nine percent woodland, five percent built-up area, and six percent miscellaneous (TG&E 198].). The power block area, includinm a switchyard arnd lime sludqe pond, covers nearly i00 ha (250 acres) while the coolinq lake inundates 2060 ha (5090 acres) at normal pool. A once-through coolinm system, utilizing water from WCCL, will be used by the station.Wolf Creek Generating Station was 9) percent ccmplete by the end of 1984. The circulatinq water system operated extensively durinq plant start-up testinq which occurred during the fall and winter. Hot functional testing was completed durinq start-up activities.

A five oercent power license from the NRC was issued for TWGS on 11 March 1985.Final fuel loading was completed on 17 March 1985, however, production of power was not achieved durinq the study period.Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake Description The coolinq lake for WCGS was formed by one main earth-rolled dam approximately 3.7 km (2.3 miles) long (Fiqure 1), with a crest of 331.3 m (1100 feet) MSL. The dam, alonq with five perimeter saddle dams, serves to impound Wolf Creek approximately 8.8 km (5.3 miles) above its confluence with the Neosho River. The upstream slopes of the main dam and saddle dams were riprapped for protection aaainst wind-generated wave erosion while downstream slopes were seeded with an adapted native qrass seed mix.At an elevation of 331.3 m (1087 feet) MSL the coolinq lake has a mean denth of 6.6 m (21.5 feet). The cooling lake has a limited drainaqe of 50.4 sg km (19.5 sq. miles) which will not provide adequate run-off to maintain WCCL following initiation of plant operation (Kansas Gas and 3 LocatFiring Range CoveCemetary Cove 1!/"Lime Sludge/4Pond Transmission narge Line* W-'1-Plant Site.IKlnta ke 1,J C B D Cooling Lake Figure 1. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and associated structures.

4 Electric 1974). The limited nature of Wolf Creek in-flows will necessitate supplemental numpinq of Neosho River water from John Redmond Reservoir (JRR, Figure 2) storage.Fillinq of the cooling lake began in October 1980 and continued throuch November 1981. Approximately 23 billion qallons of water were pumped in 1981 with monthly pumping rates varying from nearly 49 million gallons in April 1980 to 3.4 billion aallons in October 1981. The cooling lake elevation rose from 320-329 m (1050-1079.5 feet) MSL, resulting in a surface area increase from 360-1580 ha (890-3900 acres). Surface water runoff filled the cooling lake to normal oneratinq level 331.3 m (1087 feet MSL) by June 1982.The most influential structures on the cooling lake are associated with the circulating water system for WCGS. Capable of dissipating station operating heat, the system was designed for a maximum flow of 30.0 m 3/s (1114 cfs), and will result in a maximum 17.6 C (300F) increase in circulating water temperature.

However, the normal temperature increase in the main body of the lake will only ranqe from 0.4 0 C (0.8 0 F) to 4.2 0 C (7.6 0 F). Baffle Dikes A and B (Figure 1) serve to minimize thermal impacts to IqCCL by directing the flow of cooling water to permit maximum heat dissipation.

These dikes provided improved access which allowed ccmplete surveys of the lake.John Redmond Reservoir, a flood control project completed in 1964 on the Neosho River, lies approximately 5.9 km (3.6 mi) west of the station and is controlled by the U.S. Army Corns of Engineers (Ficure 2). The reservoir has a surface area of 3,804 ha (9,400 acres) at conservation pool and a total project area of 1.2,829 ha (31,700 acres). The lake is shallow with an average depth of approximately 1.4 m (4.5 feet). Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge, managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as part of the national migratory waterfowl program, occuoies 7,487 ha (18,500 acres) in the upper reaches of the project. For the purposes of this report, all reference to JRR includes the Flint Hills National Wildlife Refuge.

5~-~"~--Z--~

I 71.1 IIZ: it a--zcO 0-I-.r .iV ri-I I =I -~ a q -,,-~ ~ * ~ a a -o*=-~c -~=-=~4 72 it it ft 3.ft 3.U In ft-8 ft 4 I ft I 4 a ft.ft a 0.CC Z0*I.I.., P* a* L.* Trl2-=Tf V+/-1 a ft IF ft K--It-S U -'ft I Figure 2. John Redmond Reservoir and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, Coffey County, Kansas.

6 Transmission Line Collision Study Collisions with power lines and other above around wires are a recoqnized form of mortality among birds (Cornwell and, Hochbaum 1971, Sieqfried 1972, Stout and Cornwell 1976, and Anderson 1978) and concern for this was expressed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1982). This problem and the need for monitorinq were identified in Appendix B of the WDGS operating license. To detect, document, and assess the presence or lack of collision events, surveys were performed during preooeration of W-GS. This report presents final preoperational data which will be compared to surveys performed during plant operation to identifv any collision trends caused by operation.

Study Area Description Transmission facilities crossing portions of WCCL where collisions by waterfowl and waterbirds were considered most likely to occur consisted of three 345 kv hiqhlines and one 69 kv hiqhline (Fiqure 1). The upstream portions of two WCXL coves and a lime sludqe pond are traversed by these lines. From the plant switchyard, one 345 kv line (Benton line)runs in a northerly direction across the lime sludge pond then turns northwesterly across the "Cemetary Cove" of WCCL. The remaining two 345 kv lines (LaCygne and Rose Hill lines) and the 69 kv line (Wolf Creek tap of Athens -Burlington line) head in an easterly direction and cross the"Firing Range Cove" of WCCL (Fiqure 1).The portion of the Benton line of interest with reqard to this study consists of three paired transmission wires positioned in two tiers, one pair over two, all of which were under two static wires. This power line traverses approximately 214 m (700 ft) of water across the lime sludge pond and 100 m (328 ft) of the "Cemetary Cove". Veqetation surrounding this area consisted of trees, unharvested nativP tall grass, and mowed tame grasses in approximately equal proportions.

7 Roth the LaCyqne and Rose Hill 345 kv power lines are configured identically with each consisting of one tier with three pairs of transmission wires positioned under two static wires. The Wolf Creek Athens -Burlinqton 69 kv tap consists of three single transmission wires senarated vertically all under a single static wire. The portions of these two 345 kv and the 69 kv lines which were of concern durinq this study were parallel to each other with the 69 kv line the southern most.The TLaCygne and Rose Hill lines traverses approximately 63 m (206 ft) and 88 m (290 ft) of water across the "Firing Range Cove" respectively.

The 69 kv traverses 125 m (41.0 ft) of the same cove (Figure 1). Veqetation surrounding this cove is largely unharvested native tall grass.

MmETROOs Wildlife studies were conducted fron May 1984 throuqh April 1985 following the schedule qiven in Table 1. Ongoinq studies included waterfowl, waterbird, and Bald Eagle surveys, and collision surveys of selected transmission facilities near the coolinq lake. Any unusual or unconmon species of wildlife observed or evidenced durinq other field activities were documented as supplemental observations.

Bird Usaqe Usage of WCCL by waterfowl, waterbird, and Bald Eagles were surveyed during the migratory season from September 1984 throuqh April 198S.Waterbirds, for the purposes of this report, refers to any bird that lives part of its life in or around water, especially the swimminq, diving, and wading birds (T e'rres 1980), excludinq waterfowl (ducks and qeese). Four qround counts and one aerial survey were conducted each month (Table 1). Of the ground surveys, two were morning counts startinq at dawn and completed by mid-morninq.

The remaininq qrouni surveys were eveninq counts startinq during mid-day and continued throuqh the eveninq hours. All aerial surveys were mid-day counts. Individual species, total numbers, and distribution on the coolinq lake and adjacent shoreline areas were determined with the aid of binoculars or a spottinq scope. Estimates were made when total numbers prohibited actual counts of individuals.

Usage in the vicinity of WCGS was determined bv conducting monthly aerial surveys of JRR. These were completed on the same dates as aerials on WCCL. All birds were identified and recorded in the same manner as during the cooling lake surveys. Tb enhance comparisons between JRR and WCCL bird usaqe, ground count data of JRR was obtained from the Kansas Fish and Game Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. These counts were bi-weekly morning counts conducted from September 1984 through March 1985.

-m- m --m- m m -mm --m --m -mm m mm Table 1. WILDLIFE MONITORING SCHEDULE, 1984-1985 May June July Auq. Se?pt. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr.x x x x X x x x Waterfowl, Waterbird and Bald Eaqle Survey (A)Transmission Line Collision Survey (B)x x x x Supplemental Wildlife X X X X X X X X X X X Observations (A) Includes four qround and one aerial ner month (B) Includes three surveys per month ko 10 Einphasis was placed on Bald Eagle usaqe durinq all counts. Concentration areas, roost trees, feeding habits, and any mortality were noted.Maturity of all Bald Eagles observed was determined when possible and recorded.Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake was divided into five separate locations, identified as A throuqh E (Figure 1) to assess waterfowl and waterbird usage. With Duncan's New Multiple Range Test (Duncan 1955, Middlebrooks 1976), preferences for these WCC.L locations were tested usinq qround count results. All count totals tested were converted to number of birds per acre. Location preferences were evaluated for all species that were observed on greater than 50% of all surveys durinq each respective miqration peak and for which at least 200 individuals were totaled.Transmission Line Collision Surveys Waterfowl and waterbird collisions with transmission facilities which traverse W(CL were monitored as scheduled in Table 1. Three surveys were completed during each month in two areas of WCCL (Figure 1). Each survey consisted of searching for dead or wounded birds alonq the lake shorelines and associated lake borders underneath all transmission lines of concern. For each specimen found, the location, cause of death or injury, and other pertinent information were recorded.

All carcasses were marked and left in the field or removed and properly disposed.Supplemental Observations Any rare or unusual mammals, birds, reptiles, and amohibians observed were documented.

A species list for the vicinity of W&S was maintained for comparisons to past studies. Nestinq waterfowl observed during field activities on WCCL were also recorded.

Wildlife identification and nomenclature followed Robbins et. al. (1966), Collins (1974), Bee et. al.(1981), Schwartz and Schwartz (1981)., and the American Ornitholoqists' Union (1982).

RESULTS -AND DISCUSSION A total of 145 avian species was observed durinn the ]qR4-]qRA monitor inq program (Appendix A). This number reoresents a four percent decrease from the 1983-1984 total (Table 2). The list included 38 permanent residents, 37 summer residents, 12 winter residents, and 57 miarant species (Appendix B).Five previously undocumented species were observed during 1984-1985 field studies. These included the tundra swan (Cyqnus columbianus), surf scoter (Melanitta perspicillata), white-winged scoter (M. fusca), parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus), and Snith's longspur (Calcarius pictus) (Appendix A).Of the 415 species of birds in Kansas (Kansas Ornithological Society 1982), 226 have been documented in the WCCfq environs since monitorinq began in 1973. Several of these species are unusual in the area and have been observed frequently on WCCL and vicinity.

These include the common loon (Gavia imnmer) and osprey (Pandion haliaetus).

Several juvenile common loons were observed throughout the summer of 1984 on the main body of the lake. Except in the 1983-1984 wildlife report (KG&E 1984a), this species had not been previously documented to remain in Kansas throughout the summer months. Osprey continue to be frequently observed usinq WCCL. Relativelv clear water and seclusion due to lack of public access combine to enhance the attractiveness of WCCL to these species.Threatened and Endanqered Soecies Bald Eagles, considered endangered on Kansas and Federal lists (Kansas Administrative Reaulations 1983, U.S. Department of Interior 1984), were comnon during the 1984-1985 monitoring program. They were first observed in the area during the study period in late October 1984 and were cormnon on all surveys through mid-March 1.985 (Table 3). A maximum of 52 was counted on 19 December 1984 durinm an aerial survev. Eleven of these 12 T2BfX 2. SPECIES DIVERSITY AND NUMBER OF NEW SPECIES ORKSERVED ANN[ALLY NEAR WOLF CREEK (ENERATIWG STATION, 1974-1984.

Year 1974 1975 1976 1977 Total Species 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 ,1984 84 90 99 47 88 87 98 160 145 151 145 New Species 84 20 41 19 7 5 4 26 7 8 5

---

~ --TABLE 3. BALD EAGLE USAGE OF JOHN REDMOND RESERVOIR (JRR) AND WOLF CREEK CXO)LING LAKF (WCCL) DURING THE WINTERS OF 19R2-1983, 1983-1984, and 1984-1985.

Winter Mean Number Observed/Survey Count Loc6aEio (Method) Se§t Oct Nov Dec Jan Fe -Apr Frequency 1982-1983 WCL (Aerial) 0 0 1 0 4 29 6 0 40 JRR (Aerial) 0 0 5 59 69 103 14 0 250 WCCL (Ground 0.0 0.0 0.8 2.0 .9.0 7.2 5.5 0.2 .24.7 JRR (Ground)l 0.0 0.0 5.5 15.5 21.5 35.5 7.5 -(2) 85.5 1983-1984 VCCL (Aerial) 0 1 0 3 4 6 1 0 15 JRR (Aerial) 0 1 2 18 12 25 2 0 60 T4CCL (Ground) 0.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 3.5 9.0 0.5 0.n 15.5 JRR (Ground) 0.0 1.0 3.0 12.0 12.5 3S.0 7.5 -71.0 1984-1985 WCCL (Aerial) 0 0 1 ii 23 9 -0 44 JRR (Aerial) 0 0 6 41 28 34 -0 109 WCCL (Ground) 0.0 0.2 2.5 5.8 11.5 8.2 0.5 0.2 28.7 JRR (Ground) 0.0 0.m 8.7 Q.0 14.0 14.5 r.5 -52.7 (I) Data provided by Kansas Fish and Game Cormission (2) No survey 0-erformed 14 birds were using WCL while 41 were counted on JRR and vicinity.

Count frequency was hiqher than durinq 1983-1984, but was similar to the 1982-1983 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983, 1984a). Bald Eagles appear to be using WCCL as a feeding and loafing site. Of the birds observed, adults and juveniles comprised 63 and 36 percent respectively.

One percent were of undetermined age. No noticable alterations from previously reported patterns (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983, 1984a) were observed.Pereqrine falcon (Falco peregrinus), a federally and state endanqered species was not observed durinq the 1984-1985 study period. This species has been observed in previous years (Appendix A) and is expected to be an occasional visitor in the area during its miqration.

Prairie falcon (F. mexicanus), listed as a threatened species in Kansas, was observed several times during various field activities in 1984-1985 (Appendix B). This species migrates through this area and can be expected to be observed in the future.The interior least tern (Sterna antillarumn) is federally listed as endanqered (U.S. Department of Interior 1984, 1985). As of this report, the state of Kansas lists this species as threatened (Kansas Administrative Regulations 1983). Thirteen individuals were observed on 21 September 1984. Migrating seasonally through the area, these birds should continue to be attracted to WCCL, as stated in previous reports (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983, 1984a).WCCL Bird Usage Thirty two ground and eight aerial counts were completed during the 1984-1985 program. Two morning and two evening counts were nerformed each month from September 1984 through April 1985 except durinq December.

One morning and three evening counts were done during that month. All morning, surveys were initiated immediatly after dawn, ranged from 40 minutes to three hours and 15 minutes in duration, and averaged two hours 15 and 37 minutes per survey. All eveninq counts were initiated between 1215 and ].650 hours0.00752 days <br />0.181 hours <br />0.00107 weeks <br />2.47325e-4 months <br />, ranged from one to four hours in duration, and averaged two hours and 32 minutes per survey. One aerial was completed monthly, except during March and April 1985. No surveys were done in March while two were performed in April. Six aerial counts were conpleted during late morning with start times ranging from 0855 to 1030 hours0.0119 days <br />0.286 hours <br />0.0017 weeks <br />3.91915e-4 months <br />. The remaining two surveys were performed during early afternoon with start times of 13n0 and 1330 hours0.0154 days <br />0.369 hours <br />0.0022 weeks <br />5.06065e-4 months <br />. Aerial surveys averaqed one hour and 42 minutes per survey.Sixty species of waterfowl and waterbirds were observed during qround surveys (Table 4). Species diversity ranqed from 20 species during February 1985 to 38 species during October 1984. Comprising 34.2 and 19.2 percent respectively, mallard (Anas platvrvnchos)and American coot (Pulica americana) were the most abundant species observed (Table 5).Usage of WCCL varied as seasons changed. Characteristic fall, winter, and spring utilization was discernable from data collected.

Taking into account the total number of birds observed during each two week period and the observance of the ice cover progression on AXCL during the ground surveys, seasons were assigned to assess bird usage during the study.Ice cover greater than 75 percent on all locations occurred durinq the first week of January and remained uniform through the third week of February 1985. This seven week period was considered the winter season and usage was reoresented by seven ground and two aerial surveys. Winter preferences for certain areas of WCCL was qreatlv, if not entirely, influenced by pockets of open water caused by wind, waterfowl agitation, or WCM circulating water flow. The 1984 fall migration was most evident with 85 percent of all birds counted durinq this period. Sixteen qround and four aerial surveys conducted.

Separate miqration peaks and location preferences within WCCL were identified for individual species. The spring migration was not readily discernable, however, all usage after the ice cover began to decline during the last week of February 1985 throughout the rest of the study was considered spring usage. Nine ground and two aerial surveys were performed durinq this period.

TABLE 4. WATERBIRD AND WATERFOWL CENSUS DATA COLLECT DURING GIND SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK OOOLIWG LAKE, 1984-1985.

1984 1985 Species Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Common loon 1 -Pied-billed grebe 3 15 Horned grebe --Eared grebe --Grebe spp. -1 White pelican --Dbl.-crested cormorant 90 943 Least bittern -1 Great blue Heron 26 18 Great egret -2 Little blue heron -1 Black-crowned night heron --Tundra swan --4r. white-frtd.

goose --Snow goose 2 4 757 2 2 1 4 1 ... ....1 2 1 2 7 26 9 28 8 4 2 --1 1 3 6 -... .2 1 .....3 1 2 5..... .....6 2 4 5--2 4 --... .. 5 21 .2 -0 5 .. .. ... ...... ..0 2336 16 6 3 1 2 ....2 36 288 561 5 6 2 3 1 1 -...1 2 4 9 Canada goose Unidentified Goose Wood duck Green-winged teal American Black duck Mallard Northern pintail Blue-winqed teal Northern shoveler Gadwall American wigeon Canvasback Redhead Ri"l-necked duck Lesser scaup Surf scoter White-winqed sooter-8 44 44 48 45 30 8 42 22 227 200-2-5-70-2 8 358 400 385 450 166 ---20 178 64 1 --264 330 1370 2150 2251 500 1 -45 63 56 4 -*18- 138 342 464 432 775 186 227 250 443 12 38 40 2-75 350 --45 100 -------38 .5 1 -" .. ...29 50 75 38 1 -4 204 78 16 ----1 ---1 2 1 ... ..27 1777 2631 8106 19264 8316 4391 4436 649 2343. 82 38 14 13 14 205 210 695 46 10 5 8 1 24 40 1 --54 -----2 6 20 5-5 2 1 1 ------2 23 4 221 3062 1602 84 14 1 8 ---120 38 22 8 356 1480 126n 405 53 4 1 52 8 ---6 3 ---8 ---2 1 --1 34 14 2 4 14 5 -6 6 22 10 1 --66 34 1 7 ---1 -12 2 --90n 28 9 88 15 28 --. 16 6, 38 3 --.1 1 .. ... ..... --CA TABLE 4. (Cont.).1984 1985 Species Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Comon goldeneye

---

2 16 20 36 13 8 10 66 3 2 --Bufflehead

---1 34 34 35 34 13 --24 28 14 12 2 Hooded merganser

.- 3 12 22 14 10 --6 5 1 1-COmmon merganser

---1 32 104 786 1812 44 18 1145 174 116 1 1 Red-breasted merganser

.. ......-........2 Ruddy duck ----4 6 ---16 ---Unidentified Duck 95 286 160 2407 1410 242 -18 26 5 750 60 113 71 48 13 Osprey 2 2 1 1 ----------1 1 Bald eagle --1 1 4 5 6 14 8 4 13 1 ---American coot -934 4477 11940 5967 1312 214 8 10 -1 30 281 1450 522 140 Black-bellied plover ---2 2 ---------Killdeer 30 51 36 20 1 --.....20 20 26 23 Greater yellowlegs 3 12 6 3 -. ....... .1 1 2 Lesser yellowlegs 1 4 2 -1 .......---4 Spotted sandpiper 2 1 ---.... .-1 54 Sanderl ing --2 ........- --.Western sandpiper 1 ----. .... ..Sandpiper spp. 8 45 10 17 -. ......... .Common snipe -1 2 1 ---.-....Wilson's phalarope

--1 ..-. ....... ...Franklin's gull 5 836 6330 5852 1078 1 --.-. ...6 1 Rinq-billed gull 132 126 212 230 512 477 224 153 92 --104 103 6 21 4 Herring gull ----1 1 2 10 3 ---20 2 --Gull spp. -.....-16 --1 14 34 7 6 Caspian tern 1 4 1 .-. .---.--Forster's tern -2 14 1 -----*-. .....1 Least tern 11 ---.. .... .....Tern spp. 2 .. ..------....1 Belted kingfisher

-1 1 ...... --..... ...Water pipit -1 ....... ...... ..(1) Figure given represents average of two biweekly surveys."-4 18 TABLE 5. GROUND oxUNT FRE(xjENCY AND PERCErNT' COMPOSITION OF WATERFOWL AND WATERBIRDS USING WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Species Total Count % Total Mallard 97,118 34.2 American coot 54,565 19.2 Franklin's qull 28,216 9.9 Double-crested cormorant 23,74Q 8.4 Snow qoose 15,267 5.4 Unidentified Ducks 11, 409 4.0 Gadwall 10,368 3.7 Cormmon merganser 9,467 3.3 American wiqeon 7,384 2.6 Canada qoose 6,453 2.3 Other Dabblers(i) 4,889 1.7 Ring-billed gull 4,795 1.7 Greater white-fronted goose 4,058 1.4 Bay Ducks(2) 2,793 1.0 Other combined waterbirds 2,442 0.9 Bucephala spp. (3) 795 0.3 Total 283,818 100.0 (1) Includes northern pintail, blue-winged teal, green-winged teal, northern shoveler, and American black duck.(2) Includes lesser scaup, rinqnecked duck, redhead, and canvasback.

(3) Includes bufflehead and comnmon qoldeneve.

19 Count totals of sane species with close taxonomic relationships (Bellrose 1976) were combined when insufficient numbers were collected to test individually.

These were the bay ducks and Bucephala spp. Bay ducks included lesser scaup (Aythva affinis), ring-necked duck (A. collaris), redhead (A. americana), and canvasback (A. valisineria).

Bucephala spp.included common qoldeneye (Bucephala clanqula) and bufflehead (B.albeola).Of the five 1CCL locations desiqnated to assess area preferences by birds, each had unique cnmponents.

Location A represents the northern reaches of the upstream end of WCCL. It consists of 142 ha (392 acres)which includes approximately 28 ha (70 acres) of inundated timber.Shorelines are associated primarily with cropland and qrassland.

Praninent aquatic macrophytes include areas of cattail (Typha spm.), smartweed (Polygonum spp.) and pondweed (prominentlv Potemoqeton foliosus).

Coverage of these plants were estimated less than five percent of the area. The area is protected from harsh winds, especially fran the north, and was one of the first areas to freeze during cold periods.Location B is an area of WCL which was expected to be most affected by thermal discharges and flow during VGS operations.

This area is 500 ha (1234 acres) and has approximately 12 ha (30 acres) of flooded timber and brush. Shorelines are adjacent primarily to cropland and qrassland.

Aquatic macrophyte growth consisted mainly of pondweed, however surface area affected was small. Wind protected areas are numerous and circulating water discharqe flow, when operating, kept larqe areas ice free during the winter. During plant oneration, thermal input is expected to keep most, if not all, of this area ice free.Location C is the largest location (913 ha, 2,255 acres) and is made up of the main body of the lake. There is very little inundated timber as with aquatic weed concentrations.

All of the shorelines are either adjacent to grasslands, including native and domestic, or rip-rap. Few wind protected areas exist within this location thus ice cover was delayed by wind action.

20 Locatin D comprises 331 ha (817 acres) in the southeast part of TACCL and consists of approximately 49 ha (20 acres) of flooded timber. Pondweed was the dominant aquatic plant in the area, but covered less than five percent of the area. Large areas of cropland surround this area and much of the location is protected from north winds. Progression of ice cover during cold weather was relatively rapid and most areas of open water during the cold periods were maintained bv waterfowl.

Location E is the area of WCCL which was expected to be most affected by circulating water intake flows. This area encompasses 175 ha (432 acres)and has little flooded timber. Pondweed beds were well developed in this area with almost all of the shoreline and littoral areas supporting some growth. Native grasslands borders much of this location.

Refuge from most winds are abundant and ice cover progression has been similar to that in Locations A and D, however circulating water flows have kept portions of the surface area open.Duck Usage Duck usaqe in the vicinity of WGS during the 1984-1985 season increased three-fold (Figure 3) from the 1983-1984 monitoring (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). The 1984-1985 counts, however, were only 73 percent of those during the 1982-1983 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983). The low observed during the 1983-1984 monitoring was due to the severe weather during the winter which forced migrating waterfowl to leave the area earlier than during the other monitoring seasons. Ducks were more abundant on JRR throughout the study period (Figure 4). The September duck population was similar for both water bodies, however JRR attracted two to three times as many ducks during October and November than did CCL. Usage decreased on JRR during December while increasing on WCCL.This indicates that ice formation on JRR was greater than that on WCCL which offered larger areas of ice-free water. January and February counts were similar between the two reservoirs when ice cover was virtually complete on both lakes. March surveys indicate that spring miqrating ducks in the area used JRR almost exclusively over WCCL. The 21 60 50 40 a Waterbird..... ,Duck---Goose I I S 0 S S S S S S 0 0 S S 0 S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S S.6 0 S S Total Count (x 1000)30 I 20 10 I i.- : (55 SS 5 5 5 5* S* S* S* S* 5* S S.S.O.---[]82-83 83-84 84-85 Year Figure 3.Annual totals of waterfowl and waterbird usage of Wolf Creek Coolinm Lake frao fall 1982 through spring 1985.

I I I 22 amWCCL/JRR1 see..... 6 W CCL~--JRR~6 5% 4 Total.3 2 S 1 S N D Month J F M Figure 4.Combined duck Lake and John March 1985.usage comrparisons between Wolf Creek (Coling Redmond Reservoir fran September 19R4 through 23 lake level of WCCL remained relatively constant durinq the sorinq of 1985 while JRR experienced normal fluctuations (Fiqure 5). Large expanses of newly flooded shallow areas were created by the increasinq water levels in JRR. Water bodies with these recently flooded areas have been found to be preferred by waterfowl over those with stable water levels (Chabreck et al 1974, Gasaway et al 1977, Johnson and Swank 1981).Similar count results during the sprinq of 1984 were reported (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). Usaqe of JRR continues to be qreater than WCCL during spring migrations.

A total of 144,716 ducks, which consisted of 83 percent dabblers, nine percent divers, and eight percent unidentified ducks, was counted on WCCL during the 1984-1985 monitoring (Table 6). Mallard comprised 67.1 percent of this total. Unidentified ducks, qadwall (Anas strepera), common merganser (Mergus merqanser), and American wiqeon (A. americana) were other common ducks observed collectively canprisinq 26.7 percent of the total.When counts of all ducks were combined from 1984-1985 data, significant differences (p=0.05) were identified during all migration periods (Table 7). During the fall of 1984, duck usage was qreatest in location E and least in location C. Contrary to these data, no location preferences were evident during the 1983-1984 fall season (Table 7). Though not statistically evident, preoperational trends in fall waterfowl usaqe were towards larger usaqe of the shallow wind protected areas. Large expanses of deep water were used to a lesser extent. Wind and wave action on large lakes containing extensive amounts of open water has been shown to reduce the attractiveness of the area to waterfowl, especially dabblers (Chabreck 1979) and this appears to be the case with portions of WCCL.Ducks preferred location D significantly (p=0.05) durinq the winter of 1984-1985 (Table 7). This difference was primarily caused by a large number of waterfowl (maximum of 3000 counted on 22 January) maintaining a small wind protected area (approximately one acre) of open water during January and through the first week of February.

Open water was not present in large amounts within any other locations at that time. Start-

-m- m --n -m m m m mm -- m m m --mm'*Ij I-..(D Lfl 0 PI.1090 1080 I Lake Level 1.oeo msl 1050 1040 I-JRR I I I IN goo U -U m m .m a m 0 U U .U U U 16 30 s 14 0 28 11 N 25 9 23* 6 DJ Month 20 3.. F 17 3 M 17 31 14 28 A 25 TABLE 6. G!OEJND COUNT FREQUENCY AND PERCENT CC*OMSITION OF DUCKS USING' CREEK COOLIN, LAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 "HRIWJGH APRIL 1q85.Total Count Species Frequencv

% Total Mallard q7,118 67.1 Unidentified Ducks 11,409 7.q Gadwall 10,368 7.2 cannon merganser 9,467 6.9 American wiqeon 7,384 5.1 Northern pintail 2,646 1.8 Lesser scaup 2,261 1.6 Green-winqed teal 1,176 0.8 Blue-winqed teal 978 n.7 Ccamon goldeneye 352 n.2 Wood duck 286 0.2 Ring-necked duck 249 0.2 Redhead 243 0.2 Hooded merganser 148 0.1 Northern shoveler 80 Ruddy duck 54 Canvasback 40 American black duck 9 Red-breasted merganser 5 Total 144,716 100.0 (1) Less than 0.1 percent of total.

---

m-mmm m m mm m-m m --m --m m-m -m, TABLE 7. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RANKED LOCATION MEANS OF DUCK S USING W4OLF CRFEK COOLING LAKE FRM SEPrTEMBER 1983 THTROUG' APRIL 1984 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Seasonal Duck Location Preference Species Year Fall Winter Spring Combined Duck sp. 1983-1984 C B D E A() E D A B C B D E A 1984-1985 C B_)D A E A E C B D BD C A E Mallard Unidentified Duck sP.Gadwall 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 1.983-1984 CEBT)A CDBEA CBDA E ACERD DBACE ABCDE CEDAB ACEBD CDBEA CBDAE B CAD E ABCDE ECBDA D C A B E ABC ED ABDEC COimon merganser AC*EOB ABDEC American wigeOn AEDBC CBDAE-AC B DE Northern pintail 1984-1985 C A ) B E m -m m- m m- m n- m m --lmm m m-m -m --TABLE 7. (Cont.)Seasonal Duck Location Preference Species Year Faif Winter Spring Green-winged teal Blue-winqed teal 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1q84-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 Bay Duck sp.CBADE ABCDE CABDE ABCDE AC BED DCABE ADCBE BCDAE CDEBA ECADB AC DB E BDACE Bucephala sp.(1) Line underscores ranked (least to greatest) location means that were not significant (p=0.05)(2). Species occuring in insufficient numbers to test preference significance r%)

28 up of the circulating water system opened the ice cover in location B between 14 and 17 February.

This attracted conparatively large numbers of waterfowl (5087 counted on 17 February), however, because of dispersal by subsequent thawinc of the rest of WrCL and the commencement of the 1985 spring migration, this concentration was not sufficient to alter preference results. Winter usaqe during 1983-1984 was similar, however location B was preferred.

Winter usaqe durinq the preoperational studies reflected areas kept free from ice cover by waterfowl.

No trends in the location of these duck concentrations were evident.Uniform usage of all WOCL, excluding location E was shown during the 19R9 spring migration.

More birds were observed in location E (Table 7).Variables contributing to this were not readily evident. Beds of pondweed, an important food item (Duke and Chabreck 1975, Bellrose 1976), were not well established during early spring, however, residue from the previous growing season may have been present in sufficient quantities to attract the ducks. Usaqe during the spring of 1984 was not statistically different (p=0.05) between all locations.

Pondweed establishment was not as extensive prior to 1984-1985 thus the importance of this attractant variable was not as great.Unidentified Ducks: Ducks using WCCL that were not identifiable to species were tallied.During the early fall migration, many ducks were in eclipse olurnaqe and were in large mixed species concentrations making separation of species difficult during some surveys. Physical conditions such as available light, wind velocity, wind direction, and visibility during surveys all contributed to the inability of the surveyor to positively identify some ducks. Distance, compounded by the other factors was considered most responsible for the unsurety of identification.

Due to limited access, portions of locations A, D, and C could only be adequately surveyed fran relativelv long distances.

Because of this, comparitibility between lake locations for all species was questioned.

However, because no siqnificant difference (p=0.05) was found between all 29 locations (Table 7), -it was assumed that the frequency of unidentifiable ducks on WCCL was random during 1984-1985 and that all locations, using unidentified duck totals as a measure, lended themselves equally to the survey techniques employed.The results of the 1983-1984 data supports this logic. Significantly (p=O,05) greater numbers of unidentified ducks were counted in location E (Table 7). During the 1983-1984 monitoring, much of this location was unaccessible; and consequently, most of the area was surveyed from large distances.

During the summer of 1984, an Owner Controlled Area Boundary fence and associated security roadway were constructed.

This provided virtually unlimited access to all of location E during 1984-1985 counts and most areas were easily surveyed.

The results of the 1984-1985 monitoring suggest that location E was made comparable, with respect to survey ease, to all locations by the use of the boundary fence. Because of this, some bias identification was recognized for the 1983-1984 usage data, however, this bias was deemed minimal during the 1984-1985 studies.Mallard: Wolf Creek Cooling Lake attracted more mallards than any other single species. Resident birds, sane with broods, were observed throughout the summer months, though their imortance to the fall and winter migrant population was considered minimal. Fall migrant mallards were first observed during the third week of October 1984 (Figure 6) and were present in large numbers until WCCL ice cover formed during the first week of January 1985. Peak numbers were observed during December 1984.During the entire migration, JRR attracted 64 percent of all mallards.John Redmond Reservoir attracted nearly all the area mallards during the early fall of 1984 and the spring of 1985. However, percent area usage of VCCL during the winter (Late December 1984 throuqh February 1985) did approach the usage of JRR. These differences probably reflect the availability or attractiveness of the habitat provided by JRR when compared to WOCL, but, the greater surface area of i<ce-free water provided by WCCL during the early winter equalized mallard usage between the two reservoirs.

30--",,.-*WCCL

-- -- -JRR.6 5% 4 Total 2/101 S0 N D Month J F M Fiqure 6.Mallard usage canparisons between Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985.

31 A total of 97,118 mallards was observed on WCCL during the 1984-1985 monitoring program (Table 6). This total was six times that reported durinq the 1983-1984 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a), however, it represents only 62 percent of the mallards observed during the 1982-1q83 studies (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983). John Redmond Reservoir usage, on the other hand, increased during the 1983-1984 season by 56 percent and declined during the 1984-1985 counts by 65 percent. Mallard fluctuations in the general area of WCGS did not coincide with increases and decreases observed on WCCL. Relative percentages of area mallards appear to be increasing on WCCL. The cooling lake was recently filled during the 1982-1983 season and flooded vegetation was abundant.

The comparatively low numbers of mallards during the 1i83-1984 may reflect the lack of flooded vegetation present during the 1982-1983 study and aquatic weed development present during the 1984-1985 period.During the fall of 1984, mallards used location C less than all other WCCL locations (Table 7). Though not statistically significant, this was also evident during the fall of 1984. This could be expected since location C enconpasses a relatively large expanse of water with few wind protected coves. The upper end and the larger wind protected coves of WCCL appeared to be most attractive to mallards.

Other factors, such as proximity to cropland and average water depth, may have influenced mallard distribution around the lake. Counts during the 1983-1984 monitoring revealed no significant difference (p=0.05) in location usage.During the winter or 1984-1985, usage was greater (p=0.05) in location D. Similar usage, though not as great as on location D, was noted for location B. Usage during the winter by mallards reflected that reported for all ducks combined since the majority of winter ducks counted were mallards (77 percent).

The winter population represented usage of isolated pockets of open water which were maintained throughout the first half of February by large concentrations of predcminantly mallards.Differences were detected for mallard dispersal on W2CL during the spring of 1985 (Table 7). Mallards preferred location E than other areas while 32 intermediate usage of location A was identified.

Differences durinq the 1983-1984 study were not significant (p=0.05).

No spring mallard usage trends of WCCL were present.Gadwall: The fall migration of qadwall peaked durinq October 1984 (Fiqure 7).Usage for all months except November 1984 was similar for WCCL and JRR.November counts revealed slightly less than half as many qadwall used WCCL than did JRR. Pondweed, an important constituent in the Gadwall diet (Bellrose 1976, Paulus 1982), was well developed during October.Due to a decrease in water temperature, length of dayliqht, and increasing waterfowl exploitation, the amount of available pondweed decreased through November and gadwall usage of WCCL declined.

Usaqe of JRR, however, increased in November.

Steadily increasing water levels in JRR (Figure 5) was suspected to have caused this by increasing available shallow water forage sites. This usage pattern was observed during October and November of both 1982 and 1983.A total of 10,368 gadwall was observed on W2CL durinq the 1984-1985 surveys (Table 6). Usage during the 1983-1q84 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) was only 12 percent of the number observed durinn 1984-1985. John Redmond Reservoir totals increased 36 percent fram 1983-1984 to 1984-1985.

Greater amounts of pondweed and larger numbers in the general area contributed to increased gadwall usage of WCCL.When VCL location preferences were tested, 1984 fall qadwall usage of location E was significantly qreater (P=0.05) than all other areas (Table 7). This preference was also evident during the 1983 fall migration.

Pondweed concentrations were higher (though not measured) within this location than the other areas and this was considered to be the primary attractant of this area to gadwall. Preoperational fall usage trends of gadwall appear to be developing toward a greater usage of the circulating water intake area of the cooling lake. As pondweed increases in other areas of the lake, this trend may be modified.

33---WCCL/JRR--...-.-=WCCL---JRR 5 To 4t Total.3 2..1 0 J F M Month Figure 7.Gadwall usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985.

34 Winter gadwall usage was low (Table 4) and those counted were considered incidental.

Spring usaqe was similar between all locations durinq both 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 monitoring seasons (Table 7). Gadwall used WCCL evenly during the spring migration and no trends were identifiable.

Canmon merganser:

Common merganser was the last species of migrant duck observed in large numbers in the general area. Peak numbers were not counted until February (Figure 8). Usage between WCCL and JRR was similar althouch WCCL attracted slightly larger numbers probably due to larger areas of ice free water present on the cooling lake.Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was used by 9,467 common mergansers during 1984-1985 monitoring (Table 6). This total represents a four percent increase over the 1983-1984 numbers (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). However, the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 seasons were only 25 and 26 percent respectively of the 1982-1983 survey total (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983).Fluctuations on JRR were similar to those observed on WCCL during the same time period. Annual changes on WCCL were probably entirely influenced by the number of cnmmon mergansers in the general area.There were no WCCL location preferences evident during the fall of 1984.comnon merqanser usage during the fall of 1983 was not of sufficient size to statistically test location preferences.

Development of fall usage trends on WCL were not observed.Winter usage during 1984-1985 indicated no significant difference (p=0.05) between lake locations.

Location B was preferred (0-0.05)during the 1983-1984 season. During much of the winter of 1983-1984, location B was the only area of the lake with open water. This was caused by start-up flushing activities through the stations discharge structure and this accounted for the higher usage of location B by common merqanser.

Pockets of open water (less than two acres each) were present in all locations during most of the winter of 1984-1985 and common 35 6 0 5% 40 Total 30 20 10 l -WCCLIJRR ge.C.....CL

---

JRR I I II li C* /--S 0 N D J F M Month Figure 8.Oommon merganser usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985.

36 merganser usage reflected this. Any trends in lake usage during the winter season is expected to be qreatly influenced by ice cover on WCCL.American wigeon: Peak miqration of American wiqeon in the vicinity of WCGS was observed during October and continued.

into November 1984 (Fiqure 9). The migration patterns through the area were very similar to that of the qadwall (Figure 8), however, usage by each species differed between JRR and WCCL. Wiqeon in the general area appeared to use WCL proportionally less than JRR through October and November 1984. October and November 1983 data (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) revealed similar usage. These results were very similar with those encountered for qadwall (Figure 7).American wigeon and qadwall food preferences are similar and these two species are often observed feeding together on the same plant beds.Wigeon, however, tend to consume greater quantities of grass and upland waste grains than do qadwall (Bellrose J.976), thus wiqeon have a higher variety of available forage in this area and apparently it was being provided to a greater extent by JRR rather than WCCL. Durinq the preoperational monitoring, increases in pondweed, though attractive to American wigeon, did not appear to alter their usage patterns between JRR and WCCL.A total of 7,384 American wiqeon was observed during the 1984-1985 monitoring program (Table 6). The 1983-1984 counts (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) were 13 percent of this total. John Redmond Reservoir numbers decreased by nine percent over the same two years. The substantial increase in wiqeon usage of WCCL from 1.983-1984 to 1984-1985 was caused by the increased availability of aquatic vegetation during the same period.Location preference within WCL by American wigeon was greatest (p=0.05)in location E (Table 7). It is suspected that the qreater amount of pondweed development was responsible for the attractiveness of this area. Usage during the fall of 1983 showed definite (p=0.05) location preferences though not as clear as during the fall of 1984 (Table 7).

37"- WCCL/JRR* -......-WCCL-- -JRR 6% 40, Total 4 301 20 1?If\10 "'A* 00 S O N D J FM Month Figure 9. American wigeon usaqe camparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Re&d Reservoir fran September 1984 through March 1985.

38 Location E was only significantly qreater than location A. Locations F, D, and A represented intermediate areas of preference.

As the pondweed development increased, especially within location E, during the fall of 1.984, wiqeon were attracted to this area in greater numbers than all other WCCL locations.

Usage trends are expected to chanqe as pondweed continues to develop in other areas of WCL.American wiqeon were not present in sufficient numbers to assess location preferences during the winter and spring of 1984 or 1985 (Table 7).Northern pintail: The number of northern pintail (Anas acuta) in the area during the fall of 1984 peaked during November (Figure 10). Only a small percentage (10 percent) of these birds used WCCL with the majority attracted bv JRR. A larger number of northern pintail were counted during March 1984 than during the previous autumn (Figure 10). -All of these birds, except for less than one percent, used JRR. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake apparently was not as an important usage area for fall and spring migrating northern pintail as was JRR.A total of 2,646 northern pintail was observed on TACCL ground counts during the 1984-1985 monitoring period (Table 6). This represents slightly less than a three-fold increase over the 1983-1984 total (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). During the same time period, counts on JRR showed approximately a 92 percent increase.

The increased number of northern pintail was most likely influenced by increased numbers observed in the entire area.During the fall of 1984, these birds preferred (p = 0.05) location E over all other WOCL locations (Table 7). Waste agricultural grains are important food items (Bellrose 1976, Johnsqard 1985), although northern pintail have been reported to utilize natural foods such as pondweed (Bellrose 1976, Keith and Stanislawski 1960),. As previously stated, pondweed was most abundant within location E and this was considered responsible for attracting larger numbers of northern pintail.

39-=-WCCL/JRR

• -----.--WCCL---JRR 6% 4 Total 3 2 1 S 0 N D J M Month Figure 10.N orthern pintail usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuih March 1985.

40 Location preferences were not be tested for northern pintail during the winter and sprinq of 1984-198S due to insufficient number of birds observed.

Preferences during the 1983-1984 monitoring season, likewise, were not tested. Because of this, no usage trends could be identified for northern pintail on CCL.Green-winged teal: Green-winged teal (Anas crecca) numbers peaked during November 1984 (Fiqure 11). Durinq the 1i84-1985 study period, 94 percent of these birds were observed on JRR. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake attracted its largest proportion of area green-winged teal during March 1984, lhowever,.

larger total numbers were seen on JRR during the same month (Figure 11).As with northern pintail, most migrating qreen-winqed teal used JRR over WCCL.A total of 1,176 qreen-winged teal (Table 6) were counted during the 1984-1985 ground counts. This represents a seven fold increase over 1983-1984 results (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). The total counted using JRR increased 23 percent during the same time period. Though green-winged teal numbers were hiqher in the general area, TACCL appears to be attracting increasing numbers of this species as the lake develops.Of the green-winged teal counted on WXCL, significantly (p=0.05) greater numbers were seen during the fall of 1984 within location E (Table 7).Pondweed prevalent in this location was considered responsible because of the importance of aquatic plant material to this species, includinq nondweed, (Bellrose 1976, Johnson and Swank 1981, Hughes and Young 1982). Fall 'usage during 1983 was not tested due to insufficient number of birds observed.Durinq the spring of 1984, green-winged teal usage was not as defined as during the previous fall, however significant differences (n=0.05) were detected (Table 7). Mqain location E was preferred but not over Location A. Reasons for using location E were not apparent.

Althouqh the pondweed beds were not actively growing at the time the birds were 41---WCCL/JRR* --.,-*- WCCL-- -- -JRR 6 5 Total 201 101*-.00....S 0 N J F M Month I Figure 11.I Green-winged Cooling Lake through March teal usage comparisons between Wblf Creek and John Redmond Reservoir fran September 1984 1985.

42 present, seeds frcm the previous season may have been an attractant.

Green-winqed teal do utilize seeds from previous years fram other moist soil plants such as millet and smartweeds (Bellrose 1976). Insufficient numbers were observed during the spring of 1984 to test usage preference.

Blue-winged teal: The blue-winged teal (Anas discors) peak miqration through the general area was in October 1984 (Figure 12). Approximatelv 88 percent of these birds were attracted to JRR. Usage of WCCL was minor during all months except September 1984 when 34 percent of the birds were observed on WCCL.A total of 978 blue-winged teal were observed on WCCL during 1984-1985 ground counts (Table 6). This represents an increase of 85 percent over the 1983-1984 study (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). Approximately four times as many blue-winged teal were reported on JRR during 1Q84-1985 than were during 1983-1984 counts. The increased numbers in the region was considered responsible for the increase observed on WCCL.Location preferences on WXCL were significanltv (p=0.05) qreater for both the fall of 1984 and 1983 within location E (Table 7). Higher pondweed concentration was the only noticed variable and was thought responsible for this pattern. Pondweed is used to varying degrees by blue-winged teal (Bellrose 1976, Johnson and Swank 1981). These birds used the intake area consistantly during fall migrations and this trend will probably continue until pondweed establishes or increases throughout suitable areas of WCCL.Spring usage was of insufficient size and duration to test preference significance during 1984 or 1985.Bay Ducks: For the purposes of this study, totals of bay ducks (Bellrose, 1976) were combined.

Species included in this cateqory were lesser scaup, ring-necked duck, redhead, and canvasback.

Of the total bay ducks counted, 43* *--,.-WCCL

~----JRR 6 5 Total 3 I I I 2 1 0 S S 0 S S S S S S S S S S S Month Figure 12.Blue-winged teal usage coiomarisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir fram September 1984 through March 1985.

44 these species comprised 81.0, 8.9, 8.7, and 1.4 percent respectively.

Combined, these taxa comprise slightly qreater than two percent of all ducks observed (Table 6).Peak bay duck migration in the vicinity of WCGS occurred during November 1984 (Figure 13). During the 1984-1985 study period, 81 percent of all bay ducks counted were on JRR. Numbers during early fall were similar between the two reservoirs.

John Redmond Reservoir usage declined from November to December 1984 while remaining constant on WCCL. Reasons for this were unclear, however the commencement of ice cover during late December may have been responsible.

A total of 2,793 bay ducks (Table 6) was observed on WCCL during 1984-1985 qround counts. This represents a decrease of 13 percent from 1983-1984 results (Kansas Gas and Electric, 1984a). In contrast to WCCL, a 65 Percent increase of JRR usage was noted during the same time period.Because of this, local area concentrations does not explain CCL decreases.

Although fall usage of WCCL increased nearly three times, the decrease in spring usage between the two monitorinq seasons was responsible for the annual decline experienced.

The qreater amounts of pondweed present during 1984 than 1983 was thought responsible.

This aquatic plant has been reported as being an important constituent of bay duck diets (Thompson 1973, Duke and Chabreck 1975, Bellrose 1976, Johnson and Swank 1981). Of the bay ducks in the vicinity, JRR attracted the largest number during most months, especially durinq the spring migration.

Fall bay duck usage of WCL was uniform during 1983 and 1984. No one location was preferred (p=0.05) over another (Table 7). Since pondweed availability was qreatest at location E, it was expected that this location would have been selected for. As noted, this was not the case.Two conclusions were thought possible for this. First, WCCL may not have been used extensively as a feeding site by fall miqrating birds.Individuals and/or concentrations observed during counts mav have used WCCL as a "rest stop" thus selection of any one area of WCCL was not biased by natural food availiability.

Second, resource partitioning by 45"-WCCL/JRR WCCL----JR R 6 5 Total 4 3 2 1 S0 N D. J F M Month Figure 13.Bay duck usage comparisons between Wb1f Creek Coolinq Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 through March 1985.

46 competing birds such as these four species of bay ducks may have played a role in their dispersal around the lake. Alexander and Hair (1977) found that among these same four species, dominance relationships were.identified.

Canvasbacks were daminant and actively defended foraqing sites aqainst ring-necked ducks and redheads.

Lesser scaup and redhead.were also found to not feed in close proximity to canvasbacks or ring-necked ducks. Based on this, it is conceivable that WCCL bay ducks were dispersed around the entire lake due to interspecific behavioral relationships.

These relationships would not have allowed for concentrations to become large enough for the methods employed to detect any location preferences.

No differences (p=0.05) were found between locations durinq the spring of 1985. Sane preference for location A was evident during the spring of 1984 (Table 7). Trends in spring bay duck usage of RMCL were not identified.

Bucephala spp.: Bufflehead and acrimxn qoldeneye were combined for analysis because of their close taxanamic relationship.

Of the Bucephala spp. counted using WCCL during the 1984-1985 monitoring, 55.7 percent were bufflehead while 44.3 percent were common goldeneye.

Combined these species comprised 0.9 percent of all ducks counted during the study period (Table 6).During the fall of 1984 most Bucephala spp. were noted in November and December with slightly qreater numbers observed during November (Figure 14). Eighty-seven percent of these birds were counted on WCCL with the remainder on JRR. Animal foods comprise a large aortion, 67 to 84 percent, of both common qoldeneye and bufflehead diets. Areas of pondweed concentrations have comparatively larger numbers of aquatic insects and other animal foods preferred by both bufflehead and qoldeneye.

Plant foods are also utilized with the seeds of pondweeds and bulrushes beinq most important (Bellrose 1976). Because of the greater use of animal foods by these ducks, the presence of these foods within 47*.,-e.---

WCCL-- --JRR" 6 5,% 40 Total 30 20 1,0/1'*S I I I I reD 5.. U* eel I **./-S *w Month Fiqure 14.Bucephala spp. usage comparisons between Wlbf Creek (boling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir frcm September 1984 through March 1985.

48 the pondweeds was considered most responsible for the WCCL preference observed.

Vegetative foods provided., though important, played a lessor role.The winter monitoring revealed comparable usage of both reservoirs during January, 1985 (Figure 14). February usage, however, showed nearly 2.5 times as many on WCCL than JRR. This was chiefly due to available ice-free water durim the first half of February present on WCCL and not on JRR. As ice receeded on both reservoirs during late February and March, Bucephala spp. increased in number on JRR and decreased on WCCL (Figure 14). Preference-for JRR during the 1985 sprinq migration was most likely caused bv increasing lake levels on the reservoir (Figure 5) which increased surface area, foraging sights, and available food resources.

The water level of WOCL, on the other hand, remained relatively constant throuqh the same time period.Bellrose (1976) stated that common qoldeneye have fed on small gizzard shad (Dorosama cepedianum) on lakes in the Illinois River valley during late winter and early spring. He also reports that fish also became an important article of the bufflehead diet in winter. Assuming similar behavior and diet preferences by the Bucephala spp. in the study area, available gizzard shad concentrations may have influenced the 1985 spring usage between the two reservoirs..

Gizzard shad concentrations were greater in JRR than WOCL (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984b, 1986). Given this, it was conceivable that Bucephala spp. were attracted to JRR, because of greater numbers of young, most likely winter stressed, qizzard shad than were present on CCL.A total of 795 bufflehead and common goldeneye were counted during ground counts during 1984-1985 monitoring (Table 6). This represents a two percent decrease from the 1983-1984 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) and a 13 percent decline from 1982-1983 totals (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983). It appears that WCCL Bucephala spp. usage may be declin-ing gradually, however it was felt that these differences were due to chance variation and usage of TICCL has most likely stabilized.

49 Differences were detected between WCCL lake locations during the fall of 1984 (Table 7). Location E was used significantly qreater (p=0.05) than all other locations.

As stated earlier, food resources provided by pondweed areas was most likely responsible for this difference.

Of the remaining locations, B was used qreater (p=0.05) than A. Variables causing this difference were not apparent and could not be inferred.

No differences were found for location preferences during the fall of 1984.This was probably due to lesser amounts of pondweeds present.Spring WCCL usage durina 1984-1985 revealed no location preferences (p=0.05) by Bucephala spp. (Table 7). Usaqe durim the spring miqration of 1984 was similar to that during the fall of 1984. Location A was preferred significantly (p=0.05) less than both locations B and E.Contrary to that during the fall of 1984, however, location E was not preferred over location B. Reasons for these differences were unclear.No specific variables were tested for nor were identified.

No usage trends were observed.Goose Usaqe Numbers of qeese observed in the vicinity of WCGS during the 1984-1985 monitoring increased by 2.4 (Figure 3) times over those during the 1983-1984 season (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). As during previous years, geese were more abundant on JRR than WOCL (Figure 15). The only month WCCL attracted a greater percentage of area geese was September 1984.This was due to 16 Canada qeese (Branta canadensis) of which were suspected as being part of the Kansas Fish and Game Coamission's re-introduction project. Differential ice cover did not appear to affect the distribution of geese between the two reservoirs as was evident with duck usage (Figure 4). Goose usage on WCCL, except during the fall, did not approach that on JRR.A total of 26,918 geese was counted usinq WCCL durinq the 1984-1985 monitoring (Table 8). Snow goose (Chen caerulescens) ccmprised 56.7 percent of this total and Canada goose made up 24.0 percent. The qreater 50 6 5% 4 Total 30 20 10-WCCL/JRR----JRR I II S...." S S SW S S S S SS..SS@--I m I S 0- N D J F M Month.Figure 15.Combined geese usage omparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir fran September 19P4 throuqh March 1985.

51 white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) was the only other species observed.

Goose usage comprised 9.5 percent of all waterfowl and waterbirds counted (Table 5).Snow qoose: Migration of snow goose through the area peaked during December-", 1984 (Figure 16). Over the entire season, 88 percent were counted on JRR.Counts during January 1985 however, revealed greater numbers on WCCL than JRR, which was due primarily to available ice free water.A total of 15,267 snow qeese were observed on WX2CL during the 1984-1985 monitoring (Table 8). This represents slightly greater than 11 times as many as those counted during 1983-1984 studies (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). John Redmond Reservoir counts increased 38 percent during the same period. The increase counted on WCCL was due, at least .partly, to the increase noted in the general area.Fall snow goose usage of WCL was significantly (p=0.05) greater in locations D and E (Table 9). These two locations represent the entire east side of WCCL. Most of the snow geese were observed using adjacent agricultural fields. These locations provided large wind protected coves as well. Numbers during 1983-1984 were not great enough to allow for preference testing. Likewise, winter and spring usage were not tested.No trends in snow goose usage were evident and usage of the area is expected to be variable.Canada goose: Migration of Canada goose through the area peaked during December, 1984 (Figure 17). Of these, 82 percent were counted on JRR. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake usage approached that of JRR only during early fall.During the 1984-1985 monitoring, a total of 6,453 Canadas were observed on WCCL (Table 8). This total was an 84 percent increase over 1983-1984 52 TABLE 8. COUNr FRFACJENCY AND PERCENr COMPOSITION OF GEESE USING WOLF CREEK COOLI?' LAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Total Count Species Frequency

% Total Snow qoose Canada goose Gr. wh.-ftd.Unidentified qoose Goose spp.15,267 6,453 4,058 1,140 26,918.56.7 24.n 15.1 4.2 100.0 Total 53 6 Tot4 Total--WCCL/JRR WCCL-JRR I I I!'I I.. ..,=, '-3 1 SO N D Month J F M Figure 16.Snow goose usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Oooling Lake ard John Redmord Reservoir from September 1984 throuw h March 1985.

--m ---TABLE 9. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RANKED LOCATION MEANS OF GEESE USING WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1983 THW-G7H APRIL 1984 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Seasonal Goose Location Preference Species Year Fall Winter -rina Snow goose Canada goose 19q3-1q84 1984-1985 19R3-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 1984-1985 A B C D E(2)-(1)CBADE ACBDE CT)EAB ACBDE Greater wht.-frtd.

qoose_ (2)A B C D E(M)(1) Species occuring in insufficient numbers to test preferenCe siqnificance nificant (p=0.05)(2) Line underscores ranked (least to greatest) location means that were not sig (L1 55--WCCL/JRR-......--WCCL----JRR 60 50% 40 Total 30 20 10 I I S I a II I\0 to."De6l ME = ea S 0 N D J F M Month Figure 17.Canada goose usaqe comparisons between Wolf Creek Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from Seotember 19R4 March 1985.Cool ing throtiqh 56 counts (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) of which was a 34 percent increase over 1982-1983 (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983). A similar, 63 percent, increase from 1982-1983 to 1983-1984 was observed on JRR. However, a 50 Percent decline in Canada goose numbers was observed from 1983-1984 to 1984-1985 on JRR. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake appears to be attracting increasing percentages of the Canada's present in the vicinity of WMGS.Future usage surveys will verify if this trend will continue.Canada goose location preference on WOCL during the fall of 1984 was significanlty (p=0.05) greater on location E. Agricultural grains are used heavily by Canadas, even when natural foods are abundant, when these grain fields are large and open with an undisturbed body of water nearby (Bellrose 1976, Craven and Hunt 1984a). Other areas, especially location D, of WCL offered these advantages, if not more so, during the fall of 1984. Although,natural foods do play a large role in the diet of Canadas (Bellrose 1976, Craven and Hunt 1984a) and have been reported as ccmprisinq as much as 20.9 percent of their diet (Craven and Hunt 19M4b), aqricultural crops are unquestionably the mainstay on their migration and winter grounds. Because of this, pondweed was considered as being less of a determining factor in the Canada's preference of location E.Seclusion, wind protection, and proximity to agricultural fields played a more important role. More Canadas were also observed using location E during the fall of 1983, however no significance (p=0.05) was detected (Table 9). Pondweed was not as prevalent during this period and any attracting influences it may have had were not as areat as during the fall of 1984. Fall trends during the preoperational studies appeared to be toward a qreater usage of the eastern areas of the cooling lake.Winter usaqe during both the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 seasons was not consistant and no location preferences (p=0.05) were detected.Distribution appeared to be influenced totally by the location of the agricultural field being utilized by the Canadas at the time of each survey. Ice free water, provided by WCGS water discharges provided areas of relatively large goose concentrations at the discharge area (location B). Durations of these concentrations, however, were not long enough to affect location preference detection.

57 Greater white-fronted goose: Pall miqratinq whitefronts were most numerous in the area during November, 1984 (Fiqiire 1.8). Seventy percent of tho entiro anntial migration of these birds were observed on JRR. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake, except during the spring of 1985, attracted a hiqher percentaqe of area whitefronts than it did of both Canada and snow qeese (Fiqures 16 and 17).Monitoring during 1984-1985 revealed a total of 4,058 greater white-fronted geese on WAKCL (Table 8). Monitoring during 1983-1984 (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a) comprised only four percent of those birds observed during 1984-1985.

Whitefronts observed during the 1982-1983 (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983) season comprised only 14 percent of the 1984-1985 total. John Redmond Reservoir usage by whitefronts was similar between 1982-1983 throuqh the 1984-1985 seasons with maximum variation (27 percent) between the 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 seasons. Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was used to varying degrees by greater white-fronted geese during preoperational studies. Usage appears to be increasing on W.CL, however no trends are evident.The fall of 1984 was the first and only season when sufficient white-fronts were counted to allow for WOCL location preference to be tested.Locations D and E were chosen significanilty (p=0.05) over the remaininq locations (Table 9). These two locations were the only locations where this species was observed.

Seclusion of the area, wind protection provided, and proximity to agricultural fields were possible factors attracting these geese to these locations.

Usage by other waterfowl species in these areas may have also played a role in the usage of these areas by whitefronts.

Waterbird Usage Since normal operating water level (1,087 feet MSL) of WCCL was achieved during 1982, monitoring has showed increasing totals of waterbirds 58.WCCL/JRR*--,-0R WCCL----JRR 61 5 Total 4 30 20 101 0/S 0 N D J F M Month Fiqure 18.Greater white-fronted goose usage ocmparisons between Wblf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir from September 1984 throuqh March 1985.

59 (Fiqure 3). I Totals observed durinq the 1982-1983 season were 50 percent of those counted durinq 1983-1984 of which were 80 percent of 1984-1985 numbers. Waterbird numbers did not decrease during the 1.983-1.984 monitoring as did waterfowl because the normal peak concentrations of waterbirds were present prior to and after the severe weather during the winter of 1983-1984.

A total of 113,194 waterbirds was counted during the 1984-1985 surveys.(Table 10). American coot, Franklin's gull (Larus atricilla), and double-crested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus) comiprised 48.2, 24.9, and 21.0 percent, respectively.

American Coot: In the vicinity of WCGS, American coot numbers were highest during October 1984 (Figure 19). Wolf Creek Coolinq Lake was used to a qreater extent than JRR by attracting 84 percent of all coots counted.A total of 54,565 American coots was observed on W(CL (Table 10). Coot totals on WCCL during the 1982-1983 season comprised 75 percent of those during 1983-1984.

An increase was observed during 1984-1985 counts which was three. times greater than 1983-1984.

John Redmond Reservoir during 1984-1985 season, however, remained approximately equal to that in 1983-1984. Increasing pondweed development on WCCL was thought responsible for the coot increase.

Aquatic food plants, including pondweed, are used by American coots (Terres 1980) and concentrations have been Positively correlated with usage (Duke and Chabreck 1975).American coot preferred location E significantly (p=0.05) greater than.all other lake locations during the fall of both IJ83 and 1984 fall seasons (Table 11). The qreater amount of pondweed in location E was most likely the variable responsible for this difference.

Conversely, coot usage during the spring of both 1984 and 1985 did not reveal any location preferences (Table 11). This was expected as areas of pondweed during the spring were not well developed.

Any pondweed beds providina foraging areas and influencing coot dispersal during the fall season were 60 TABLE. 10. GFROUND Cot NT FRE(UENCY AND PERCENT COMPOSITION OF WATEMBIRDS USING WOLF CREEK COOLING LAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Total Count Species Freauency

% Total American coot 54,565 48.2 Franklin's gull 28,210 24.9 Dbl .-crested cormorant 23,799 21.n Ring-billed qull 4,795 4.2 Killdeer 455 0.4 Pied-billed qrebe 264 0.2 Great blue heron 192 0.2 Sandpiper sp. 160 0.1 Gull sp. 154 0.1 Spotted sandpiper 114 0.1 White pelican 90 0.1 Herrinq gull 77 0.1 Grebe sp. 68 0.1 Greater vellowlegs 55 0.1 Forster's tern 35 _ (1)Eared qrebe 33 C.nmon loon 26 Lesser yellowleqs 24 Least tern 23 Horned qrebe 15 Caspian tern 10 Common snipe 6 Tern sp. 4 Sanderling 4 Great egret 4 Belted kingfisher 2 Wilson's phalarope 2 Water pipit 1 Least bittern 1 Tbtal 113,194 <99.7 (1) Less than 0.1 percent I 61 I I I, I 6 I I Total I 3 2 I 1 1 I 1* .....v..W CCL.--M-- -JRR* U.3.3* U* U S S U-.0~ \'I Month I I I Fiqure 19.American coot usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir fron September 1984 through March 1985.

--- ~ ----- ~ -- --- -TABLE 11. SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RANKED LOCATION MEANS OF WATERBIRDS USING WOLF CREEK COOLING TAKE FIUM SEPTEMBER 1983 THRX , APRIL 1984 AND FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 THROUGH APRIL 1985.Seasonal Waterbird Location Preference Species Year aWinter Sprin American coot 1983-19R4 C A B D E(I) (2) C B D E A 1984-1985 A C B D E A B C D E Franklin's gull 1983-1984 1984-1985 1983-1984 lQ84-lqS5 ABDEC ADEBC CEBDA C DEBA Double-crested cormorant CBDEA DCBEA (1) Line underscores ranked (least to qreatest)(2) Species occuring in insufficient numbers to location means that were not significant (P=0.05)test preference siqnificance 0%~I%3 63 not present during the spring. Trends appear to be toward a large usage of- location E during the fall and dispersal of usage around the entire reservoir during the spring seasons. As pondweed expands to other areas of WCCL, any trends will most likely change.Franklin's gull: Of the waterbirds using WCCL, Franklin's gull numbers were only surpassed by American coot. A total of 28,216 was observed on WECL (Table 10). As during. previous years (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983, 1984a) most gulls were observed during October (Table 4). Totals during the 1984-1985 surveys comprised 40 percent of the 1983-1984 total.During the 1983-1984 monitoring, no location preferences were significant (p=0.05), however, during the fall of the 1984-1985 program location C was used significantly (p=0.05) greater than all locations except B (Table 11). These two areas encompass the main body of WCCL, Franklin's gull appeared to use WCLCL for a roosting or resting area during the night while dispersing to forage during the day in the immediate vicinity of WCGS.Double-crested cormorant:

The fall migration of double-crested cormorants peaked during October 1984 with nearly 84 percent of the total migration observed during this month (Figure 20). Though WCCL numbers were slightly lower, usage was similar for both reservoirs.

Large concentrations of cormorants were observed roosting on dead flooded timber during the fall of 1984 on WCCL. Flights between WCCL and JRR were frequent during this period, and it was suspected that many cormorants were feeding on JRR and roosting at niqht on WCCL. It was assumed that availability of gizzard shad, greater in JRR, and the availability of roost sites, greater on WCCL, were responsible for this.

64 90 80 I mWCCLIJRR*...---.-WCCL

---

JRR I I% 40 Total 30 20 10 I I I a I -k S O N D Month J F M Figure 20.Double-crested cormorant usage comparisons between Wolf Creek Cooling Lake and John Redmond Reservoir fran September 1984 through March 1985.

65 A total of 23,799 double-crested cormorants was observed on WCCL (Table 10). Cormorants counted during 1983-1984 consisted of 14 percent of the total surveyed during the 1984-1985 season. The JRR total during 1983-1984 was 13 percent of the 1984-1985 number. Based on this, the increase of double-crested cormorants on 1ZCL observed during the 1984-1985 monitoring was due to an increase of these birds in the general area.Of the cormorants using WCCL, siqnificantly (p=0.05) greater numbers were observed in location A during the fall of both 1983 and 1984 (Table 11).Most of the standing timber used by roosting cormorants was present within location A and this was why most birds preferred this area of WCCL.Spring usage by cormorants was not as well defined as during the fall seasons. No difference was detected for the spring of 1984, however, location A was used greater (p=0.05) than all locations except E during.the spring of 1985 (Table 11). Abundance of roostinq areas in location A was most likely responsible for this difference.

Also, the nesting colony in location A, as previously reported (Kansas Gas and Electric 1983, 1984a), was maintained with 12 nests built durinq the spring of 1985.Transmission Line Collision Study Collision survey data revealed 30 mortalities representing 10 species (Table 12). This represents a 25 percent increase over *the 1983-1984 results. No threatened or endangered species were found. Durinq February 1984 the Rose Hill line was constructed over the Firing Range Cove (Fiqure 1) and no increases in impaction mortality were observed (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a). During the 1984-1985 surveys, however, 58 percent of all mortalities observed in the Firing Range Cove were associated with the Rose Hill line. The 69 kv and Benton line were associated with 23 and 19 percent respectively of the Firing Range Cove mortalities.

Reasons for these results were not clear.

Table 12.SPECIES LIST, AREA, AND NUMBER OF MORTALITIES ORSEMREJ DURING COLLISION SURVEYS OF WOLF CREEK COOLING TAKE FROM SEPTEMBER 1984 TO APRIL 1985.Month Species Cemetary Firinq Cove Ranqe Cove September November February Blue-winged teal Great blue heron Blue-winqed teal Unidentified duck Gadwall Bird sp.American coot Red-tailed hawk American crow Greater prairie chicken Unidentified Duck Great blue heron Eastern meadowlark Mallard Bird sp.Brown thrasher 2 1 9 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 April 1 2 1 Total Waterbird Other 3 1 4 19 7 26 67 The most comimn positively identified species observed were qreat blue heron (Ardea herodias) and blue-winqed teal (Table 12). Most specimens found of all species were either partially or totally scavenged with many beinq represented by feathers only. Of the birds found that were not, all were determined to have collided with the power lines. Since all specimens were associated with the lines, death of these birds were considered, for the purposes of this report, to have been caused by line impaction.

As with the 1983-1984 data (Kansas Gas and Electric 1984a), most mortalities were observed in the Firing Range Cove with 6.5 incidents observed per month compared to 1.0 in the Cemetary Cove. The hiqher number of lines in the Firing Range Cove was considered responsible.

Twenty-five percent of those individuals identified were not water-related species, and were considered incidental.

One could expect to find similar mortalities under hiqhlines that are not associated with WOCL. These oercentaqes observed were similar between locations (Table 12). This was also evident during the 1983-1984 surveys. This indicates no selectivity in the type of birds susceptible to collisions between the two areas.Several supplemental collision observations were witnessed by site biologists.

These birds were startled by various means and flew among the hiqhlines.

Flock sizes involved were estimated from 50 to 400 birds during five separate events. Transmission line collisions by 13 ducks were observed.

Of these there were six of unknown species, three mallard, three- qadwall, and one wiqeon. Only five of these birds were killed out-riqht by the imoaction.

Most of the remaining birds either recovered fully before fallinq to the qround or were able to swim away.Most, if not all, ducks struck the lines while flying over water.Several variables affecting documentation of mortality exist using the survey techniques employed.

Weather, timing of surveys, vegetation camposition, and scavenqing have been reported as hampering mortality discovery (Anderson 1978, Northern States Power Company 1978, Humberq et 68 al 1983). Physical weather conditions, with respect to wind direction, most likely decreased mortality evidence.

Northerly winds would have carried most, if not all, of the birds landinq on the water af.ter colliding with the power lines away from the study area. Surveys performed after periods of clear, mild weather may not have detected potential collision events caused by inclement weather. Anderson (1978)reported increases in mortality by line impaction due to adverse weather and poor visibility.

Veqetation under the lines decreased the observers ability to detect dead or crippled birds. Most of the area surrounding WCCL under the hiqhlines was native tallgrass which was relatively dense possibly hiding sane collision events. Scavenginq by mammalian and avian species was considered one of the most probable variables hamoerinq mortality detection.

Sane studies have shown approximately half of all bird deaths were removed from or consumed on the study area (Northern States Power Company 1978, Humberq et al 1983). The coyote (Canis latrans) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor) were the most conmon mammalian predators evidenced within the study area. Specimen losses in this study attributal to scavengers are unknown, however, most of the birds found had been scavenqed.

Taking these variables into account, the collision mortalities observed on W'LM represents a minimum count only. Since total numbers and species observed between the 1983-1984 and 1984-1985 studies were similar (24 versus 30) the survey techniques used are considered to be an accurate method of obtaining an index of the number and conposition of birds killed. The total number of mortalities observed camprised only 0.I Percent of the maximum count of waterfowl and waterbirds usinq WCCL.This is canparable to 0.4 percent of maximum count total (calculated fran assumed collision rates) reported by Anderson (1978). Due to this small percentage, it was concluded that the transmission facilities associated with W(CCL did not cause sufficient avian mortality to be considered oroblematic during the preoperational period of WCGS.

69 Mammals Twenty-three mamnalian species were observed or evidenced durinq the 1984-1985 monitorinq (Table 13). The evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis) was the only species not previously documented.

All sightings were observed incidentally and no specific surveys were performed.

No mammalian species listed as threatened or endangered were observed near W2GS during the 1984-1985 monitoring program. Since monitorinq .began in 1973, 31 species have been recorded at or near the %rGS project (Table 13).Various species of mammals, sane uncomnon to the area, were observed on WCCL during various field activities.

Beaver (Castor canadensis) and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus) were comion along WCCL shorelines.

Mink (Mustela vison) were also frequently observed among the riorap areas of the lake's dams and baffle dikes. The seclusion, aquatic plant growth, relatively clear water, and consistant water level provided by WCCL enhanced the usage by these species.Herpetofauna Sixteen herptile species were recorded durinq the 1984-1985 monitorinq (Table 14). Two of these species, prairie skink (Eumeces septent-rionalis) and Graham's crayfish snake (Reqina grahami) have not been previously documented.

All specimens were supplementally observed and no specific surveys were performed.

No threatened or endangered species were observed near WCGS. Since monitoring began in 1973, 33 herDptile species have been observed near the WGS project.

---

--_TABLE 13. MAMMALS OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK (ENERATING STATION, 1974-1984.

Year___ _Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Virqinia opossum Didelphis virginiana S. short-tailed shrew Blarina carolinensis Least shrew Cryptotis parva Eastern mole Scalopus aquaticus Red bat Lasiurugs borealis x ---x -x -x -x ---x Evening bat Nycticeius humeralis

---

Eastern cottontail Sylvilagus floridanus X X X X Woodchuck Marmota monax ....Thirteen-lined ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus

....Fox squirrel Sciurus niger' X X X X Plains pocket qopher Geanys busarius ....Beaver Castor canadensis

-X --Western harvest mouse _R~el--

megalotis

-X --Deer mouse Peramyscus man icdlatus x -x x White-footed mouse Percmyscus leuCopus X X X X Hispid cotton rat Sicgnod nhispidus x x x -Eastern woodrat NeOtcma floridana

---

Prairie vole Microtus ochro aster x -x -Woodland vole Micr6tus pinetorum x ---Muskrat Oi a-i zibethicus

---

Norway rat Rattus norvecicus

--House mouse Mus musculus --X -ioyote -ais iatrans x x x x Fox Vulpes or Urocyon sm. ----RacCxoon Procyon lotor X X X. -Lonq-tailed weasel Mustela ta ----Mink Mustela v I s o n Radqer Taxidea taxus ....Striped skunk Mephitis hmieFitis x --BobCat Fel fs --x White-tailed deer N iT eus-virginianus X X X X x x-x x x-x x x-x-x-x x x-x x -x x x x x -x x x x x .X-x x x x x x x x x x a_x x-x x x x x x x x x-x x x x x x x x x-- x x x-- X x x x x x x x x x x---x---x x --xýx x x x

---

--TABLE 14. HERPETOFAUNA OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING SrATION, 1974 -1984.Year Cammon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 American toad Great Plains toad Rocky Mountain toad Blanchard's cricket froq Western chorus frog Cope's gray treefrog Northern crawfish frog Bull freq Plains leopard frog Rio Grande leopard frog Northern snappinm turtle Eastern ornate box turtle Map turtle False map turtle Westetn painted turtle Red-eared turtle Western spiny softshell Ground skink Prairie skink Prairie lined racerunner Western slender Bufo americanus Bufo cognatus Bufo woodhousei Acris crepitans Pseudacris triseriata Hyla chrysoscelis Rana areolata Rana catesbejana Rana pipiens Rana berlandieri Chelydra serpentina Terrapene ornata Graptemys geo.raphica Graptemys pseudogeorap~hica Chryseiys picta Chrysemys scripta Trionyx spiniferus Leiolopisma laterale Eumeces septentrionalis Cn--idophorus sexiineatus x x x x x x x x x ,x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x -x x x xx x x x x x x X X-K-x K x x x x x x K K K x x x x K x x glass lizard Ophisaurus attenuatus Eastern yellow-bellied racer Coluber constrictor Black rat snake Elaphe obsoleta Bullsnake Pituophis melanoleucus Prairie kirgsnake Lampropeltis calligaster Speckled kingsnake Lampropeltis qetulus Red-sided garter snake WThnghis sirralis Lined snake Tridoclonion lineatum Texas brown snake Storeria dekayi Grahafn's crayfish snake Regina grahami Blotched water snake Nerodia eryt aster I)iamond-backed water snake Neroia roifera Western massasauqa Sistrurus catenatus--x ----x X K x----x --K ---x ---~~ ----K K K X K-x x --x------K X-~~~~ -x------K X-----~ ----------x -------x ,14 00NCLUSIONS Avian densities and diversity observed during the 1984-1985 monitoring were similar to past preoperational studies. During the 1984-1985 study 145 avian species were documented representing a four percent decrease in species diversity from the 1983-1984 monitoring.

Five new avian species were observed bringing the total number of bird species observed in the vicinity of WCGS to 226 since monitoring began.Establishment of WOCL has resulted in an increase in species diversity observed in the local area. Annual species diversities have increased approximately 50 percent above those observed prior to lake filling.This was expected as the lake provided numerous waterbird habitats while upland areas supported similar bird populations present prior to lake filling.Threatened or endangered species observed included the Bald Eagle, interior least tern, and prairie falcon. Bald Eagles were common winter residents using ."CL primarily as a feeding and loafing site. The interior least tern and prairie falcon migrate throuqh the area and can be expected to be observed in the future.Fifty-six water-related species were observed on the cooling lake during waterfowl and waterbird surveys. Large numbers utilized WCCL during migration and a general increase over 1983-1984 results was observed.Most species observed used JRR to a greater extent than WCCL.Of the ducks observed on both reservoirs, generally WTCL fall usage approached that of JRR for the earlier migrant species, such as blue-winged teal, American wigeon, and gadwall. The presence of pondweed on WCL was believed most responsible.

Winter populations were similar between WCCL and JRR, however, greater numbers were observed on WCCL for short periods of time when the lake provided ice-free water not as prevalent on JRR. Spring ducks were attracted to JRR almost exclusively over WCCL. Rising JRR water levels compared with stable WCL levels was thought responsible.

73 John Redmond Reservoir attracted the largest number of geese in the area. Canada goose numbers on WCCL increased during all preoperational study years. A trend toward greater usage of WCCL by these birds, though not necessarily to the expense of JRR usage, appears to be developinq.

Waterbird usage was similar between the two lakes. American coots used WCCL to a much greater extent than JRR. Pondweed development was thought to be the primary reason for this. nouble-crested cormorants used both lake similarily.

It was apparent that JRR provided easier foraging habitat while WCCL supplied roosting and nesting sites.Preferences of five designated locations within W70CL were generally towards greater usage of pondweed areas. Areas providing protection from winds, close proximity to agricultural fields, and ice-free water were also heavily used by various species.Large concentrations of waterfowl and waterbirds were observed leaving WCCL to feed in adjacent areas. Large numbers of ducks, especially mallards, and qeese using W0CL fed on waste grains on agricultural fields in the local area. Frequent flights of double-crested cormorants were observed trading between WCCL and JRR. Finally, large concentrations of Franklin's gulls roosted on VMCL dispersing during the day to forage throughout the area, especially at the Coffey County sanitary landfill.No disease pathogens associated with all of the concentrations were identified.

Problems with excessive crop depredations due to waterfowl consumption were not apparent.

No transmission line collision events associated with these flights were observed.Results of collision surveys revealed similar mortality rates to those previously documented.

Ten species were identified during the study.Twenty-five percent of the total observed were not water-related birds and were considered incidental.

No threatened or endangered species were found during these surveys. It was concluded that collisions with transmission facilities associated with WCCL did not cause sufficient avian mortality to be considered problematic.

74 Twenty-three mammalian and 16 herptile species were documented of which one mammal and two reptiles not previously reported.

No threatened or endanqered species were observed.The only construction-related effect of CGS identified by preoperational wildlife studies has been the increase in avian species diversity.

Because the additional species observed are primarily water-related, the increase is directly attributable to the creation of ICCL. Many species unconmmon to the area have been sighted on or around the lake since it was filled. Although inundation displaced terrestrial species inhabitina the lake basin, no reductions in local wildlife populations were realized.Avian collisions with transmission lines continues to not be a major problem at WGS. Land management activities on the site environs have enhanced local wildlife populations.

LITERATURE CITED Alexander, W.C. and J.D. Hair. 1977. Winter foraging behavior and aggression of divinq ducks in South Carolina.

Proc. Annual Conf. of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 31:p. 226-232.American Ornitholoqists' Union. 1982. Thirty-fourth supplement to the American Ornithologists' Union checklist of North American Birds.Auk 99.Anderson, W.L. 1978. Waterfowl collisions with power lines at a coal-fired power plant. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 6(2):p. 77-83.Bee, J.W., G.E. Glass, R.S. Hoffman, and R.R. Patterson.

1981. Mamnals in Kansas. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

3n2 pp.Bellrose, F.C. 1976. Ducks, Geese and Swans of North America. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pa. 540 pp.Chabreck, R.H., R.K. Yancey, and L. McNease. 1974 Duck usage of management units in the Louisiana coastal marsh. Proc. 28th Annual Conf. of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Aqencies.

35:p. 38-48.Chabreck, R.H. 1979. Winter habitat of dabbling ducks -physical, chemical, and biological aspects. pp. 133-142 in T.A. Boodout, ed.Waterfowl and wetlands -an integrated review. North Central Section. The Wildlife Society. 152 pp.Collins, J.T. 1974. Amphibians and Reptiles in Kansas. University of Kansas, Lawrence.

283 pp.Cornwell, G. and H. A. Hochbaum.

1971. Collisions with wires -a source of anatid mortality.

Wilson Bulletin, 83(3):p. 305-306.Craven, S.R. and R.A. Hunt. 1984a. Fall food habits of Canada Geese in Wisconsin.

Journal of Wildlife Management.

48(1) :p. 169-173.-----1984b. Food habits of Canada Geese on the coast of Hudson Bay.Journal of Wildlife Management.

48(2):p. 567-569.Duke, R.W. and R.H. Chabreck.

1975. Waterfowl habitat in lakes of the Atchafalaya Basin, Louisiana.

Proc. Annual Conf. of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

29 p. 501-512.Duncan, D.B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics ll:p. 1-42.GGasaway, R.D., S. Hardin, and J. Howard. 1977. Factors influencing wintering waterfowl abundance in Lake Wales, Florida. Proc. Annual Conf. of Southeastern Fish and Wildlife Agencies.

31:77-83.

76 Huqhes, J.H. and E.L. Young, Jr. 1982, Autumn food. of dabblinq ducks in southeastern Alaska. Journal of Wildlife Management, 46(1) :p. 259-263.Humberg, D.D.,D. Graber, S. Sheriff, and T. Miller. 1983. Estimating autumn -spring waterfowl nonhunting mortality in north Missouri.Transactions of the Forty-eiqhth North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.

p. 241-256.Johnsqard, Paul A. 1985. Dabbler and Divers, in Birds of Nebraska.NEBRASKA land, 63(l):p. 126-135.Johnson, F.A. and W.G. Swank. 1981. Waterfowl habitat selection on a multipurpose reservoir in East Texas. Proc. Annual Conf. of Southeastern Assoc. of Fish and Wildlife Agencies 35:p. 38-48.Kansas Administrative Regulations.

1983. Nongame, threatened or endangered species. Article 23-17 p. 524-525.Kansas Gas and Electric.

1974. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environ-mental Report (Construction Permit Stage). Wichita, Kansas. 4 Vols.-- 1981. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report (Operating License Staqe). Wichita, Kansas. 2 Vols.1983. Wolf Creek Generating Station Construction Phase Wildlife Monitoring Proqram, May 1982-April 1983. 35 pp.1984a. Wolf Creek Generating Station 1983-1984 Pre-operational Phase Wildlife Monitoring Report. 48 po.1984b. Wolf Creek Generating Station 1983 Preoperational Fishery Monitoring Report. 81 pp.1986. wolf Creek Generating Station 1984 Preoperational Fishery Monitoring Report. pp.Kansas Ornithological Society 1982, Checklist, bird of Kansas, fifth edition, Kansas Ornithological Society publisher.

Keith, L.B., and R.P. Stanislawski.

1960. Stomach contents and weights of saoe flightless adult pintails.

Journal of Wildlife Management.

24:n. 95-96.Middlebrooks, Joe E. 1976. Statistical Calculations.

How to Solve Statistical Problems.

Ann Arbor Science Publishers, Inc. Ann Arbor Michigan.

120 pp.Northern States Power Company 1978. Prairie Island Nuclear Generatinq Plant, Environmental Monitorinm Proqram. 1978 Annual Report.Minneapolis, Minnesota.

77 Paulus, S.L. 1982. Feedinq ecoloqy of Gadwalls in Louisiana in winter.Journal of Wildlife Manaqement 46(1) :r. 71-79.Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zim. 1966. Birds of North America.Western Publishing Co., Racine. 340 pp.Schwartz, C.W. and E.R. Schwartz.

1981. The Wild Mammals of Missouri.University of Missouri, Columbia.

356 pp.Siegfried, W.R. 1972. Ruddy ducks colliding with wires. Wilson Bulletin.

84(4):p. 486-487.Stout, I.J., and G.W. Cornwell.

1976. Nonhuntinq mortality of fledged North American waterfowl.

Journal of Wildlife Manaqement.

40(4):p.681-693.Terres, J.K. 1980. The Audubon Society Encyclopedia of North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York. 1110 pp.Thompson, D. 1973. Feedinq ecology of diving ducks on Keokuk Pool, Mississippi River. Journal Wildlife Management.

37:p. 367-381.U.S. Department of Interior.

1984. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, Code of Federal Regulations, Title 50, part 17.U.S. Department of Interior.

1985. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants, interior population of the Least Tern to be endanqered; final rule, Federal Register, 50(102):p.

21784-21792.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1982. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No.1. Docket No. SIN 50-482, NJREG-0878.

Appendices for 1984-1985 Preoperational Wildlife*Monitorinq Report for Wolf Creek Generatinq Station APPENDIX A. AVIAN SPECIES OBSERVED NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1974 -1983.Year ________Conmmon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Comon loon Pied-billed grebe Horned grebe Eared grebe Western qrebe American white pelican Double-crested cormorant American bittern Least bittern Great blue Heron Great eqret Little blue heron Cattle egret Green-backed heron Black-crnd.

night heron Yellow-crnd.

night heron White-faced ibis Tundra swan Ojr. white-fronted qoose Snow goose Canada qoOse Wood duck Green-winqed teal American black duck Mallard Northern pintail Blue-winged teal Cinnamon teal Northern shoveler Gavia inmer PoTiyibug pod iceps Podiceps aur-itus Podiceps nig'ricollis Aechmnophorus occidentalis Pelecanus eryirorhynchos Phalacrocorax auritus Botaurus lentiquirnosus Ixobrychus exilix Ard'ea "hero3dias Casmrodius albus Egretta caerul-a Bubulcus ibis Butorides-g-riatus Nycticorax nycticorax Nycticorax violaceus Plegadis chihi C~~nu ol-5mianus Anser Chen caerulescens Branta canadensis Aix sponsa Anas crecca Anas rubripes Anas plathVrFhynchos Anas acuta Anas d-is-ors Anas _. ptera Anas clypeata x X X X x x x X x X X X X x x x x x x x x x X x x X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x "x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X x x x x X X X X X x x x x x X X X x X x x x x x X X x x x X x X X x X X X X x xý4 ko1 APPENDIX A (CONT.)Year Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 r-1981 1982 1983 1984 Gadwall American wiqeon Canvasback Redhead Rinq-necked duck Lesser scaup Oldsquaw Surf scoter White-winged scoter Common goldeneye Bufflehead Hooded merganser Common merganser Red-breasted merganser Ruddy duck Black vulture Turkey vulture Mississippi kite Osprey Bald eagle NOrthern harrier Share-shinned hawk Cooper s hawk Red-shouldered hawk Firoad-winqed hawk Swainson 's hawk Red-tailed hawk Iough-legged hawk American kestrel Anas strepera Anas americana A~yt--avalisineria Aythya. americana Ay--h-ya affinis hyaa alis Meaitta perspicillata Melanitta.

fusca Bucephala albeola Lophodytes cucullatus Mergus merganser Mergus serrator Oxyuraa jamaicensis Coragyps atratus Cathartes aura Ictinia mississipplensis Panion haliaetus Haliaeetus leuaoFephalus Circus cyaneus Accipi"-_ter striatus Acip-iter coO5eril Buteolineatus Buteo platypterus Buteo swainsoni Buteo jamaicensis Buteo Tap s Falco sparverius x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x'C X XC XC X XC x'C'C'C'C'C x x'C'C'C'C x x x x X x X X x x x X x X X X x'C X x x x x x x X X x x x x X x cO 0

---

APPENDIX A (CNT.)Year ___Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 198n 1981 1982 1983 1984 Merlin Peregrine falcon Prairie falcon Ring-necked pheasant Greater prairie chicken Northern bobwhite King rail Sora American coot Sandhill crane Black-bellied plover Lesser golden plover Senipalmated plover Killdeer American avocet Greater yellowlegs Lesser yellowlegs Solitary sandpiper Willet Spotted sandpiper Upland sandpiper Hudsonian qodwit Ruddy turnstone Sanderlinq Sernioalmated sandpiper Western sandpiper Least sandpiper White-rumped sandpiper Baird's sandpiper Falco columbarius Falco peregrinus Falc-o mexicanus Phasianus colchicus Tympanuchus cupido Colinus virginianus Ralius el-egans Porzana carolina Fulic americana Grus canadensis PluvialiS squatarola Pluvialis daminica Charadrius sgiipaimatus Charadrius vociferus Recurvirostra americana Tringa meianoleuca Trini flavimessolitaria Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Actitis macularia Bartramia lonqicauda Liosa haemastica Arenaria interpres Calidrisa--l Calidris puis----lla CaidriS mauri Calidris mivniu--illa Calidris fuscicollis Calidris bairdii X x x X x X x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X x X X X X X X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X x x X X X X X X X x X X X X x X X x X X x X X X X X x X x X X X X X X x X 0o APPENDIX A (CONT.)____ Ya Ccmawn Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Pectoral sandpiper Dunlin Short-billed dowitcher LOng-billed dowitcher COmmon snipe American woodcock Wilson's phalarope Parasitic jaeqer Franklin's gull Ring-billed gull Glaucous gull Herring gull Caspian tern Forster's tern Least tern Black tern Rock dove Mourning dove Black-billed cuckoo Yellow-billed cuckoo Barn owl Great horned owl Snowy owl Barred owl Long-eared owl Short-eared owl Caonon nighthawk Chimney swift Ruby-throated hummingbird Calidris melanotos calidris alpina LimA-dau-s griseus.Limnodrcmus scolo-paceus, Gallinago gaTinago, Scolopax mio Pha__a tricolor Stercorarius arFasiticus Larus pipixcan Larus delaware nsis Larus hyperboreus Larus argentatus Sterna caspia Sterna Sterna antillarurq (h'l-dnias niqer C'olumba liv-1-a Zenaida macroura Coccyzus erythropthalmus Coccvzus americanus Tyto alba" Ny-tea scatdiaca Strix varia A-o otus minor Chaetura pe Arhilochus colubris x X X X X x x X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x I X x X x x x x x x X_x x X X x x x x x x x X x x x X x x x x x X x x x x X x x x x x x x x x X x x x x X x x X x x X x x X X x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X xK x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x'K'K'K x x x x x x X x x x'K 'x x x x x x x x X x X'K x x 00 NI

--- -APPENDIX A (CONT.)Year C6fton Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Belted kingfisher Ceryle alcyon Red-headed woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus X Red-bellied woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus X Downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens x Hairy woodpecker Picoides villosus X Northern flicker Colaptes auratus x Pileated woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus x Olive-sided flycatcher Contopus borealis Eastern wood-pewee Contopus virens x Willow flycatcher Empidona" tra-llii Least flycatcher UiEidonaxminimuus X Eastern phoebe SayornisphoebeX Great crested flycatcher Myiarchus--httus x Western kinqbird Tyrannus 'verticais x Eastern kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus X Scissor-tailed flycatcher TyrannUs forficatus x Horned lark Eremophila Ualpestris X Purple martin Proxne subis x Tree swallow TachycinetaFbicolor x N. rough-winged swallow Stelqidopteryx serripennis Bank swallow ria aria Cliff swallow ian p oata x Barn swallow Hirando rustica X Blue jay Cyanocitta cristata X American crow Corvus brachyrhynchos X Black-capped chickadee Parus atricapillus x Carolina chickadee Parus carolinensis Tufted titmouse Parus bicolor White-breasted nuthatch S1-E 5catroiensis x x x x x x x x x x x x X. x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X x X X x x x x x x x x x x x x~ x ~x x x x x x x x .x x x x x x X x x X X X x x X x x x x x X x x x x x X x x x X x x x x x x x x'C .xx x X, X X x 'C 'C 'x XC ' X X XC X 'C X x x x x x X..X x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x (-x X X x x x X X X'C XC x x X X x X X X x X x x x X X x X x x X X X'C x X X'X X X x x x APPENDIX A (CONT.)Year Caimon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1Q83 1984 Brown creeper Carolina wren House wren Winter wren Golden-crowned kinglet Ruby-crowned kinqlet Blue-qray qnatcatcher Eastern bluebird Veery Wood thrush American robin Gray catbird Northern mockingbird Brown thrasher Water pipit Cedar waxwing Northern shrike Loggerhead shrike European starling Bell's vireo Solitarty vireo Yellow-throated vireo Warblinq vireo Red-eved vireo Nashville warbler Northern parula Yellow warbler Chestnut-sided warbler Magnolia warbler Certhia americana Thryothorus ludovicianus Troglodytes aedon Troglodytes trodytes Regulus satrapa Regulus calendula PoloEptila caerulea Sialia sialis Catharus; Fusescens Hylocichla mustEel ina Turdus miqratorifus D--etelFa carolinensis oxotama ruftu Arithus spinoletta Bii"yilla cedr-oru Lanius excubitor E ludovicianus st-rnus vulgarils Vir£eo. bellii-r us-sitarius Vir- favlf1o5ns Vieo gilvus Virec81oN-eus Parul-a -ciericana pet-echia Denroica pensylvanica Dendroica magnol ia x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x *x x x x x x x x x X .X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x X X X x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x.x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x APPENDIX A (CC)MT.)-Ye-ar Common Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 Yellow-rumped warbler Blackburnian warbler Bay-breasted warbler Cerulean warbler Black-and-white warbler American redstart Ovenbird Northern waterthrush Kentucky warbler Cowmnon yellowthroat Wilson' s warbler Summer tanager Northern cardinal Rose-breasted qrosbeak Blue qrosbeak Indigo bunting Dickcissel Rufous-sided towhee American tree sparrow Chipping sparrow Field sparrow Vesper sparrow Lark sparrow Savannah sparrow GrasshoiPer sparrow Fox sparrow Song sparrow Lincoln's sparrow Swamp sparrow Dendroica coronata Dendroica f Dendroica castanea Dendroica cerulea Mniotilta varia Setophaga Seiurus aurocapi ls Seiiurus noveboracensis Oporornis formosus Geothlypis trichas Wilsonia pusilla Piranga rubra Cardinals cardinalis Pheucticus ludoiicianus Guiraca caerulea Passerina cvanea Spiza americana Pii6erythrop;htalmus Spiela arborea Spizella passerina Spiziela pusilla Pooecetes gramineus Chondestes gramnacus Passerculus sardwichensis Amnodramus savannarum Passerella iliaca Melospizamelodi Melospiza lincolnii Melospiza qeorgiana X X x X I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X x X x X x X X X x X X X X x X x X x X X x x X.X x X X X X X X X X x x X X X X X x X X X X X X X X X X x x x x X X X X X X X X X X X x x X X X X X x X X X x X X X x X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X X.X X X X X X X x X x X x x X X x X x X X X X X X X X x X X X X N X X X X X .0 Ln APPENDIX A (CONT.)Year Camnon Name Scientific Name 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 White-throated sparrow Zonotrichia albicollis White-crowned sparrow zonot-ricia leucophrys Harris' sparrow Zonotrichia querula Dark-eyed jun~o Junco hyemalis Lapland lorgspur irius laTponicus Smith's longspur Calcarius pictus Snow bunting Plectrophenax ni-- valis Bobolink DOMi chonyx oryzivTorus Red-winged blackbird Aqelalus phoeniceus Eastern meadowlark Sturnela magna Western meadowlark Sturnella iiýThcta Yellow-headed blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus Rusty blackbird Euphagus carolinus Brewer's blackbird Euphaqus cyanocephalus Great-tailed grackle Ouiscalus mexicanus Common grackle Quiscalus uii scula Brown-headed cowbird Molothrus ater Orchard oriole Icterus swurius Northern oriole Icterus oalbula Purple finch Carpodacus purpureus Pine siskin -r lspinus American goldfinch Carduelis Tr1-tis House sparrow Passer dimesticus x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X x x x x x x X x x x x x x x x x x x x X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x ýx x X x x x X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X x x APPENDIX B. SPECIES LIST, RESIDENCY STATUS AND METHOD OF OaSERVANCE OF AVIFAUINA NEAR WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1984-1985.

Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status(l)

Survey Survey Observation Common loon M X X Pied-billed grebe S X Horned qrebe M X Eared grebe M X American white pelican M X Dbl .-crested cormorant S X X Great blue heron S X X Great egret M X Little blue heron M x Cattle egret M X Green-backed heron S X Tundra swan M X X Gr. white-fronted qoose M X Snow qoose M X Canada noose P X X Wood duck S X X Green-winged teal M X American black duck M X X Mallard P X X. X Northern pintail M X X Blue-winged teal S X X Northern shoveler M X Gadwall M X X X American wiqeon M X X Canvasback M X Redhead M X Rinq-neCked duck M X Lesser scaup M X APPENDIX B (C(rr.)Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status (1) Survey Survey Observation Common qoldeneye M X Surf scoter M X White-winged scoter M X Bufflehead M X Hooded merqnaser M X Common merganser M X Red-breasted merqanser W X Ruddy duck M X Turkey vulture S X Osprey M ' X Bald eaqle W X Northern harrier P X Sharp-shinned hawk M X Cooper's hawk M X Red-tailed hawk P X X X Rough-leqqed hawk W X American kestrel P X Merlin M X Prairie falcon M X X Greater prairie chicken P X x Northern bobwhite P X Sora M X American coot P X X Black-bellied plover M X X Killdeer S x American avocet M X Greater yellowleqs M x Lesser vellowlegs M X Spotted sandpiper S X APPENDIX B (CONT.)Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status(1) Survey Survey Observation Upland sandpiper S X Sanderling M X Western sandoiper M X Semipalmated sandpiper M X Common snipe M X Woodcock S X Wilson's phalarope M X Parasite jaeqer M X Franklin's gull M X Rinq-billed qull M X Glaucous gull M X Herrinq gull M X Caspian tern M X Forster' s tern M X Least tern M X Black tern S X X Rock dove p X Mourninq dove XP Barn owl P X Great horned owl P X Barred owl P X Short-eared owl W X Common nighthawk S X Chimney swift S X Ruby-throated hummingbird S X Belted kingfisher P X Red-headed woodpecker P X Red-bellied woodpecker P x Downy woodoecker P X'.O APPENDIX B (CONT.)Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status (1) Survey Survey Observation Hairy woodpecker P X Northern flicker P x Pileated woodpecker P X Eastern wood-Pewee S X Eastern phoebe S X Western kingbird S X Eastern kingbird S X Scissor-tld.

flycatcher S X Horned lark P X Purple martin S X Tree swallow M Y N. rough-winged swallow S X Barn swallow S X Blue jay P X American crow P X Black-capped chickadee p x Tufted titmouse P X White-breasted nuthatch P X House wren S X Golden-crowned kinglet M X Blue-gray qnatcatcher S X Eastern bluebird P x American robin S X Gray catbird S x Northern mockingbird P x Brown thrasher S x Water pipit M X Cedar waxwing M X Loggerhead shrike P X IO APPENDIX B ((XNT.)Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status(i)

Survey Survey Observation European starlinq P X Yellow-rumped warbler M X Ccmmon yellowthroat S X Northern cardinal P x Indiqo bunting S x Dickcissel S X Rufous-sided towhee P x American tree sparrow W x x Chipping sparrow S x Field sparrow P x Lark sparrow S x Grasshopper sparrow S X Song sparrow W x Swamo sparrow M X White-crowned sparrow W X Harris' sparrow W x Dark-eyed junco M X Smith's lonspur M X Snow bunging W X X Red-winqed blackbird P x Eastern meadowlark P X X Yellow-headed blackbird M x Great-tailed qrackle S x x Cammon qrackle S x Brown-headed cowbird P X Northern oriole S x Pine siskin W Xý2 A~PPENDIX BR (CXNT.)Residency Waterfowl Collision Supplemental Species Status(l)

Survey Survey Observation American qoldfinch P x House sparrow P X (1) M = Miqrant P = Permanent resident S = Sumer resident W = Winter resident A63/64 9 ~/2rcY/A Ao(c FORM KLF-LE3, REV. heet 1 of 4)No. 96-02 EPP DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGE EVALUATION Summary of Design or Operational Change PMR # NA Rev. NA (if applicable)

This is an evaluation of potential environmental impacts due to access construction and public fishing on Wolf Creek Lake. The EPP (Section 3.1) requires such evaluations be prepared and recorded.

The results of this evaluation demonstrate that no EPP concerns or limitations exist with the access development.

Documents which define the level of environmental impact previously evaluated by the NRC.Final Environmental Statement (FES-CP) Related to Construction (NUREG-75/096)

Environmental Report -Operating License Stage. (ER-OLS)Final Environmental Report (FES-OLS)

Related to Operation (NUREG-0878)

Does this design or operational change involve measurable nonradiological effects outside the onsite areas disturbed during site preparation and plant construction?

Yes X No Explaatnam The construction that is required within the lake ( ie, like ramps and breakwaters) is considered to have been disturbed by inundation.

However, the parking lot and roads will affect areas not previously disturbed by plant construction.

Consequently, the lake access project is not exempt from the EPP evaluation requirements (EPP section 3.1)Does this design or operational change constitute an unreviewed environmental question?An environmental question must meet one or more of the following criteria to be classified as unreviewed.

A. Does this change constitute a matter which results in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated by NRC?Yes No x Explanaton Environmental impacts related to the cooling lake and associated structures was previously evaluated and the impacts were considered acceptable.

A portion of the proposed access site has been previously disturbed by lake construction, thus is exempt from EPP concerns.

The EPP allows additional construction activities on areas not previously disturbed as long as potential impacts are evaluated and do not significantly affect the environment (EPP section 3.1). This evaluation fulfills this requirement and demonstrates that no significant increase in adverse impacts over those previously evaluated should be expected.

This evaluation covers four main areas of potential impact. These are water quality concerns, construction outside previously disturbed areas, angler harvest impact to the fishery, and human disturbance impacts to the bald eagle.In section 2.1 of the EPP, the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for permit needs related to aquatic issues. These issues were addressed in the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USCOE) review of the project, FORM KLF-LE3, REV. 4/9T(Sheet2of4)

.which determined that dredge and fill activities are authorized under nationwide permit (NWP) No. 26 (USCOE permit and supporting documentation attached).

Conditions of NWP No. 26 require state water quality certification and response from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE)address compliance with on-site waste water disposal and stormwater pollution control requirements.

To comply with these conditions, WCNOC plans to construct the sewage disposal system for the restroom facilities in accordance with the Coffey County Sanitary Code. In addition, a stormwater pollution prevention plan will be implemented to ensure water quality is not affected.It is expected that any impacts due to the park's construction activities outside areas previously disturbed by plant construction will be insignificant or nonexistent.

This conclusion is based on the independently completed Draft Environmental Assessment for the Development of Public Fishing at Wolf Creek Generating Station by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). A copy of this assessment is attached.Public recreation access was assessed in the ER-OLS (Section 2.8.2) and no adverse environmental impacts to the fishery were identified at the time (1979). No significant adverse impacts is expected from the current proposal, either. In the original ER-OLS review, the greatest economic benefit would be from joint fishery development by WCGS and KDWP (then Kansas Fish and Game Commission).

It was expected that this relationship would promote a trophy fishery, the biology of which would reduce roughfish numbers. The expected fishery was also credited with reducing the plant's adverse fish impingement impacts to the fishery simply by keeping gizzard shad numbers lower in the lake. Gizzard shad typically are vulnerable to impingement at power plant intakes. What actually happened was that WCGS funded and developed the fishery with technical assistance from the KDWP. The plant desired a fishery high in predator numbers and diversity to keep shad numbers down. However, this was not to keep shad impingement mortality down, but to prevent the operational problems that could be caused by excessive impingement and clogging of the intake screens. Consequently, angler harvest impacts to the existing fishery were analyzed extensively when creel and length limits were set for the lake. In general, the limits should prevent adverse impacts by allowing only harvest of the largest and oldest individuals.

Brief justifications for the limits are as follows: White bass (2/day > 14 inches): The primary reason a length limit was placed on white bass was to protect the wiper hybrids.Many anglers have difficulty telling white bass and wipers apart. Identification is easier after the fish reach 14 inches. If smaller white bass were allowed to be harvested, incorrect identification would subject the wipers to harvest before they reach their optimum size for controlling shad.Wiper (1/day > 24 inches): In Wolf Creek Lake, wipers have been very important for controlling shad and the optimum size based on historic length frequency distributions (Figure 12) has been between 500 and 600 mm (approximately 20-24 inches). Wiper populations are not self-sustaining, consequently WCGS has invested and plans to continue investing in the replacement wiper stockings.

The 24 inch length limit for angler harvest was set to protect the investment and to help ensure that the wipers will be protected in the optimum size range where they have been most effective at controlling shad. As mentioned above, white bass limits were set to help ensure that smaller wipers survive to reach the optimum size. Wipers larger than 24 inches have generally been older individuals that were not expected to survive much longer and thus their removal would not impact shad control benefits.

The optimum size could change if higher shad numbers increase wiper growth and expose higher numbers to harvest. Future monitoring will determine if this occurs and angler limits will be altered accordingly.

Smallmouth bass (1/day > 18 inches):

FORM KLF-LE3, REV. 4/49Sheet 3 of 4)Smallmouth bass were the dominant shoreline predator and were abundant on the riprap. Setting the 18 inch limit would promote catch-and-release and encourage a trophy fishery. A trophy smallmouth bass fishery would be unique for Kansas.Largemouth bass (1/day > 21 inches): Largemouth bass have declined in number in the lake over the past few years. Setting the length limit at 21 inches would be essentially no harvest based on spring electrofishing results. No impacts to the largemouth population was expected to result from angler harvest.White or Black Crappie (2/day > 14 inches): Very few lakes have a crappie length limit so high. Setting the limit at sizes common to the rest of the state (commonly 9 or 10 inches) would expose a very high percentage to harvest in Wolf Creek. It was desirable to keep a larger average size of crappie in Wolf Creek Lake to add diversity to the predator population.

There was an ample number of > 14 inch crappie in the spring fyke net catches.Walleye (1/day > 21 inches): This length limit was set to maintain the walleye in the lake essentially as is, indefinitely.

Walleye may not be as efficient shad predators as wipers or white bass, but do add variety to the predator base allowing the them to compensate for variable shad reproduction success.Catfish, Channel, Blue, and/or Flathead (2/day any size): Catfish generally were not considered primary shad predators in the lake. Consequently no size restrictions were thought necessary.

The low creel limit should spread the catfish harvest over more anglers without impacting the population.

Adverse disturbance of bald eagles by increased human activity is a potential impact. This issue was also addressed in the US Fish and Wildlife Service response to the USCOE dredge and fill permit application (attached).

However, construction and operation of lake access are expected to minimize this potential impact. First, only 50 boats per day will initially be allowed on the lake thus reducing eagle disturbance, especially those using the lake in the winter. Second, the heated discharge area of the lake will remain closed for public fishing and this area is an area where wintering eagles tend to congregate.

Third, shoreline anglers will be limited to 50 per day and will be restricted to the access park shoreline only, which is about 3/4 mile. This shoreline is greater than 500 yards from the nearest established eagle nests. Finally, plans are to follow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation and exclude, via buoys, boat access to within approximately 300 yards from active eagle nests. In addition, monitoring and reporting of angler disturbance of the bald eagle will be completed and any necessary mitigative actions to reduce disturbance will be taken. These are conditions of the NWP No. 26 authorization.

B. Will this change constitute a significant change in effluents or power level?Yes No X Explanation:

This project is not directly related to the effluents or power levels of WCGS and is not expected to impact them.C. Will this change constitute a matter not previously reviewed and evaluated in licensing documents which results in a significant adverse environmental impact?Yes No X Explanation:

Public recreational access was assessed in the ER-OLS (Section 2.8.2). Obviously, not all of the facets of the current proposal were specifically addressed in the Licensing documents, but have been addressed in question A above.

FORM KLF-LE3, REV. 4/'Sheet 4 of 4),Explanation:

Public recreational access was assessed in the ER-OLS (Section 2.8.2). Obviously, not all of the facets of the current proposal were specifically addressed in the Licensing documents, but have been addressed in question A above.Overall determination of unreviewed environmental question.Yes No X Explanation:

An unreviewed environmental question does not exist because increases to previously evaluated impacts are not expected, effluent or power levels are not affected, and no previously unreviewed adverse impacts are expected.Does this design or operation change necessitate an EPP change?Yes No X Explanation:

No change required.Does this design or operation change constitute a decrease in the effectiveness of the EPP in meeting its objectives?

Yes No Explanation:

No fundamental change will occur which will alter the EPP requirements for such evaluations.

All criteria and assumptions in the EPP remain valid.If this design or operation change has been determined to be unreviewed with significant environmental impact or constitute an EPP change, a written evaluation must be submitted to the NRC and approval received PRIOR to initiation of the change.Is transmittal of the evaluation required to the NRC? (If yes, retention required for the life of the plant.)Yes No x If Yes: Transmittal approved:

0 A Transmittal date: Evaluation prepared by: 10" i /Pr-effrev--

Dite 'I SEM approval:

1 L .[ ?// 'SEM Date 0 STATE OF KANSAS 0 DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & PARKS Office of the Secretary 900 SW Jackson, Suite 502 Topeka, KS 66612 913/296-2281 FAX 913/296-6953 12 January 1996 Dear Concerned Conservationist of Kansas;Pursuant to requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks announces the release of a draft environmental assessment entitled "The Development of Public Fishing at Wolf Creek Generating Station." The project proposes to provide public fishing access to the 5,100 acre cooling lake associated with the Wolf Creek Generating Station in Coffey County. The proposed project developments include a parking area, boat ramp, breakwater, restroom, associated connecting roads, and an entrance station. The proposed project will allow controlled public access to a high quality sport fishery.We encourage you to provide comments regarding this assessment to: Federal Aid Coordinator, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks, 900 Jackson, Suite 502, Topeka, KS 66612. Comments should be received by January 26,1996 at 5:00 p.m.Sincerely, Steve Williams Secretary DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT for THE DEVELOPMENT OF PUBLIC FISHING AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION As Required by The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks 900 Jackson, Suite 502 Topeka, KS 66612 Steven A. Williams Secretary January 12, 1996 The Development of Public Fishing at Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Assessment 1.0 Purpose and Need

1.1 BACKGROUND

Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was constructed in the late 1970's, as part of the construction of Wolf Creek Generating Station, a nuclear-fueled facility for generating electricity.

An Environmental Report was prepared.

The document was used to analyze environmental effects and to obtain all construction permits. The lake was filled in 1980 through 1982 by pumping from the Neosho River and natural rainfall.

The station is owned by Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E), Kansas City Power & Light Company, and Kansas Electric Power Cooperative, Inc. This facility was built by KG&E, and is now operated by the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) as agent for the owners.The 5,100 acre lake provides water for cooling the station's main condenser and other systems. The lake is located in the mid-section of Wolf Creek about 5 miles above the confluence with the Neosho River. During the construction phase of the lake, KG&E decided to develop a sport fishery, the planning for which took place during the pre-impoundment stages and during lake filling. With technical assistance from Kansas Fish and Game Commission, the fishery was planned and developed.

Several large construction water supply ponds were treated with rotenone and then restocked by KG&E with fathead minnows, largemouth bass, and bluegill.

The major fish stocking took place during the years that it took the lake to fill. The fish species that were stocked were largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, wipers, striped bass, bluegill, black crappie, walleye, channel catfish, blue catfish, flathead catfish, and fathead minnows.Prior to dam closure all of the company-owned area of the Wolf Creek stream was treated with rotenone and all of the ponds on the property were also treated to remove undesirable fish species as well as reduce competition for the newly stocked game fish. The fish population that was stocked was predominately predator fish. This was to reduce gizzard shad numbers that could cause severe impingement problems in the rotating intake screens through which the intake water flowed to the plant to cool plant components.

All fish that were stocked were purchased from commercial fish growers. No fish were stocked from state or federal hatcheries.

Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was formed by impounding Wolf Creek, an intermittent stream, approximately 8.8 kilometers upstream of its confluence with the Neosho River. A surface elevation of 1087 Mean Sea Level is maintained by precipitation and make-up water pumped from the Neosho River below John Redmond Reservoir about 1.5 miles away.WCNOC attempts to limit water surface elevation fluctuations to two feet. Wolf Creek Lake is located in Coffey County, approximately 3 miles northeast of Burlington, Kansas (see Figures I and 2). The lake has an average depth of 21 feet and a maximum depth of 90 feet. The whole site encompasses 9,818 acres, of which 5,100 acres is the lake utilized for cooling during station operation.

The remainder of the site is composed of range, leased cropland, former cropland, and woodland typical of southeastern Kansas.

SITE LOCATION The applicant plans to locate Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) and its associated coolino lake in Coffey County, Kansas, approximately 75 miles south-west of Kansas City, 53 miles south of Topeka, and 90 miles east-norrteast of Wichita, Kansas, as shown in Fig. 2.1. Figure 2.2 shows the relationship of the site to thesurrounding area. The Immediate Plant area is shown in Fig. 2.3.ES -2 55 N IOWA 1 NEBRASKA KANSAS TOPIKA CITY KANSAS*COF'FVY/ OUNTY MISSOURI D!WICMITA OKLAHOMA ARKANSAS 2Asa MF C"eIW9 MNs 4ImelU;lig STV, ULOIC~AL NMIa.loITU 5* 15 I --...C.a S I FIX Fig. .A. Regional site location.

Source: ER. Fig. 2.1-1.

FISHING ACCESS AREA (PROPOSED)

U$7 edmo IvoiT a 0 DREDGE DEPOSIT AREA a a W.,. ý -.Creek eseeroi Figure 2 The composition of the fishery was originally designed to prevent catastrophic ,impingement problems by gizzard shad on the plant's water intake screens. This design hias succeeded.

The current shad population has been influenced by the stocking efforts, and now influences the character of the existing fishery. Predator growth rates were high initially, which is common in new reservoirs.

Growth rates have moderated due to normal lake aging processes, low shad numbers, and loss of fish in the predominant year class at the time of stocking.

Good natural recruitment is evident for largemouth bass, srnailmouth bass and walleye. Gizzard shad densities have been held to very low numbers and were almost non-existent during summer seine hauls. This is due to the current balance, in which the shad population reproduces and recruits sufficiently to maintain the predator populations' numbers and health, which in turn sufficiently control the shad.Public fishing has not been allowed on the lake but trespass is co mmon. The lake is a very clear water impoundment and will continue to produce good natural recruitment of all species except wipers.1.2 PROJECT NEED During the past year WCNOC and its owners have agreed to allow public access to the fishing on Wolf Creek Cooling Lake. An agreement has been reached with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and Coffey County to cooperate in development of facilities that will provide boat and shoreline fishing at the Lake. Although there are ample areas available for access for public fishing in the surrounding area, much of it is of poor quality. This project will take advantage of an opportunity for sport fishing on a very high quality lake with little impact to the balance of the existing fishery. The overriding issue when managing the fishery will be to maintain a high predator population to control gizzard shad.An increasing human population in the area and a poor quality fishery at John Redmond Reservoir have resulted in more demand for sport fishing than is available to the public.The lake is within 100 miles of at least one-half of the state's population.

The high quality sport fishery already exists at Wolf Creek and construction of access facilities will allow proper use. A single point of entry will allow complete control of the number of anglers and harvest of fish.1.3 PROJECT OBJECTIVES This project will provide public fishing access to a 5, 100 acre cooling lake.Objectives:

1) Allow approximately 5 0 boats with a maximum of 4 anglers per boat per day.on a high quality sport fishery.2) Allow approximately 50 shoreline anglers per day to use the lake.3) In addition to fishing, provide* the ancillary opportunity of a quality outdoor-experience and good bird watching potential to anglers using the lake.

1.4 PROPOSED ACTIONS Facilities will be constructed to provide convenient and efficient use of the lake by anglers.An improvement of an existing county road will bring traffic to a check-in station. A parking area, boat ramp, breakwater, a boat pier and associated connecting roads will be constructed.

An entrance station (guard house), rest room, a picnic area ,and a foot path for shore anglers will compliment the access area. A boundary fence is needed to control access and a warning system is needed to notify anglers of emergencies.

A patrol boat will be provided by WCNOC for KDWP law enforcement activities, such as angler checks and rescue potential.

These improvements will increase angling potential in the state which is an objective of the Kansas Wildlife and Parks Operational Plan.The lake contains a high density of large predator fish. These fish will provide excellent catch and release potential with a selective harvest. Those species with high recruitment will be targeted for harvest and those species with lower recruitment potential and longer life span potential will be used for catch and release fishing and limited trophy harvest.This project will allow for management of the current fish population.

Management activities will include on-going monitoring and stocking by WCNOC as needed. WCNOC will have final say on management activities, as no activity may take place that is detrimental to the operation of the power plant. Selective harvest will be used to maintain the current high quality fish population with monitoring through creel census. Creel and length limits will be enforced by Kansas Wildlife and Parks Officers.They will also enforce boating and trespass laws.Extent of access will be controlled by WCNOC, and Coffey County will be responsible for the reservation system. The reservation system will be used to allow equal opportunity for all anglers wanting to use the lake. Entrance will be allowed on based on a random drawing. Season limits will be placed on each angler for number of trips. If the daily quota is not filled, drive-up anglers will be allowed. One day per week may be allowed for facility maintenance.

Several days per year may be reserved for fishing tournaments.

All facilities will be handicapped accessible.

Construction of the facilities will be by private contract with oversight from Kansas Wildlife and Parks. The contracts will be handled by WCNOC. Coffey County will build the access road to the entry gate. Once the facilities are constructed, the operation and maintenance will be the responsibility of WCNOC. WCNOC, in consultation with KDWP will recommend special creel and length limits, which, after review by the KDWP Comission, will be implemented by Secretary's Order. Informational literature will be provided by a committee of all three participants and be printed by the county. Access will be allowed when the facilities are completed.

1.5 LAWS, GOALS, DIRECTIVES, AND INTER-RELATIONSHIPS Kansas Wildlife and Parks is mandated by law, under KSA 32-702, as follows: "It shall be the policy of the state of Kansas to protect, provide and improve outdoor recreation and natural resources in this state and to plan and provide for the wise management and use of the state's natural resources, thus contributing to and benefiting the public's health and its cultural, recreational and economic life." The KDWP mission statement also directs the Department to "provide for increased angling opportunity and to assist communities and other public entities to develop their public fishing opportunities". (A Plan for Kansas Wildlife and Parks Strategic Plan 1991).The purpose of the lake is to provide cooling water to the Wolf Creek Generating Station.Any other use is secondary.

Because it is a nuclear-powered facility, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has jurisdiction to regulate the plant's safety and security.There will be certain areas around the plant intake and discharge area that will remain closed to public use. Those areas will be delineated by boundary fences and buoy lines.Waste water discharges to the lake are regulated by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

The water quality is continually monitored and the proper discharge permits are obtained.

The lake takes makeup water from John Redmond Reservoir, and water is purchased from the Kansas Water Office. The use of the lake by the public will have minimal impact on these permits.In order to reverse the trend in declining fishing quality in large eastern Kansas reservoirs, it is appropriate to develop the fishing opportunity at Wolf Creek Cooling Lake. Because a high quality fishery already exists it would be cost-effective to provide access. It would be compatible with the use of the cooling lake if access is controlled and fish harvest is selective.

1.6 CONCERNS, ISSUES, OPPORTUNITIES This project will provide access to a high quality freshwater sport fishery in a large warm water impoundment.

Of the 5,100 surface acres on the lake, over 4,000 will be open to boat fishing and nearly one mile of shoreline will be open to shoreline anglers. Safety and plant security will not be compromised by this project. A warning system to notify anglers of any area evacuation orders will be installed.

A patrol boat will be available to provide rescue and reconnaissance.

As a regulatory requirement, WCNOC provides for monitoring contaminants from background or plant operation as an on-going program, in a similar manner to the NRC and Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) cooperative scope. The KDHE, Environmental Radiation and Emergency Preparedness Section, Radiation Control Program, Bureau of Air and Radiation, publishes an annual report titled "Environmental Radiation surveillance in Kansas July 19xx -June 19 xx." This document reports the findings of their routine environmental surveillance program, a large portion of which is monitoring at Wolf Creek Generating Station. A total of 74 stations are monitored for such parameters as air, direct radiation (TLD), surface water, ground water, drinking water, sediments, rooted aquatic plants, algae, milk, biota including fish, soils, food products and vegetation (See figures 3 and 4). Findings under this program are that no unusual sample analysis results above normal background or above expected, regulated levels..." have been detected (most recent report in hand is through June 1993, with 1994 just out).Another concern for traffic safety at the turn-off from U. S. Highway 75 is being addressed.

It will be reconstructed to the standards of the Kansas Department.

of Transportation for intersections with low turning movements.

This standard calls for I pIGUTRE 3. AIR. MMI-. WATER, AND DIRECT RADIATION (TLD) MONITORING LOCATIONS SFY 1994 Q ~R A i(m10 misz) Highway 75 (-5S Adff)1p1 rf III 'I Fromi- --Environmental Radiation Surveillance in Kansas , July 1993-June 1994 I RGURE 4 SOL. SED ~.BIOTA..FISFLAND Vi~GI~fAiLUNMtjNsItJkIk~L, i.~-.~.. .* .Jrr 3 FIUR -4 SOL ERr ,BOA IHADVEeAiLNmflLUUk

.10nae) Highway 7SA i °9 ter"m E anas , " N , tt From: Environmental Radiation Surveillance in Kansas,. July 1993-June 1994* ~ '~~~1gr either a paved or stabilized aggregate shoulder deacceleration lane for right turn movements from U. S. 75. No third lane will be provided at the western end of the improvement.

A third, or center turning lane, will be provided at the eastern end of the project to accomodate left turns into the proposed development area. Permitting and construction of this road will be handled by the Coffey County.Public access will be controlled by a reservation system to reduce congestion and retain an aesthetically-pleasing fishing experience.

A check-in will be required to make sure that only the daily quota of anglers is allowed on the lake. A creel census will be conducted at the check station to monitor harvest, recreation use, and enforce creel and length limits.The lake will be closed to overnight use. There is an excellent camping area on John Redmond Reservoir that is seldom filled and motels within a 30 mile radius of the lake are available.

There is also a modem small airport within 5 miles of the access point for fly-in anglers. There is also interest by local businesses of building a motel and restaurant with possible boat rental and tackle shop.Bald eagles have been observed using the lake for both wintering, and for nesting in the summer months. In several of the past few years, one nest was located in a wooded cove in close proximity to the proposed project. In 1994, the site was abandoned (cause unknown), but a new area on the other side of the lake was used for nesting. Areas that have bald eagle use will be protected from entry by a buoy line in the water. Winter usage of the lake by eagles is common. They will be able to use the closed areas without disturbance as well as the 30,000 acres on nearby John Redmond Reservoir that the eagles have historically utilized.

Areas that experience the most documented use are closed to the public. Public usage should not impact any other federal or state listed threatened or endangered species of fish or wildlife.Public access to the lake has had local support for the past 10 years. The support has been from sportsmen as well as businessmen.

Very little opposition has surfaced.

Lbcal and State support from politicians has increased over the past several years. Now support of the WCNOC and its owners has made this project possible.A very thorough environmental assessment was made in 1974 of the overall generating station project, and the surrounding environment prior to plant construction, and is available for review at the plant and county offices. A private assessment of public access was contracted to Hazleton Environmental Sciences Corporation of Lincoln, Nebraska in 1979. The feasibility study indicated that it would not be of benefit to the operators of the plant to build and maintain public use on their own.

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT The project site is approximately 40 acres. The site was a crop field prior to acquisition for the original power plant project. It was reseeded with a perennial mixture of native warm-season grasses, after lake construction.-There is a small amount of woody vegetation.

Shallow areas along the shoreline have emergent vegetation, and there are some small areas of Etmageton (pond weed) where the boat ramp will be built. This represents less than one tenth of one percent of the shoreline of the lake.2.1 FLOODPLAIN Normal operating level of the cooling lake is 1087.0 MSL.Creek should result in the following:

Peak Flood Flows of Wolf Creek Peak flood flows of Wolf Recurrence Interval (years)Peak Flow With Cooling Lake m3/s cfs Maximum Cooling Lake Water Level (MSL)Meters Feet 2 10 100 8 14 26 290 497 928 331.86 332.02 332.17 1088.78 1089.31 1089.80 (From Table 4.4. Peak Flood flows of Wolf Creek, Final Environmental Satement related to the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No- U. S. NRC, 1982)Because of the low relief on the project area, the boat ramp, breakwaters, and part of the parking lot are within the 100-year flood plain.2.2 WETLANDS The shoreline, where shallow, has cattail stands. A small wetland (less than .05 acre), dominated by sedges, has developed in an area that appears to be the remnant of a terrace that did not drain properly.

Small pockets of pondweed dot off-shore areas.2.3 RECREATIONAL USE Currently, the entire Wolf Creek property, except for an Environmental Education Area (north of 17th Road and west of the lake) is closed to public recreation.

2.4 LOCAL ECONOMY The community in the vicinity of the project site is rural agricultural, with low population density. The estimated 1980 population of this community was 4727. (FES, 1982). The current census bureau population for Coffey County is 8559, of which the combined local community population is 5558.*-10--

2.5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES During the initial studies (1973 and 1974) for the construction of the Wolf Creek Generating Station, Hazelton (EA, Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc.) did the ecological studies, with consultation with the Kansas Forestry, Fish and Game Commission, Kansas Forestry extension Service, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, Coffey County Extension Office, and Kansas State Teachers College Personnel.

Part of their findings were as follows:..Seven small mammal species, totaling 81 specimens, were captured during 2,996 trap-nights. White footed mice and hispid cotton rats were most frequently captured...The pine vole, with only one capture, was taken least frequently.

...Observations and signs of larger mammals in the study area indicated that opossums, raccoons, coyotes, eastern fox squirrels, eastern cotton tails, and whitetail deer were relatively common. Signs or observations of an eastern mole, striped skunk and badger were also recorded.

Table B.4 from the Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No- 1 NRC, 1975 is a listing of those species.... Eighty species of birds were observed during the study period. Eastern meadowlarks, red-winged blackbirds, common grackles, house sparrows, and mourning doves were the most frequently sighted permanent residents, while eastern kingbirds, bam swallows, and dickcissels were the most common summer residents.

Of the 80 species of birds recorded, 36 were classified as permanent residents, 29 as summer residents, 10 as winter residents, and five as migrants.

Table B.5 from the Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No 1, NRC, 1975 is a listing of those species.... Nine species of reptiles and amphibians were observed during the study. Bullfrogs and ornate box turtles were the most common. A slender glass lizard, leopard frogs, a red-sided garter snake, cricket frogs, a red-eared turtle, and a Mississippi map turtle were also observed.

Table B.3 from the Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction oa Wolf Creek Generating Station Unit No, 1, NRC, 1975 is a listing of those species....A cumulative total of 3,105 specimens representing 19 orders and 91 families of terrestrial arthropods were collected from the four study sites. (Wolf Creek Generating Station- Environmental Report- 1973- revised 1974- 12975 2.6 VEGETATION The entire project area is crop field that has been reseeded to permanent cover. Warm season invader grasses and forbs have become established.

The area is currently predominantly Kan-lo switchgrass, Indian grass, big bluestem and western wheatgrass, with abundant ironweed (Yemonia baldvyni), and occasional sumac (Rhus.glabh) and raspberry.

Buttonbush and black willow also grow along the shoreline.

American elm is scattered throughout the area. The area is defined on the upland side by treerows that were planted by WCNOC, consisting predominantly of autumn olive and American plum.Table B2 from the Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Wolf Creek Table 5.4. Mammals occurring in the vicinity of Walf Creek Genlerating Station" Culivaud OpenLvln fiji.utI' sniw. ao Awtaatw Conynoan cO lonum Onwfts; inmasarolaug Leasit urwm. Crvorspa Own,.avow B-I ir wi. a rpwtw karnu eErNCI IMIAt. Sc'taua .ouaa Untol tsrism be. Mtyof ALemAqw, Matgiss Drown 0at. MVOng ArdlatU Eastern ttrg 'awj jiwa Sq9 wOvan bet. EDNOwa uws Aa Red oat CLUPW Daniels Mixeovwi t. Lawnsau Cnanwwaa Ewmffn batl. APr cnetna Aumrenom A~oan kealon. P roe"o. ~ane Lonva,. emw., rer Iuswfa s..Mute. Allan" "n, Ani. owmer. Lut. cW ew Below. Troalise aseur Sooui. tkUwk. Sa.Vogepter pswn Smnos satuni. Mocont, pem neoart Coyoste. CA", Isminga Red tea. VU0M AI,.Wbowetue.

Mfannerv mrata, Thwiveen-i-eao vogri ounpsqurw C~t~4eW.n4aa FPotwl.n Wouna scuflU4. C~aoAw jrrialui.ISetter pa totmrea Scww,, CaIrvnretau ESatUSil to. taufrra SaswueT AIPW&Sorg"ern Hty.. lauw'ul Glaircmwirs.Welm Ptlasm alcit.. gooner 'G-ire bwwnere Roda **Cket mottle. Poropneeru nse," sleem n~ary.,, maui.. Retatdnoy t.ttw Westrn nawvm liung. ReppowoaopsvyWe nappose, Oew mtone. Panymnatur

'nufa~unies Wpiraatoarled nolm. pero.wwyu watones NOruw. egauaOooe mom.. OnveftMys MOiPWW Eastern eoosirut.

Neerawnis flaresam Awe rit. Otiriomva Daween"MsPG conmn rat. S~pinoowas helnr ScllOtne Is" emmng.% Sirnelaomys Ce woere Paw alnew. Prwmnear ,,www'we, Muskrat. OnMa~r Id~w.Norwayv rat. Rea fltntiwsculs BlaCk lat. Rama, lenses MoWUi llMine. Alta orulcuAul Meadow Mermng maui. Zjoar Aftafnal Biilalk ftea lackneobut.

LiamS 01000ornwja Estumn cottantai.

Svnsetraga foerwoariag I a x x X x x x x x x x x x x X x x x' Cooe x -Maoitst of sie@ winc jnoa mes was Obseryers by It,. attescanit."Obaemtea of me site C Maoisat rini. .otwes wee: t4snmwr ot ha~smtt: I Gowimalp ly aesausg tat. 12-36 2. rarmlants-w"Isen to. 6-130 I Ubm.autaus tw'etnit.

so 7-11 4 aP"wnnO-wosod tan 2-4 5 Pavmiangs-Oruslstand Sd. S-7 B Farmiano to. 3-1 7 xrmywa-C-Ty to. 2 B. Crmoisants to1 9 Genataliato 2 10 P,aurw-cvwet Us.I I PromSreo I 12. Brannsnstt-woioane-wgiad iss. 7-11 12 Brinnana-eOadiand to. 5-4 1 IC Bnihand to. 2-3 15 woodland so. 2-4 16 Forest us. 1!,S-emonwl o B8 UbtsasriouS vmtlalid UsO.Qe ".so.'0 L.rTttt -it&a.I so. 2-4:1 -wn.t 2 22 Polltw s I .V i owlt Ri P GnsneeA Fwd~ G-drni (o Ift. Mmrt-~S1.

Mw ietntty U.NSin Cumolews.

Button. Mats.f. 1964-i C.Ii~s u,.r~tg.G.,,lerts)

A-nanMMn WAVeld,. Mert., & Bmionent.

As~ Ycrk. 1439.a W, Table 6.5. Birds occurring in the vicinity of the Woll Creek Generating Slteion" at tesulences Ilabilal distribution codes Cultivation field Open pasture Prairie Mixed shrub posture Lowland woods Aquatic I Pied hilled grefie, Podilyrnmbs porficeps Doutsie.c*ested cormorant.

Pha/iactociax surijU d Mallard. An.as platyihynchois Pintail. AA acute Blue-winged teal. Anat discorld Comrvson gohileneve.

Suc ptMsa clariula Bulflehead.

Eucephala albeols Common maegansel.

sfetfui nmirvgnJef Tuskey rult..re, Catharses gured Goshawk. Accipierl gistilis Cooper's hawk, cooperil Sharpslhiired hawk, Accipiter strislus Marsh hawk. Cilrus craenms'floughslegged hawk, Sutto Isopus Aed-tlailed hewk. Outgo iamaicebsis 9 s fledshouldered hawk. OutgO Iinealus Swainsfts's hawk. Outgo ut iitirid Broad winged hawk. Ruseo plaiypterus Golden eagle, Aquila chryauetos Bald eagle, IHatiaeetus leucocephatus Pigeon hawk. Falco columbnariusd Spai sow hawk. Falco 4piwwrhiuSd Greater prairie chicken. Tynmpanuchul crp ido Bobrwhite.

Colinus viugirianusid Common egret. Casmerwodis,9 fbiEt Great blue heron. Ardee hesodiasd Little blue heron. Florid& catrulea Green heron, Ouroaides vireeisd Black crowned night heruo. N, coaresx osyclicaax American bittern, Ootaurms terstipirrsui Least bittern. Iaoblychus eajili Sandhill crane. GOue sanideh&Is Virginia rail. Ratisu limicols Sore. Pofaiaa caroling Black rail. Portaraiu jamaticensise K ijg rail. Ratiuo elegans Comrrni gallinule.

GelliniulA lslrfopua Amesican cooa. Fulics amesicone Killdeer, Characarius vociferusd Upland plover. 8tfaiia loreiicaudr' Spotted sandpi.per.

Act/tis niacuOai American wooilcock.

Phdoheh mrninoe Commion snipse, Capella pallfugo S S W W 20 to 2 2 21 Is 18 tB 3 16 to Is 15 16 3 15 is I IS 2 20 to 2s 21 20 1 20 2 20 II'3 21 2O 21 a 18.XX XX X X X* 1.00. 2.69 740*1.00. 0.3178 X X XX X-0.29. 0.0149 #0.51. 4.9630. #.08' 08.060 01 X 41.00. 2.6974 40.46. 1.8011# 1.00. 2.6974*0.19, 0.0560 Table 3.5 lcontinued)

Tian.of veridenciro I MA f teast teen. Stern albifrorl Rock dove. Co/nmba I/sWad Mourning dove. Zeraidura macroured Yellow-billed cuckoo. Coccyifi anvvkanruas BIacklaulled cuckoo. Cocoryus arythnoplhahrnur Screech owl. Ofti$ ean Great horned owl. 8ub. virpinlarnu, Longteared owl. Asia otues Short-eared owl. As. Iflanmveas Barn owl. Trio alba Barred owl. Soria varia Saw-wh.e owl. Aegolius acodicus Chuck-will's widow, Capr/nwulpin carslnensis Wtippoorwitl.

Caorimulgus vociferie Coon nighthawk, Chordea. minord Chimney Swill. Chaeura pelasicad fluby.throaled humminrgbhd, Archilochus colubris Belied king#isher.

Mepaceryle ac yon Yellow-shatied flicke., Coftples suatdusd Red-bellied woodpecker, Mulaneepe, carolinugi Red headed woodpecker.

MUelnarpes erytflroceptulurd Yellow.-elhed sapsucker, SpAyrapicusa vnrhue Haisy woodpecker.

Dendiocopol SIllsusd Downy woodpecker.

Dondrocopos pubsescenrd Scis.tto ailed flycatcher.

Muscivore lodlicarlad EasterA kingbird.

Tyraennus ryranunusd Western kingtbrd.

Tyrannus verticali Great coesled flycatcher.

Mylarchus criniruld Eastern phoebe. Sayotnis phoebed Acadian flycatcher, Empidonasr viresvens Eastern wood peawee. Confopus vikensd iorned lark, Ec#maphile afpvrrisd Bafn swallow. ffirundro ou.ticic Chll swallow, Proochetlidon pyfrhohola Toe twallow. Irdopsrocne b/coloa Bank swallow, Riparie ripar/a Aot-oh-wiiged twkllow, Slelpdoprer, Fulicolli/s Purple marlin, Pionee ubias Blae iay. Cywaocitra Celstared Blacked tilled magpie, Pica pica CormrsooA crow. COA'ur brahirlbyrlChoad Blackedlcapiled chickadee.

Parir, tericapll7uad Tlfted Iolmnoute.

Pris$ biColotd S P P S S P P W W P P W S S S S S P P P P W P P S S S S S S S P S S S S S S P S P P Habitat distribution code'2 3 12 Is 4 12'3 2 Culuivalion field Open prelute Prel"ri Mixed shrub posture Lowland woods xx-*.16. 0.0062 40.74.0.6232

-0.06,0.0607

• 0.74,0.6232

-0.36.00010

-0.36. O.O01 -0.27.0.0188 40.32, 0.9647 16 13 16 16 3 le 4 4 4 16 4 4 IS 16 4 1 4 2s 2 IS 2 4 18 18 4 4 S.00. 2.6974 Aquatic-0.64. 1,226 -0.29.0.0749

-0.20.0.0001 40.51.4.9530 4100. 6.702 S1.00.2.697 41.00.2.697 t0.65. 4.033 41.00, 9.0263#0.66, 4.033 40. 10. 0.0019 40.10,0.0 019 xx t 1.00, 4.9530 x* 1.00, 9.026-0.02. 1.3283 -0.02. 1.3283 *0.36,0.6491 40.32.0.3283

-002. 1.3263 t0.02.0.2141 0 xx X X-0.29.0.0749

.*0.570.0001

-0.21'0.0896

• 0.21.0.0161

-0.64.1.226

-064.1.225

-0.60.0.7135 i051.4.963

• 0.32.6.909

1. 0.63. 15.145*1.00.2.697 Table. 5.5 Iciantinueud)

Time of residencab Habitat distribution coder Cultivation field Open pasture Prairie Mixed shrub pasture Lowland woods Aquatic Is Whiletbreasetd uthaltch.

Sirta caolingituid Red L. tailed nuthatch.

SiltM ca'aidensls Brown creeper. Certfsl famlrlia House wren. Troglodyles aedrd Bewick's wren. rhoyomare bewrAhil Ca olina wren. Thleyoehorus ludovicianur Long. billed marsh wren. relmmiO4Ute paluatlas SxoeI-billed ma.sh wren. Cisrothorul platengisd Mockingbird.

MimuS polyglosoad Cadmbrd, Dume ella carofinensis" Brown Ihresher, Toxosroma rulum"n Robin. Turdus mistratoriusd Wood thrush. Ifylocichla nrusrelina Eastern bluebird. ,ialia aisfisd Blue-gray gnaltcacher.

Polioptila caerulea Golden-crowned kinglel. Regulus satrapa Cedar waawing, Oombtycilla cdrorum Loqgerhead shrike. Lanius ludovicianusd Slarling.

StuMUS vrulpisd While-eyed vireo. Vieo wriseus Bells vireo. Vireo belijid Yellow-throaled virgo. Virgo flavielons Red eyed vireo, Virto olivaceuvd Warbling vireo. Viro pilvua Black.a/tiA-while.warbler.

Alniaoilta vala Proihojiotary warblet. Prothonotwia cit ea Blue-winged warbler. Vetisivoia pinus Parula warbler. Parula a'aicana Yellow warbler. Deidtohakpetechta Cerulean warbier. Oed/tiOrca ceridea Prairie warhler. Dendroieca discolor OveArbrd.

Semurus aurocapillus Louisiana walie lhrush. SeiuCus motocilla Mamyland yellowthroal.

Ge'othlypts tricha"d Yetlow-lareasted chat. Icteria virtne Kentucky warbler. Opowomnis lOrnosus Hootled warbie. Wilsonis citrina Arhertcan recrlarl.

Srtoel'raga rUrIe-illa House "narrow. Parset, dorrresticrrd Eaewlelen mearwlark.*

StINOrlta14 "ragrd Wesirs niseadowlark.

Sturnella iswylecta Yellow headed hlackbrd.

Xantlhorephalus manthocephalus Red winged Iblacklmd.

Agelasusl hoerttieus d 4 4 4 3 3 4 20 20 1 3 14 I'4 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 15 18 IS 4 12 II 13 4 12 12 12 15'5 4 2 6 2 1#0.42. 2.7010#0.23.0.4500

-0.35.0.0019

-0.44, 0.0841*1.00. 1.3178#0.23,0.4580

-0.35. 0.0019 40.07,0.0101

-0.37* 0.0101#0.85. 4.033#0.13. 0.0713 40.55. 1.013* 1.00. 2.691 S1.00. 9.025.0.32.00005

-0.35.0.2271 40.35.0.0055

-0.67. 1.669 t0.48.0.0424

• 1.00, 9.025.0.49, 3.869 X XX# 1.06. 16.4893 40.67. 1.6692 #0.36.0.2277

• 1.00. 3.611-0.35. 0.2217 #0.32. 1.321 7 0.23. 0.4122 -0.67. 1.669 TOSe 8.6 Icontinuead Time Habitat Mixed of dimtribution Cultivation OPen Prailre hrub Lowland Aquatic ,esidenceb oeaid pure stwoads 0I Braai's biackbard.

Euphapu$ cymnoceph/aus' Common grackle. Ouiscalus quisculai Srowi-headed cowbied. Malat/wus Orchard oriole. lesw$rs sulus d Baltimore o1iole0, lctwu elbulad Scarlet tanager. P/rar 3.o/A'c" SuAnmwr tanager. Pirsang nj/ira Cardinal.

Richmo. dena cwdindasd Rose-bseasted grosbeak.

Phaucticus ludoavciams Evening grosbeak, Hesperwipons vespertline Indigo bunting. Passerinm cynead Purple finch. Carpodsa purpureusd Pine sisk in. Spihus pitos Admericau goldfinch.

Spinis tristisd Dickcissel.

Spism amerkanad Aulous sided towhee. Pipito ory~hrophthdimus Savannah sparrow. Pasewcuitus saondwicishsads G3 asshopper sparrow. Ammodrare savmnna unnmd He"nlow's sparrow, Pausedserbsdus hemnslo/w/

Vesper sparow. Pooetes Famineut Lark sparrow. Choadlestes grammacusd Siae-coloed junco. Junco hyerinatisa Tree sparrow, Spizei " Chipping siparrow, Splaella pawerlne Field sparrow, Spizell psillm'Harris sparrow. Zonotrichia u led Swamp sparrow. Melapwks georglian Song sparrow. MNfospliza melodad Choestnut-collared Iongspur.

Calcarius ornetus Lapland Iongspur.

Calckalu Ioponicue Smhith's 10ftpput, Calcariusp/crus S P S S S S S P S W S W W P S P S S S S S W W S S W W P W W W 2 2 3 4 4 4*. 16 0. 1663 40.16.0.1863

• 0.21.0.0992 4o0e, 0.0037 #0.22,0.8310

• 0.12.0.0364 40.32.0.00065 0.32. 0.0006 x S X 4 4 3 4 3 3 a 3 2 3 4 8 6 3 5 4 3 12 2 2 2 2-4.75. 4.119 40.10. 0.0896 -0.17. 3.0161 40.69. 3.430 S1.00. 0.026 4 1.00. 0.3178#0.10, 0.0270 -0.13.0.0270

-0.51.1.2633 40.10,0.0270 40.11. 0.3128 40.18.0.3128 40.08. 0.0001 X.X X#0.86. 3.199 -0.02. .3203 X "X XX XX.40.02.0.0749 40.18.0.3128

1. 0.06 40.42.2.701

• 0.03,0.0841

-0.37. 0.0101 1.00.1 .3170 he X-0.84.1.226 it X XX Foolnoles and references for Table 0.5"X. tads observed only along 20 mole census route -primary haboIal. XX. birds observed only along 20 mile census rouIe -secondary habitat."Item of residence:

S. summer.W. winter.P. year round.CIfabilte distribution code Number of habitats I. Generally ubiquieous sp. 12-16 2. Fsomland wetland sp. 6-10 3. Ubiquitous ferreslrial sp. 7-1l 4. Farmyard-woodland sp. 2-6 5. Farmland-blushlaud sp. 5-7 6. Farmland sp. 3-5 7. Farmyard-city sp. 2 8. Cropland sp. I 9. Grasslaull sp. 2 1O. Prairie-desert sp. 4 It. Prairie sp.12. Souslfand-woodland-wetland ap. 7-11 I3. Bruslilaod-woodland sp. 5-6 14. Brushland sp. 2-3 1S. Woodland sp. 2-4 16. Forest sp. I Cs 11. Swamp sp. I 18. Ubiquitous welland sp. 6-6 19. River sp. I 26. Lentic wetland sp. 2-4 21. Poold-maish sp. 2 22. Poied sp. I d06netved al site."Cole's index of orlerspecific association; based oar rsumtser of birds silhted along transect (E R. Tables 2.7-32-2.7-351, chi squared value for number of birds sighted along linansecta (ER. Tables 2.7-32-2.7-35).

Sources: t. C. S. Robbins. 0. Brun. anti H. S. Zim. A Guide to Field Idenrtilication

-Birds of North America, Golden Press. New York. 1966.2. H. If. Colhns. Complete Guide to Alherican Wildlife.

Harter arsi Brotheus, New Yok. 1959.3 ft T. Paterson, A Field Gikbe to the Birds. Houghtorn Mifflin Company. Btslon. Mass.. 1941.4. 1. 1. Paterson.

A Field Guede to Western Beds. floughton Mililin Company. Boston. Mass.. 1961.S. R. T. PetersokA A Field Guede to the Birds of Texas. toughiton Mifflin Company. Boston. Mass.. 1963.

8-6 Table 8.1 HwMtslm occurng in the vicinity of Woif Croak Gonerating Station" H Cbitatt Open Mised. Oak- Flood.distibuton C dpastures shrub hickory plain Aquatic code filid prairies pasture forest forest mudDOuPpV0 NechJfUX mOculosus mactdosus SMAnldImOuthed laZmander.

AmbyStoma tlum 4erved tiger Ambystoma hr'inum maYoTrum Plains soatdfoot.

Scahiopus bombilrons Ameirican toed. auto am&ricanus aMSwicafusc Rocky moudntain toad. Bufo wOOdllOu.

wo ldousim 81 ~Ord'% cricket frog. Acrix crepirarts blanchwds Eastern grey tresfrog, Hyl. woricolor varzaccor Western chorus frog. triariete tvispara Great lains narrow-mouthed toad. G~cuophyme ojjt-c"e olivaca Eastern narrow4-mouhed toad. G0goup.wne cwolinejs Bullfrog.

Rana Rio Grand leoperd frog. Rna iDoiers bearfandien Norhernm Crew fish frog, Ran. arwvoira cinrisa.Common turtle. Cheydre Awparitine so pe'n Alligator snoeopng turtle. MAcrcenyx nmmirrun i SinkDoat.

Sternodleeruz odorursia Yellow mud lurtle. Kinorranh'n, flacwscan flavo e'o Thr-towea box turtle, Terr~oene carol~ir bsurnuil Ornma box turtle. rcri.ene ornats or-neae Meso turtle, Graoarmys gpograoisca Missimsspp map turtle. GrOOremny kohni Ouachita imp turtle. G'a0ramyps soudgp"Va.ia ouschionr o False mog titsle. Gropremys psnxfopeha;iCa Western pointed turtle. Chtsrvwnys piera WONl Red-wad turtle. Pmudeunps anotra oelnsene Smooth safhe"l. Trionyx muning Western soiny ,ioftWiell.

Triony, sainier harTweg Eastern collared Ilizard. Croaraphyttis callari. cofigni Eastern eaimle lizard. Holbrooisa Multers perwa Texae horned lima. Phiynooma rWantm Six-lined rcjrunner.

Cnmidorphorna

-,oswas Ground k1ink. Lyoveorm lestwle Five-lined skink, Eumraic fam-c-tui Greet skink. Eurnacis obsolef Southern coat skink, Eunw ana inu'plsuvieli Northam ra, rne skink. Eumecas areenionrls ieopnDtriiMMd Western tioew glass lizard. Ophissurus atmtenuan Oiaemortdicited "eter "eit .Narrix mnolfr' ,whomasbilw Blotchaed weter snake. Nernx aryWnrelstn Northern water snake. Narrio sl'dwon sideckn Graham's water snake. N*'ix grahami Texas brQn snake. Sws. derayi atxane Red-sided ater snake. Thamnonhis sirnai patniestif.

Western plains garter snake. Tharnnapois hRd Wersttern rbbo snake. Tharrnophaa saeiniaprxiinus Central lined snake. rrToidoclonior linvortm w ctwM Eastern hognoe snake, He ioon a plaeynint Plains hognoe make. Heterodon nss.au Ascus Prairie riisgrseck snake. Diedoohis pulsctstt a15V Western 'uorm snake.

&ane PatP Eastern yeilow- elied racer. Coluber cosuome" flawftwi" Eastern toachwhic sneke, dasricophis flartlum Rough gren snake. Ophedryl antM Great plains rat snake. Elaahe yurramn emor Black rat snake. Elanste ooblera Bullsnake.

Pituophis medatwsolus

-" Soockled Lameolrtns soindus holbmoki Aso mick maxe. Lamprmsoris oolat e iatz y*p Prairie kingsneke, Lamnpropolris callipuffr ca~ligmsw'g is 12 22 9 3 17 1 1 1 is is 18 3 3 18 18 18 19 18 18 19 is 10.6 10 3 is 3 3 3 is 3 i3 18 i3 12 18 12 1I 18 3 3 As 3 16 3 15 18 S 3 S 3 3 C.o a F F C F C C 0 C C C C C C 0 F C F 0 C C 0 0 0 F C 0 F 0 0 F F F 0 C C F F F 0 0 0 C C F F F 0 0 C 0 0 C 0 C F C 0 a C F C C-I8-8-7 Table 6.3 (coaelmaed)

Habout cutvtd Open Mixed- Oak- flood.disa btion fed pastres shrub hickory plain Aquatic codel' prairies Pasture foreat foreat Western flat~leaded mnake. rendia Vwdiis hail v.1 3 Northeurn coppernsed.

Afirjao oft eontornrix mckesm 3 0 01 0 C Western -amaug. SV.ourtm catew~aa 0"a~ 11 Timbe rartoesake Crotaiaj horridug homrdda 3 0 0 0 0 Ocurrenc.

cod.: C -C'acwristic ocwurwm.F -FreQuent ocurremnc.

0- Occaional oocxmn aHabitat distribution coda: Number of habit,-: 1. Generally ubiquitous ms. 12-16 2. Famtiand--wetland to. 6-10 3. Ubiquitcus mareeial so. 7-11 4. Fmyu'd--oodland

o. 2-6 S. Farmland--bnstnand so. S-7 6. Farmland so. 3-S 7. Formvard-city W. 2 8. mlads.9. Grandmal m 2 10.

so. 4 II. Prairie U. *12. Bruhhland-modlal--,tiand ad. 7-11 13. rushlmnd.-woodand R. S-8 14. Brushlart so. 2-3 15. Woodt"r op. 2--4 16. Faroes .i 17. SwampD s. I 18. Ubiquitos wqmdld so S-6 ig. R ive M. 1 20. Lentic wvedand op. 2-4 21. Pond.-marV sp. I 22. Pond m3. I tSghted at thesta Sources 1. A. Conam. A FiM Guide , Reptiles nd Amphibians.

Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston. Mat.. 1958.2. H. M. CoUll. Compile Guie to Amencan Widlife, Harper & Brom .Neow York, 1969.3. R. F. Clarke. An Ecoiogical Sa', of Rptile and Amphibi~n in Ows County, Kain: Empoir Stare Rewrch Studies. vol. 7. op.1-62.9.-119-Generating Station Unit No. 1 NRC, 1975 is a listing of codominant and common associate species of climax communities occurring in the vicinity of Wolf Creek Generating Station.2.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Bald Eagles are winter users of the lake. They number up to several dozen at times during very cold weather. A nesting pair used the lake most of the year along with their young in the NE 1/4 of section 2 in the past, adjacent to the project site. However, in 1995, the pair moved to an area across the lake in Section 6. The cause of the move is not known, but could possibly be due to the age and maturity of the birds. No change in lake levels, increase in human presence, or other man-induced changes were made to cause the relocation.

Peregrine falcons occasion the area in the fall.In addition, according to KDWP's "Revised Threatened and Endangered Species Information, effective January, 1993, based on the type of habitat present, the following species do or may occur on the site: American Burying beetle -Endangered nationally

-WCNOC worked with the USFWS to help gather distribution data in 1993. No individuals were found in a survey of their property.

Prefers upland forest and grasslands.

Prefers loose soil in which carrion can be easily buried.Common map turtle -Threatened in Kansas -Presence was verified in the Mlf k Generating Station -Environmental Report -Operating License Stage (1982). Prefers soft substrate with aquatic vegetation and tree-lined banks.Eastern spotted skunk -Threatened in Kansas -within probable range, no verified occurrence.

Prefers forest -upland prairie edge, especially where rock outcrops and shrub clumps are present.Interior least tern -Endangered nationally

-Known to occur currently

-migrating terns have been observed on the lake during operational monitoring by WCNOC. Prefers barren areas for nesting, but can be transients anywhere in the state.Piping plover -Threatened nationally

-Known to occur as a rare seasonal transient at wetlands and impoundments.

Prefers sparsely vegetated shorelines.

Snowy plover -Threatened in Kansas -Known to occur as an occasional seasonal transient or summer visitant at wetlands and impoundments.

Prefers bare to sparsely vegetation shorelines.

White-faced ibis -Threatened in Kansas -One individual occurrence has been observed to date. Prefers marshes, but occasionally utilize shorelines of larger impoundments.

B-14 Table B.6. Rare, threatened, endangsled.

peripheral, status undetermined and sensitive species whoee ranges overlap the site Species Status code'Plant, Mosquito fern. AjOlls mexican. R Water weed. Elode furallti R Sedge. Cames mocrodonta R Sedge. Carer so nMoides aggregate R Soboweed.

Yucca giauca glauca R Prairie white fringed orchid, Habenraia laucophasuf R Hophorn beam, Ostrys virginians R.Owarf hackber. Ceitis renuilolia georliana R Whitlow grass. Drab& brachycarpa R Dodder, Cuscuts pentagons R Gerardia.

romnrshera dens/lora R Aster, Aster onteroonis R Dwarf dandelion, Krigia oppaostifolis R Pineapple weed. Ma'icaria matricarioides R Goldenrod.

Solidao canedensis R Goldenrod. oectoss r.gidiwucut*

R Invertebrates Dee toe mussel, Truncills truncate R Fluted mussel.

corrara R h. Pocketbook mussel. Prop nre caneur R Warty-backed mussel. OuadrOul nodulataf R Young fan-tailed mussel. Cyprowenia abeti R Green snail, Caanoeona subjsolidum R Land snail. Triodopsi cragina R Fish Spotted gar. Lepisaostus amlarus P American eel. Anguilla Postrats Ftt Gravel chub. Hybop$is x-prunctata e.R Blue sucker. Cycdepnsa eongatus r High.finned carpsucker.

CaMiodes a Spotted Sucker. MinytreVla neanoCPe R Riiwr redhorse.

Moxosrome e Freckled madtom. Noturus nocturnriss R Neosho madtom. Norturus olacidus EfR Channel darter. Porcine copelandi R Hesp Eastern narrow-moutrieo toad. Gastrophyrne caro/inersis P.R Northern crawfish frog. Ran& are/ate cirulosa e Alligator snaooing turtle. Macroclemys ternmencki eR Texas horned lizard. PhrynosOma COmutum t Six-lined racerunner.

Crnemidohorus sejxinearus R Ground skink. L ygosoma laterale R Mammasi Mexican freetail bat. Tadarids brass//uws R Mink, Muxefa via"n R Badger, Taxidee raxumh R Gray fox, Urocyon cinereoaaenrestu R Bobcat. Lynx nufus R Woodchuck.

Marnmoa monex r Franklin ground sqiuirret, Cite/lus franklini r Eastern chipmunk.

Tamues strratus e.R Southern flying squirrel, Glaucorrys volanf R Plains harvest mouse, Reithroonriomystmontanu$tf R Northern grasshopper mouse. Onychomys

/eucogaster R Southern bog lemming, Synapromys cooperf R Meadow iumoinq mouse. Zaous hudwnaga R Porcupine.

Ererhihon doratum R N ine-oanoed armadillo.

Dasypus novemcincTna RDouble crested cormorant.

Pha/arocoram auriru 5 d Turkey vulture. CarThartrw aure d a-15 Table 6.6 (continued)

Species Status code'Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis R Cooper's hawk, Accipter wooperil d Sharp-skinned hawk, Accipir striatusa d Marsh hawk, Circus cyaneusb d Rad-shouldered hawk, Butoo lineatus Th Bald eagle Naliaeetrus leucocephalus E Osprey. Pandion haliaetus d Pigeon hawk, Falco columbarimb d Greater prairie chicken. Tlempanuchuscuoido pinnaWa. E.S Great blue heron, Arde. herodimb d Little blue heron. Florid. caerulea S Black-crowned night heron. Njycticorax nycticorax d Arnerican bittern, Sooaurus lesriginosus S Virginia rail, Ra/lus limicola S Black rail. Porzana iAmeiwemns S,R King rail, Re/lus elegans S Common gallinule.

Gallinule dhloropus P Purple gallinule, Potphyrula mnswitinica R Least tern. Sterr a/bifnrors P Barn owl. Tyro siba d Saw-whet owl. Aegolisa acadicuw R Whippoorwill, Caprimnulgua vociferus Th Redheaded woodpecker, Melanerpes eryghrocepialuiSb d Scissor.tailed flycatcher.

Muscivora forficamg d Tree swallow. Iridoprocne bicolor P House wren, Troglodytes aedonb d Bewick's wren, Thrromanes bewickii d Eastern bluebird.

Siali. siaiisb d Loggerhead srike., Lanis ludovicinusb d Blue.winged warbler. Vemsivorp pinus P Cerulean warbler. Oendroica corulea P Prairie warbler, Dendroica discolor P o d warbler. Wilsoni. cirrine P$Rose-breasted grosbeak.

Pheucticus ludovicianus R Hansiow's sparrow, Pasnerherbulus henslowii P Smith's longspur.

Calcanus pictus R&Ststus codle: R

• Rare in upper and middle Neosho River basin.r Rare in Kansas.P -Peripheral to Kansas.S = Species sensitive to habitatdestruction in Kansas.E -Threatenectin the Un ted States.e -Endangered in Kansas but not nationally.

C " Commercial Kansas species which are recommended for protection.

Tb -Threatened in Kansas.U -Status undetermined for United States.d -Declining populations in United States.bSighted by applicant at the prooosed Wolf Creek situ.Sources: 1. U.S. Army, Corps of Engineers.

Tulsa District.

Environmental Inventory and Aswimw7,nt of the Grand lNeoshoi Riwer Basin. Kansag, Misouri, Oklahoma.Arkansas, 1971.2. L. R. Draoer led.). Rare. Endangered, and Excirpared Soecies in Kanas.Sec,*L 1-4. draft (to be published).

3. Red book, U. S. Dept. of Interior, Bureau of Sports Fisheries and Wildlife, Office of Endangered Species and Internal Activities.

Threatened Wildlife of the United Siams. United States Government Printing Office.Washington, D.C., 1973.4. "Announcing-the Blue Lists: An 'Early Warning System for Birds."'Biros 25(6): 1948-49 (1971).5, Kansas Forestry.

F;,;h and Game Commission. "John Redmond Reser.voir: Findings." unpublished findings regarding fisheries 1965-1968.

Supplied by R. F. Hartmann.

Kansas Forestr -Fish and Game Commission.

Whooping crane -Endangered nationally

-known to occur as an infrequent seasonal transient.

Prefers wetlands in level terrain where low, sparse vegetation permits ease of movement and an open view.2.8 SOILS Three different soil types exist on the area (see Figure 3). Kenoma silt loam comprises about 75% of the site, Woodson silt loam 20%, and Dennis silt loam less than 5%.Descriptions of the various types are as follows: Kenoma silt loam -this soil unit has minor extent, and its characteristics are common to the Kenoma soil group. Although used for cropland, most areas show soil loss 'from erosion when cultivated.

Some former cropland has been returned to permanent grass cover. (Kenoma soils -vary in drainage from moderately well to somewhat poor. They are very dark grayish-brown silt loam surfaces and mottled dark grayish-brown silty clay subsoils with very slow permeability.

Thickness ranges from 30 to 60 inches with shales or limestone as substratum).

Dennis silt loam -are moderately well drained, slowly permeable and occur on convex gently sloping upland positions.

They have very dark brown silt loam surfaces, mottled yellowish-brown silty clay subsoils and clayey or sandy shale with occasional interbedded sandstone as the substratum below 60 inches. This soil is moderately extensive and is used mostly for cropland.

Native vegetation is tall prairie grass.Woodson silt loam -soils are somewhat poorly drained and have very slow permeability.

The have very dark gray silt loam surfaces and mottled dark gray silty clay subsoils which overlie sediments that are high in silt and clay and are believed to be a mixture of old alluvium and shale residuum.

Thickness ranges from 40 to 60 inches and normal occurrence is on nearly level to gently sloping uplands. Both croplands and grasslands presently occupy this soil area (Environment view, 1974).All are considered prime farmland soils.2.9 WATER QUALITY The Kansas Department of Health and Environment permits the usage of the surface waters of the lake to Wolf Creek. At the time of the Environmental Report (1972), Wolf Creek predicted that TDS concentrations would be within the limits of tolerance for most aquatic organisms likely to inhabit the lake. Thermal stratification will also occur in the summer. causing anaerobic conditions in the hypolimnion.

Toxicity due to bacterial decomposition is not predicted to occur in concentrations that will harm aquatic organisms.

Sewage discharge (with tertiary treatment) is not expected to exceed a BOD of .5mg/liter, and should have no significant adverse impact. Applications of chlorine to control biofouling of the condensers was designed to be within EPA guidelines.

Total residual chlorine concentrations were not projected and thus not analyzed for impacts. However, due to dilution in the cooling lake, it was predicted that the impacts would be acceptable.

In the NRC staff evaluation, Final Environmental Statement Related to the operation on Wolf Creek Generation Station Unit No I -NUREG-0878Q

("NRC 1982), of Wolf Creek's

-~flC.LI i~~SVILJ~I~

4-~~I .6 LU LI Y r.BMW ~ / __-24-4,.9.4, -ýre 5 If I J-I Environmental Report, water quality impacts presented in the Environmental Report were judged to be valid. Consideration of changes in design flow rates of the station's circulating-water and service-water systems, and additional analysis of corrosion products were made. Further, WCNOC operational use of chlorine is below the forecasted levels, and monitoring has revealed no impacts to the lake since plant operations began.Monitoring of some parameters (mostly concerned with radiological parameters) is done annually by KDHE, results of which are published in the Environmental Radiation Surveillance in Kansas Report.2.10 FISHERY The fish population at Wolf Creek has been monitored since 1982. Table 1 lists selected game fish and length, weight and catch per unit of effort. Details of the sampling program are available on request.2.11 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS The archeological potential of this area was studied in the initial Environmental Report for the Generating Station construction.

The public access -site does not appear to hold any significant high cultural or archeological potential.

In the Environmental Report, there is one published mention of "stone heaps" and pottery found along the -creek banks (Wedel, 1959). Investigation was done by Archaeology Laboratory of Wichita State University.

The archaeological resource is described in the following text: Location:

Section 1, Township 21S, Range 15E.Description:

Surface scatter of stone chips, stone tools, pottery, and fire-altered limestone and sandstone chunks in an area about 60 meters in diameter.

Artifacts collected include two potsherds identified as Pomona ware and two points, one lard point resembling a Pelican lake point, the other smaller identified as a Harrell point.Testing: A test plot Ix2 meters was placed in an open area between the fence row and the cultivated field. Sterile soil was encountered at a depth of 20 centimeters below grown surface. The test extended an additional 25 centimeters into sterile soil. One stone flake and several chunks of fire-altered sandstone were recovered from the plow zone.Cultural Affiliation:

Pomona Focus about A.D. 1000-1500.

Condition:

Site is located in a cultivated field and it has been disturbed to an unknown extent by agricultural activity.

Sub-surface features may be present even though none were encountered by testing.Project Impact: Site was totally inundated by the cooling lake.No known historic sites exist in the area.Ref. (Wolf Creek Envirionmental Report Volume I).

w 0 Table 1: Mean Length, Weight and Catch per Unit Effort of Selected Game Fish in Wolf Creek Lake, 1995 Species Average length Average Weight CPE Gizzard shad 13.0 in 1.0 lb 26/ fall gill net complement night*Channel catfish 16.4 1.6 11 fall gill net complement night Blue catfish 25.3 7.6 1/ fall gill net complement night Flathead catfish 19.9 3.5 0.1/ fal gill net complement night White bass 11.3 0.8 291 fall gill net complement night Wiper hybrid 19.0 3.3 9/ fall gill net complement night Smallmouth bass 12.0 1.0 16/ hour spring shocking Largemouth bass 16.3 2.2 3/ spring fyke net night White crappie 13.0 1.3 5.3/ spring fyke net night Black crappie 11.9 1.0 1.2/ spring fyke net night Walleye 15.9 1.4 16 / fall gill net complement night*One gill net complement is comprised of one each of 1", 1.5", 2.5" and 4" mesh 100' X 8' monofilament gill nets 2.12 ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL COMPONENTS Additional environmental components such as air quality, wild and scenic rivers, and energy/mineral resources have not been specifically addressed in this analysis as they will not be significantly impacted by this project.

3.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE ALTERNATIVES 3.1 PROPOSED PROJECT The preferred site (Figure 5) is across the reservoir from the cooling water discharge.

This area will usually be ice-free due to wind action.This assessment and current engineering are based on development of the following features.

Depending on final financial arrangements, facilities could be reduced. This scenario is the maximum amount of development that will be made under this assessment.

A 300' x 250' parking area, 5-lane boat ramp, one breakwater, a 100 foot pier and associated connecting roads will be constructed.

An entrance station {guard house), rest room facilities, a picnic area, and a foot path for shore anglers will compliment the access area. A boundary fence is needed to control access and a warning system is needed to notify anglers of emergencies.

A patrol boat will be provided by WCNOC for KDWP law enforcement activities, such as angler checks and rescue potential.

The project calls for upgrading about one mile of county road for access by widening driving lanes to 12 feet, paving, and adding 6' shoulders.

The proposed ROW width is 100 feet, 50 feet on either side of the roadway centerline.

In some locations, this will require acquisition of additional ROW ranging from 30 additional feet to none at all (ROW is already 100 feet wide). The elevation of the road will also be increased by up to six feet in an area near an old quarry. The construction and permitting of this part of the project will be accomplished by Coffey County. An additional 3,500 feet of road on Wolf Creek property will be upgraded from all-weather trail to a 24-foot wide road surfaced with AB3, or newly constructed; a turnaround before the guard house will also be built.The entrance road will be widened to 100 feet (with a 25' wide island) on the WCNOC-managed property to accommodate a 12' x 22' guardhouse.

Three spaces for employee parking will also be incorporated into the north side of the entrance road.About 450 feet past the guardhouse, a parking lot with 65 -10'x40' spaces, and 70 -10'x20' spaces ( including 4 handicapped accessible) will be constructed, within a loop leading to all facilities.

The loop has a minimum of 75,000 square feet within it for parking, roadways, and landscaping.

A "stacking" area for those waiting to use the boat ramp will be constructed on the south side of the parking lot.A five-lane, 65-foot wide boat ramp will be constructed on the southeast side of the parking lot. The boat ramp will be constructed by using 200 feet of sheetpiling, and pumping out the area needed for site preparation and construction.

Because of the lack of slope in the area, construction will also include dredging approximately 4;000 CY of material, to be deposited in the lake, 300 to 400 feet out from the end of the boat ramp.

I. ... -.. --ii I*I ,,,, 1,!r .L" ' I *0-,t4"'CAR.'A W~rml i t 0 I l*, * 'qc4 --/6 IUP 41"7

--tA 1WA147f 8 RWIWA7CL -01K F uJ-elf- Y4CDS...A-i/* '... .,"' ' "

S 9 This dredged material will consist of material removed to construct the boat ramp, and to provide sufficient depth to allow boats out into the lake.An 8' by 100' pier is planned 75 feet to the north of the boat ramp. It will be accessible by foot path from the picnic area. It will be supported every ten feet by 6" x 6" posts driven a minimum of 4 feet into the substrate.

The picnic area, consisting of leveled areas and tables, is planned for the treed area just north of the boat ramp, with consideration for existing vegetation when placing facilities.

The foot path will continue through the picnic area at the north-east end of the public access area, and loop back to the parking lot. In all there will be about 600 linear feet of foot trail.The 24'x 24' 8"' restroom building will be accessible, located on the northwest end of the parking lot. A lateral field (septic tank and 400 feet of trench) will be constructed in conjunction with the restroom.

Water and electricity will be trenched in from the local access road, to the gatehouse to the restroom.

Water will end at the restroom, but buried power cable will continue to lights in the center of the parking lot, and then down to the north side of the boat ramp.One -175 foot breakwater to the south of the boat ramp will be constructed.

Estimated fill is 1250 CY. The footprint of the dike is 8575 sq 11, or .2 acre.All public facilities will be handicapped accessible.

Attendant facilities include fencing and a warning system.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 1 -NO ACTION Several other sites preliminarily examined for this project were elimdiated because they did not allow for operation during the coldest part of the winter. The only alternative that is evaluated is No Action.4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCES 4.1 FLOODPLAIN Proposed Project -The boat ramp, breakwaters, boat dock and part of the parking lot lie within the 100-year flood plain. The rest of the facilities will be above that level. Because of the low profile of the affected facilities, and the containment of the 100-year flood within the cooling lake, impacts will be none to insignificant.

No Action -No action will result in no impacts to the floodplain.

4.2 WETLANDS Proposed Project -Less than 300 yards of this shoreline will be impacted by the boat ramp and breakwater.

Some emergent vegetation exists in these areas, but it is sparse. Impacts V) 0 are considered to be insignificant (less than one acre). The small Wetland in the remnant terrace will be filled, but is less than .05 acre.The breakwater is composed of 1250 CY of riprap, with a footprint of 8575 sq feet. The entire length is in less than four feet of water at normal pool, and about 80% of its length is in less than 3 feet of water. Substrate has very sparse to no vegetation.

The impacted area is small (about 0.2 acre), and is currently unvegetated; the additional 400 feet of shoreline created by the breakwater itself will be similar in nature (also unvegetated), but consist of riprap. Impacts are not considered to be significant.

Construction of the boat ramp will require placement of -200 feet of sheet piling, immediately around the boat ramp site. The area will be pumped, site preparation made and the ramp poured in place. The area at theend of the boat ramp will be at least 4 feet deep. Again, because of the current status of this area (shallow, but unvegetated) and the small area of impact (0.1 acre), impacts are not considered to be significant.

Dredged material (4,000 CY) will be deposited in more than five feet of water. For several reasons, it is preferable to deposit the dredged material back into the lake. They are: 1.) If the dredged material is deposited in an upland location, it would most likely be sited north on the project, a minimum of 1000 feet from the boat ramp site, within the area designated for public access. This area. is currently re-established native warm season grass. A berm would be pushed up, and silt fences used to facilitate drying. After material was dried enough to be worked it would be spread and contoured, and reseeded again to native grass. Because of the lack of slope in the area, the berm may be completely surrounding the deposit area. If average depth is 3 feet, the area would be 1.6 acres, accounting for 8,000 cu yds of water and material.

Even though the impacts of this project are not considered significant, this action would almost double the upland impacts of the project. Because the area will be reclaimed, the impacts will be temporary.

2.) If the deposit site is too close to the project area, it will have short term negative esthetic effects. It will be a visual intrusion on the area, heavy equipment will be operated on the area several times after the construction project is completed.

3.) The influx of sedimentation to Wolf Creek is low, because the majority of incoming water is diverted from the Neosho River. Removing the dredged material from the lake will not have any beneficial effects, and leaving it in the lake will not hasten sedimentation.

4.) The cost savings are significant (several thousand dollars).No Action -In time, the small wetland in the remnant terrace will fill in and become less hydric. Shoreline vegetation should not change substantially.

In the ten years that the lake has been in existence, development of shoreline vegetation has been minimal in the impacted area.4.3 RECREATIONAL USE Proposed Project -Opening the area to the public will result in a potential increase in recreational use of 73,000 boating user-days (50 boats per day, a maximum of 4 anglers 0 0 per boat) and 18,250 shoreline angler-days (50 anglers per day). It is anticipated that the area will be used year-round, and at its full potential, for at least the first year it is open.Because it will be managed as a quality fishery, maximum use should continue indefinitely.

The project will also allow a significant amount of non-consumptive use of wildlife viewing and photography that would be compatible with a fishing trip. Recreational use of local facilities is also expected on John Redmond Reservoir and several smaller lakes and parks in the area.No Project -With no project, the area will remain closed to the public and virtually no recreation will take place, as is the current situation.

4.4 LOCAL ECONOMY Proposed Project -This project will have a major positive economic impact on the surrounding area. Anglers will need food, lodging, gas, fishing and camping supplies and additional recreational activities.

Local businesses will benefit and new ones will most likely be built. A dollar figure is not projected at this time, but can be documented as it occurs.No Project -No change would occur.4.5 WILDLIFE RESOURCES Proposed Project -The fishing access area is about 40 acres. Of those 40 acres, about 2 acres will become the parking lot; about 7 acres will be impacted by the road. About 2 acres will be impacted by the picnic area. These areas will be eliminated as wildlife habitat. WCNOC manages approximately 5,000 acres surrounding the lake, for the purpose of benefits to wildlife, and some agricultural leasing. All electric lines will be trenched, eliminating concern for overhead lines. The 11 acres (0.2%) of habitat removed from use should not significantly affect any wildlife species on the area. Because of the minimal loss of habitat, it is expected that no significant impacts to wildlife will occur.Most likely the area is currently used by waterfowl species typical ofeastem Kansas in the winter, due to the open water. These individuals will be displaced, but there are other areas available on Wolf Creek Lake that will have open water, but remain closed to the public, and Flint Hills National Wildlife area is within 6 miles of the site.No Project -No impacts would occur with the no action alternative.

4.6 VEGETATION Proposed Project -Eleven acres of predominantly Kan-lo switchgrass and western wheatgrass will be eliminated with construction of the main features of the project. Some wooded areas will also be impacted by the picnic grounds and the foot trail, but construction of both will be done with consideration f'or the least disturbance of woody vegetation.

Because of the small amount of disturbance to vegetation, lack of known rare or endangered plants, and the history of the area as cropland, impacts are considered to be minimal, (See also Section 4.2, deposit of dredged material in an upland location for impacts to upland vegetation).

No Project -No impacts are anticipated.

The area will continue towards a climax grassland community.

4.7 THREATENED AND ENDANGERED SPECIES Proposed Project -Because of the magnitude of the project, and the amount of similar habitat available, impacts to threatened and endangered species is expected to be minimal.Bald eagle use should not be impacted because of the documented move in 1995.Peregrine falcon use would be displaced to other locations on the lake. The habitat requirements of the remaining species are not well met by the project site, so no impacts are expected.No Project -No impacts would occur.4.8 SOILS Proposed Project -Ten acres of Kenoma loam soils, and one acre of Woodson silt loam will be impacted.

Both types are common in the area, and within the 5,100 acres of WCNOC-managed land. Both are considered prime farmland soils. Alternative sites were not evaluated because the proposed site is the only acceptable location.

However, all soils surrounding Wolf Creek Lake are considered prime farmland soils, so the impacts would be the same, no matter the location.

Kenoma is the predominant -soil type in the area.Because of the small magnitude of the project (11 acres out of 5,000 managed by WCNOC) the impacts to soils is considered to be minimal. Because the project area is under private ownership, SCS will most likely have no objection to the project on the basis of impacts to soils (personal communication, Ron Egbarts, SCS, October, 1995 to KDWP).No Project -No impacts would occur.4.9 WATER QUALITY Proposed Project -No change in water quality is anticipated due to the fact that 50 boats per day, and 50 shoreline anglers is sparse usage for a lake the size of Wolf Creek. The restroom facility will have a lateral field located over 400 feet from the lake, and should not affect water quality.No Project -No impacts would occur.4.10 FISHERY Proposed Project -The sport fishery will be closely monitored, and managed by regulating the number of anglers, number, type and size of fish harvested.

The goal of management will be to maintain a balance of forage and predator fish, manage specific species <e.g.gizzard shad), and to maintain a quality (high catch rate and large average size) fishery, while allowing for public access to the resource.

More specifics of management activities appear in Section 1.4. Therefore, while impacts to individuals will be significant, overall, the impacts to the resource will be carefully monitored, and management actions will take place to avoid any negative impacts.No Project -Growth rates of predator fish will continue to fluctuate around the current level. Populations should remain static (at carrying capacity), within a resonable confidence interval.4.11 CULTURAL AND HISTORICAL ASPECTS Proposed Project -Based on the studies done on the area during the construction of the power plant, no impacts are expected.No Project -No impacts will occur.

5.0 CONCLUSION

S This project offers the opportunity to open a quality, private fishery to the public.Although the scope and scale of the facilities exceed those offered at wildlife areas and fishing lakes, they are comparable with what is offered at State Parks. This is appropriate for the following reasons: 1. Only an administrative fee for the reservation system will be charged. No user fees will be assessed.2. Controlled access is a condition by WCNOC in opening the area to the public.WCNOC selected the consulting engineers, and established the criteria for design of the area. KDWP reserved the obligation and right to approval.

In agreeing to opening the area to the public, WCNOC desires a first-class facility.3. Because of safety concerns, it is important to be able to clear the lake of boats, and the entire access area quickly. Therefore, the boat ramp is designed to accommodate five boats at a time.Although there will be some loss of habitat, it is minor in extent, and the recreational benefits of opening a quality fishery are great.6.0 CONSULTATION AND COORDINATION The entire area in the vicinity of the Wolf Creek Generating Station was subject to an environmental assessment in 1974. That assessment was used extensively in this current assessment.

Actions to update the information are as follows: 1. The Kansas State Historical Society was contacted, and their staff reviewed the project.Their office had no objections to the proposed activity.2. Radiological morntoring is on-going, with cooperating, but separate programs by WCNOC. the NRC, and the KDHE, implemented when the plant started operations.

As reported in Section 1.6. all parameters that are monitored are within regulated levels.3. An on-site inspection was-conducted to-confirm existing vegetation.

0 0 4. Design and specifications for the proposed project are in the final stages.5. DWR, SCS and COE have received the preliminary site plan. KDWP T&E permit personnel and USFWS will be contacted for their permitting needs.

0 Draft review copies were provided to the following groups and individuals:

John R. Dykes, Chairman KDWP Commission 6408 Verona Road Shawnee Mission, KS Tom Warner, Vice Chairman KDWP Commission 5422 Tuttle Cove Road Manhattan, KS 66502 Will Carpenter KDWP Commission Rt 1, Box 85E El Dorado, KS 67042 Mike Rader KS Ornithological Society P. 0. Box 395 Wichita, KS 67490-Bill-Craven KS Sierra Club'Rt 1, Box 195 Lecompton, KS 66050 Tom Swan KS Chapter-TWS Box 331 Mound City, KS 66056 Alan Pollum The Nature Conservancy 3601 SW 29th, Suite 112B Topeka, KS 66614 Kansas Bass Anglers Association Rick Dykstra ,2903 Rolling Hills Drive Milford, KS 66514 Dan Brunetti KDWP Commission 114. S Wright Frontenac, KS 66762 Peg Ann Ranney KDWP Commission 2203 Crescent Dr.Dodge City, KS 67801 Laura Kelly Executive Director Ks. Recreation

& Parks Assoc 705 Jackson, Suite 1003 Topeka, KS 66614 Joyce Wolf Ks. Land Trust 2535 Arkansas Lawrence, KS 66046 Steve Sorenson KS Wildlife Federation 5451 Delaware Wichita, KS 67204 Marc Murrell Outdoor Writers of Ks.705 Quail Dr.Newton, KS 67114 Dr. Ed Martinko KS Biological Survey 2291 Irving Hill Drive Lawrence, KS 66045 Kelly Kincher KS Biological Survey 2041 Constant Avenue Lawrence, KS 66047 Kansas BASS Federation Darrel Crossman 6425 S. West Street Wichita, KS 67233 Chris Cokinos KS Audubon Council 2328 Bailey Drive Manhattan, KS 66502 Steve Harper Wichita Eagle Beacon PO Box 820 Wichita, KS 67201 Lee Queal 1004 West 9th Street Pratt, KS 67124 Mayor of Burlington Dean Kirchner 301 Neosho P. O. Box 207 Burlington, KS 668-0207 Kansas Bassmasters Larry Humphrey 1149 Sandplum Wichita, KS 67212 Gordon E. Stockemer KDWP Commission 100 N. Main, Suite 710 Wichita, KS 67202 John Mickey KDWP Commission 805 Buffalo Ridge Atwood, KS 67730 Ms. Ruth Gennnch KACEE Museum of Natural History University of Kansas Lawrence, KS 66046 KS Natural Resource Council P. O. Box 2635 Topeka, KS 66601 4U Representative Doug Lawrence)02 Miami iurlington, KS 66839 GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Representative Dennis McKinney HC 72 Box 40 Coldwater, KS 67029 Bill Gill U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Kansas Field Office 315 Houston, Suite E Manhattan, KS 66502 James N. Habiger, State Conservationist United State Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service 760 South Broadway Salina, KS 67401 Mary Gessner U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service-FA P. 0. Box 25386 Denver Federal Center Denver, CO 80225 Chief, Env. Rev. & Coord. Sec.U.S. EPA, Region VII 726 Minnesota Ave.Kansas City, MO 66101 Dr. Robert Harder, Secretary Ks. Dept of Health & Environment Building 740, Forbes Field Topeka, KS 66612-1291 Dr. Ramon Powers Ks. State Historical Society 120 West 10th Topeka, KS 66612-1291 Chief, Operation Division CEMRK-OD 700 Federal Building 601 East 12th St.Kansas City, MO 64106 David Pope, Chief Engineer Div. of Water Resource 109 S.W. 9th Topeka, KS 66612-1291 , 0 Hurst, Director r Office*Suite 200 r66612 Ron Bonjour, County Engineer Coffey County Highway Department 110. S. 6th Street, Room 5 Burlington, KS 66839 STATE OF KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE & PARKS Operations Office 512 SE 25th Avenue Pratt, KS 67124-8174 RU 316/672-5911 FAX 316/672.6020 January 18, 1996

Subject:

Substitute page for Draft Environmental Assessment for The Development of Public Fishing at Wolf Creek Generating Station Dear Concerned Conservationist:

Please find enclosed the Preliminary Site Layout Plan for the fishing access at Wolf Creek Reservoir.

An older version was mistakenly included in the Draft Assessment that was sent to you.S Please substitute this plan for the one on Page 28. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Sincerelv, Laure! D. Yasui Pianning Division cc. Steve Williams, Secretary, Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks Till l F-Ei Ij1 LLI eA .ii , ,(.I : -- .. , ....a 7brAh4Q,Z.VX1dd0E5,X4fO 70-ov(2001 or5'~ h s'4 c /,r, 1V o LJM( NA~Y a.. I~,*~~/55*'-53.-f,.*1 FEB 4 DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY 1996 KANSAS CITY DISTRICT.

CORPS OF ENGINEERS 700 FEDERAL BUILDING KANSAS CITY. MISSOURI 64106-2896 REPLY To February 9, 1996 ATTENTION OPi Western Project Section (95-02651)(Coffey, KS, Wolf Creek Reservoir, NW 26, PDN)Mr. Warren B. Wood Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

Dear Mr. Wood:

This is in response to your application dated January 12, 1996, for a Department of the Army (DA) permit concerning construction of a five lane boat ramp, breakwater, and associated excavation and dredge material disposal.

The project is located in Section 1, Township 21 south, Range 15 east, Coffey County, Kansas.Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344), which is administered under Federal regulations 33 CFR 320-330, provides the Corps of Engineers with regulatory jurisdiction over all waters of the United States. These provisions require prior authorization from the Corps of Engineers for excavation or the discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the United States, including wetlands.Based on our review of the information furnished and our coordination with other agencies in response to predischarge notification requirements, we have determined that your proposed project is authorized by nationwide permit (NWP) No. 26, provided you ensure that the conditions listed in the enclosed °copy of excerpts from Appendix A.C., are met. In addition to these genera4 conditions, you must also -comply with the following project specific conditions.

a. You must coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks to identify important nesting and feeding areas for the federally listed Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus.

Following identification of these areas, you must protect these areas from disturbance by fisherman by placing marking buoys and signs to prevent water and land access to the areas. The closest disturbance distance around any nest site .,should be 'no less than 300 yards. b. You must develop a plan in association with condition"a" above to monitor Bald Eagle activity during the first fishing season. This plan should address the impact fishing access has on the Bald Eagle. The results of this monitoring must be provided to the Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service by December 31, following opening of the waterbody to fishing.We have enclosed a copy of the comment letter provided by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). They have reviewed the project and have provided comments concerning the on-site disposal from the restroom facility proposed with the project. Although this portion of the project is not regulated pursuant to Section 404, we suggest you incorporate these recommendations in the final design of this facility.The KDHE also provided measures that should be incorporated to ensure water quality violations do not occur as a result of construction and/or operation of the proposed project. We suggest these measures also be incorporated into your proj-ect.This NWP verification is valid until this NWP is modified, reissued, or revoked which is scheduled to be accomplished prior to January 21, 1997. It is your responsibility to remain informed of changes to this NWP. We will issue a public notice announcing the reissuance or changes when they occur.Furthermore, if this NWP is modified or revoked and you commence or are under contract to commence this activity before the date the NWP is modified or revoked, you would have only 12 months from that date to complete the activity under the present terms and conditions of this NWP.Although an individual DA permit is not required, other Federal, state and/or local permits may be required, and you should satisfy yourself in this regard.If you have any questions, please feel free to write me or to call Brian A. McNulty at 816-426-5047 (FAX 816-42"6-2321).

Sincerely, Richard E. Lenning Chief, Western Project Section Regulatory Branch Enclosure Copies Furnished: (See attached list) 0 0-3-Copies Furnished:

Environmental Protection.Agency, Wetlands Protection Section wo/enclosure U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Manhattan, Kansas Office wo/enclosure Kansas Department of Health and Environment wo/enclosure Kansas State Historical Society Historic Preservation Department wo/enclosure Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks wo/enclosure (Mammoliti)

Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks wo/enclosures (Yasui/Badders)

Kansas State Board of Agriculture wo/enclosure 0 0 CEMRK-OD-PC NOVEMBER 22, 1991 FEDERAL REGISTER.EXCERPTS FROM 33 CFR PART 330, APPENDIX A ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF. THE UNITED STATES C. NATIONWIDE PERMIT-CONDITIONS GENERAL CONDITIONS:

The following general conditions must be followed in order for any authorization by a nationwide permit (NWP) to be valid: 1. Navigation.

No activity may cause more than a minimal adverse effect on navigation.

2. Proper maintenance.

Any structure or fill authorized shall be properly maintained, including maintenance to ensure public safety.3. Erosion and siltation controls.

Appropriate erosion and siltation controls must be used and maintained in effective operating condition during construction, and all exposed soil and other fills must be permanently stabilized at the earliest practicable date.4. Aquatic life movements.

No activity may substantially disrupt the movement of those species of aquatic life indigenous to the waterbody, including those species which normally migrate through the area, unless the activity's primary purpose is to impound water.5. Eauipment.

Heavy equipment working in wetlands must be placed on mats or other measures must be taken to minimize soil disturbance.

6. Recional and case-by-case conditions.

The activity must comply with any regional conditions which may have been added by the Division Engineer (see 33 CFR 3 30.4(e)) and any case specific conditions added by the Corps.7. Wild and Scenic Rivers. No activity may occur in a component of the National Wild and Scenic River System; or in a river officially designated by Congress as a"study river" for possible inclusion in the system, while the river is in an official study status. Information on Wild and Scenic Rivers may be obtained from the National Park Service and the U.S. Forest Service.8. Tribal rights. No activity or its operation may impair reserved tribal rights, including, but not limited to, reserved water rights and treaty fishing and hunting rights.9. Water quality certification.

In certain states, an individual state water quality certification must be obtained or waived (see 33 CPR 330.4(c)).

10. Costal zone management.

In certain states, an individual state coastal zone management consistency concurrence must be obtained or waived (see 33 CPR 330.4(d)).

(3) Brief description of the proposed project; the project's purpose;direct and indirect adverse environmental effects the project would cause; and any other NWP(s), regional general permit(s) or individual permit(s) used or intended to be used to authorize any part of the proposed project or any related activity;(4) Where required by the terms of the NWP, a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands; and (5) A statement that the prospective permittee has contacted: (i) The USFwS/NMiS regarding the presence of any Federally listed (or proposed for listing) endangered or threatened species or critical habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and any available information provided by those agencies. (The prospective permittee may contact Corps District Offices for USFKS/NMFS agency contacts and lists of critical habitat.)(ii) The SEPO regarding the presence of any historic properties in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project; and the available information, if any, provided by that agency.c. The standard individual permit application form (FOrm ENG 4345) may be used as the notification but must clearly indicate that it is a PDN and must include all of the information required in (b)(1)-(5) of General Condition 13.d. In reviewing an activity under the notification procedure, the District Engineer will first determine whether the activity will result in more than minimal individual or cumulative adverse environmental effects or will be contrary to the public interest.

The prospective permittee may, at his option, submit a proposed mitigation plan with the predischarge notification to expedite the process and the District Engineer will consider any optional mitigation the applicant has included in the proposal in determining whether the net adverse environmental effects of the proposed work are minimal. The District Engineer will consider any comments from Federal and State agencies concerning the proposed activity's compliance with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permits and the need for mitigation to reduce the project's adverse environmental effects to a minimal level. The District Engineer will upon receipt of a notification provide immediately (e.g. facsimile transmission, overnight mail or other expeditious manner) a copy to the appropriate offices of the Fish and Wildlife Service, State natural resource or water quality agency, EPA, and, if appropriate, the National Marine Fisheries Service. With the exception of NWP 37, these agencies will then have 5 calendar days from the date the material is transmitted to telephone the District Engineer if they intend to provide substantive, site-specific comments.

If so contacted by an agency, the District Engineer will wait an additional 10 calendar days before making a decision on the notification.

The District Engineer will fully consider agency comments received within the specified time frame, but will provide no response to the resource agency.The District Engineer will indicate in the administrative record associated with each notification that the resource agencies' concerns were considered.

Applicants are 3 0 SECTION 404 ONLY CONDITIONS:

In addition to the General Conditions, the following conditions apply only to activities that involve the discharge of dredged or fill material and must be followed in order for authorization by the nationwide permits to be valid: 1. Water supply intakes. No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in the proximity of a public water supply intake except where the discharge is for repair of the public water supply intake structures or adjacent bank stabilization.

2. Shellfish Production.

No discharge of dredged or fill material may occur in areas of concentrated shellfish production, unless the discharge is directly related to a shellfish harvesting activity authorized by nationwide permit 4.3. Suitable material.

No discharge of dredged or fill material may consist of unsuitable material (e.g., trash, debris, car bodies, etc.) and-material discharged must be free from toxic pollutants in toxic amounts (see section 307 of the Clean Water Act).4. Mitigation.

Discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States must be minimized or avoided to the maximum extent practicable at the project site (i.e. on-site), unless the DE has approved a cnmpensation mitigation plan for the specific regulated activity.5. Spawning areas. Discharges in spawning areas during spawning seasons must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

6. Obstruction of high-flows.

To the maximum extent practicable, discharges must not permanently restrict or impede thepassage of normal or expected high flows or cause the relocation of the water (unless the primary purpose of the fill is to impound waters).7. Adverse impacts from-impoundments.

If the discharge-creates an impoundment of water, adverse impacts on the aquatic system caused by the accelerated passage of 4ater and/or the restriction of its flow shall be minimized to the maximum extent practicable.

8. Waterfowl breeding areas. Discharges into breeding areas for migratory waterfowl must be avoided to the maximum extent practicable.

9. Removal-of-temporary fills. Any temporary fills must be removed in their entirety and the affected areas returned to their pre-existing elevation.

5

• 0 State of Kansas Bill Graves Governor Department of Health and Environment James J. O'Connell, Secretary February 1, 1996 Mr. Brian McNulty Regulatory BR/Construction-Operations Div.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, MO: 64106-2896 PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION RESPONSE ATTN: PDN (95-02651):

Wolf Creek Nuclear Plant Corporation.

To develop a public access fishing area and facility.

Dear Mr. Mc Nulty:

Pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Water has reviewed the subject project. Per our conversation on January 26, 1996, I have discussed this project with several KDHE staff. Our comments and recommendations are as follows: I. On-site Waste water disposal and treatment shall be done in accordance with the Coffey County Sanitary Code. The applicant should contact: Coffey County -ealth Depatmnent, Marilyn A. Eccles 110 6th Street, Burlington, Kansas 66839 (316) 364-8631 1. The restroom facility and associated waste disposal and treatment is to be designed to protect ground and surface water. The approximated use of the area will be 250 people per day. The present method of septic tank and 400 feet of lateral field (Page 29 of the Draft Environmental Assessment) is clearly unacceptable due to soil types, lack of percolation test results, and projected waste load. Other measures such as.a lagoon should be investigated.

2. The County will determine whether this will be considered a private or municipal system; if it is considered a municipal system, a permit from KDHE Municipal Section will have to be obtained.

For more information, please contact:)ivision of Environment, Nonpoint Source Section, Forbes Field, Bldg. 283, Topeka, KS. 66620-0001 Telephone:

(913) 296-S573 Mr. Mc Nulty Page 2 of 3 February 1, 1996 Kansas Department of Health and Environment, Bureau of Water, Municipal Programs-Mr. Rodney Geisler, Forbes Field, Building 283, Topeka, Kansas, 66620-0001 (913) 296-5527 II. Upon construction of the project, the following conditions shall be met: 1. Measures are taken to prevent violations of the water quality criteria described in K.A.R.28-16-28e.

The applicant is directed to pay particular attention to preventing pollution impacts of turbidity, pH, temperature, nutrients, pesticides, chemicals, deposits of solids, suspended solids, floating debris, scum, visible oil and grease, or solvents from equipment leaks and dissolved or emulsified grease concentrations in waters of the state during the project and after ,completion of the project.2. Upon completion of the project, disturbed areas, including equipment staging areas shall be expeditiously stabilized with temporary and permanent vegetation, bio-artificial ground cover or other appropriate non-polluting material.

Where applicable, fertilizer handling shall not contribute to the nutrient loading of the water resources.

3. Fuels and other maintenance chemicals necessary to complete the project should be stored away from the water body and in such a manner that accidental spillage is reduced or can be temporarily contained before reaching the water body. Maintenance areas should also be located in this manner.4. Should a spill of gasoline or discharge of pollutants occur, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment shall be notified immediately:

(913)-296-1679 Daytime and After Hours (913),296-0614.

A state wide number has been established as well (913) 296-3176.

Spill response plan development is encouraged.

5. This certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility to determine if the project is subject to NPDES permitting requirements of 40 CFR 122.26 and to secure such permit as needed. Any inquiries should be directed to: Kansas Department of Health and Environment Bureau of Water, Industrial Program Section Building 283, Forbes Field, Topeka, Kansas 66620 Attention

-- Dave Freise, Phone 913-296-5557 0 0 Mr. Mc Nulty Page 3 of 3 February 1, 1996 6. All rip rap material shall be free of any contaminants which may enter ground or surface water through leaching or runoff. The applicant shall take appropriate measures to capture any floating debris released to water resources as a result of this project.7. This certification does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility for any discharge into waters of the state. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment retains the option of revoking the certification any time an inappropriate discharge may occur. As provided for in K.S.A.65-171(f), failure to comply with the conditions of this certification may subject the responsible party to fines up to $ 10,000 per violation with each day the violation occurs constituting a separate violation.

If the applicant believes the conditions of this certification will result in impairment of important social and economic development, the applicant is advised of the variance provisions of K.A.R.28-16-18f(c)(3).

Sincerely, Scott L. Satterthwaite Nonpoint Source Section c: Southeast District Office Rodney Geisler Marilyn Eccles- Coffey County Health Department Coffey County LEPP 4.0 Dave Freise- KDHE Stormwater United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Kansas Field office 315 Houston Street, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 913 539-3474 January 19, 1996 Mr. Lawrence M. Cavin, Chief Regulatory Branch Kansas City District, Corps of Engineers 601 East 12th Street Kansas City, Kansas 64106-2896 Attn: (95-0265 1)

Dear Mr. Cavin:

This is in response to your request for comments on the proposal by the Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation for excavation and dredge disposal, and construction of a five lane boat ramp and breakwater at Wolf Creek Reservoir, S. 1, T. 21 S., R. 15 E., Coffey County, Kansas.The purpose of the construction is to provide public fishing access to Wolf Creek Reservoir.

Bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), federally listed as threatened, winter and nest at Wolf Creek Reservoir.

We believe that the actual construction of the project will have no impact on the eagles. However, the presence of fisherman in boats and on shore may affect the eagles nesting and feeding activities.

Areas of the lake that are important for nesting and feeding should be protected from disturbance by marking them off with buoys. The shoreline should be marked with signs to prevent land access to the areas. The closest distance for disturbance around the nest site should be approximately 300 yards. Eagle activity should be closely monitored during the first fishing season to see how they adapt to the presence of humans. If there are indications that 300 yards is inadequate, the buffer should be increased.

We would like to be kept informed of progress on the project and the status of the eagles at the lake. If these recommendations are not made conditions of the permit, the Corps of Engineers should enter into consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) and attendant regulations (50 CFR 402 19926).In accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.), we have reviewed the Public Notice, evaluated its potential effects, and conclude that no significant adverse impacts on fish and wildlife resources should result from this project if the above recommendations are carried out.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this project. If you have any questions, please contact me, Dan Mulhern, or Anne Cully, of my staff, at (913)539-3474.

Sincerely, William H. Gill Field Supervisor cc: EPA, Kansas City, KS (Wetland Protection Section)KDWP, Pratt, KS (Environmental Services)KDWP, Pratt, KS (Doug Nygren)KDHE, Topeka, KS (Bur. of Environmental Quality) 0 0-CONVERSATION RECORD TIME: DATE: Feb 7, 1996 TYPE C )VISIT ( )CONFERENCE Cx) TELEPHONE (x) INCOMING ROUTING)OUTGOING Location of Visit/Conference:

NAME/SYMBOL INT NAME: Dan Mulhern ORGANIZATION:

TELEPHONE NO.U.S. Fish and Wildlife 913/539-3474

SUBJECT:

Application 95-02651 (PDN)

SUMMARY

Mr. Mulhern returned my call from the previous day. I wanted to clarify statements made in their comment letter for this project.The letter stated that the FWS believed actual construction would not affect the bald eagle, but it was unclear from the letter what affect operation of the boat ramp and other facilities.

Mr. Mulhern stated that the letter provides FWS written concurrence that no adverse impacts to the bald eagle should occur provided the recommendations are included as conditions of the authorization.

This letter can be considered conclusion of informal consultation as required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and no further correspondence would be necessary.

I read the proposed conditions that will be included in the letter and Mr. Mulhern believed these adequately addressed their concerns.ACTION REQUIRED:: Brian McNulty SIGNATURE:

DATE: Feb 7, 1996 ACTION TAKEN: SIGNATURE:

TITLE: DATE:

WL t.F CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION March 31, 1998 RP 98-0067 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 315 Houston Street, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 Attention:

William H. Gill, Field Supervisor

Subject:

Bald Eagle Monitoring at Wolf Creek Lake Dear Mr. Gill This letter reports activities completed to minimize angler disturbances to bald eagles using Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) and specifies our eagle monitoring intentions in the future to address conditions in the Corps of Engineers' dredge authorization 95-02651.

The monitoring will determine if angler disturbance of nesting and wintering bald eagles occurs, and if mitigative steps would be warranted.

Our proposed monitoring plan is attached for your review. Please let us know by April 30, 1998, if you have ideas to improve the plan. Past measures taken to minimize disturbance are presented below.The primary measure taken to prevent excess disturbance during the 1997 nesting season was an exclusion area around the eagle nest identified with buoys. This area was circular with a radius of 300 yards. Twelve buoys were set during early March, and were posted with "Eagle Nest -Keep Out". Anglers were also notified at the access gate about the area around the nest. Similar exclusion areas will be maintained in the future.There were three eagles fledged from the nest on WCL in 1997. This indicates that public fishing access to the lake did not adversely impact the nesting eagles. There were no instances noted of angler induced disturbances during casual nest observations throughout the nesting period. There were no known intrusions by anglers into the exclusion area around the nest.P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS'66839 /Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal OpportunityEmployer M/F/HCNET RP 98-0067 Page 2 of 2 Anglers were also prohibited from 715 acres of WCL, of which nearly 245 acres were in the heated discharge area from the power plant. Past eagle use surveys have identified that wintering eagles have commonly congregated in this area of WCL. This was particularly true during harsh winter conditions when ice covered area reservoirs, but the heated discharge area remained ice-free. From December, 1996 through February, 1997, WCL did not attract large numbers of eagles (less than two eagles per survey), and angler numbers were low (average of 7 boats per day). Consequently, potential for eagle and angler interactions was low.If you have any questions, please feel free to call Dan Williamson at (316) 364-8831, extension 4609, or Dan Haines at extension 4672.Sincerely, John W. Johnson JWJ/jaf Attachment cc: Richard E Lenning Corps of Engineers 700 Federal Building Kansas City, Missouri 64106-2896 Clay Attachment to RP 98-0067 Measuring Angler Disturbance of Bald Eagles at Wolf Creek Lake Proposed Monitoring Plan INTRODUCTION The addition of angler activity to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) has the potential to impact.previous usage of the lake by the bald eagle, federally listed as a threatened species.Disturbance from boating activity is the primary concern, especially to eagle nesting activity on the lake. Eagle disturbance in important feeding areas, both during nesting and winter periods, is also a concern. Monitoring for the presence of angler disturbance will also provide information on the effectiveness of the buoyed boat exclusion area around the nest (currently 300 yards), and help determine if this zone 'should be increased.

The lake was closed to public fishing on November 2, 1997 so that boating safety issues could be explored.

Removing the 50 boat per day limit is a proposed change to lake access operation.

This will probably occur if WCL is reopened for Tublic fishing.Monitoring eagle/angler interaction during the 1998 nesting -season wilh advantageous because the 1998 fishing season is expected to be the first when an unlimited number of angler boats will be allowed on the lake.Monitoring bald eagle and angler usage during the winter of 1998/99 may be the first opportunity to observe eagle/angler interactions, if eagle usage is comparable to usage before public fishing was allowed. Eagle usage during the first winteri angling was allowed was not considered normal, due to little ice-cover formation on area lakes. Both the use of WCL by wintering eagles, and the number of boats was low during the winter of 1996-97. The lake was closed to fishing during the winter of 1997-98, due to the administrative reason identified above.This monitoring plan will satisfy the supplemental requirements in the U. S. Corps of Engineers (USCOE) section 404 authorization (95-02651) to construct the lake access boat ramps and breakwater.

The supplemental conditions to this authorization were added by recommendation of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), responsible for administering threatened and endangered species regulations.

OBJECTIVES 1). Determine presence and frequency of angler boat disturbance to the nesting eagles on WCL, 2). Determine general feeding areas of nesting eagles, 3). Determine general winter feeding areas on WCL, Attachment to RP 98-0067 4). Determine the need to increase the 300-yard boat exclusion area surrounding any nests 5). Determine the general angler distribution around WCL to identify any needs to restrict with buoys any boating activity in important feeding areas.METHODS Nesting Season Boating disturbance to nesting eagles will be monitored with regular behavior and interaction observations through the nesting season. For the purposes of this study, the nesting season will be from March 1, 1998 through early post-fledging, approximately

}tiý- _--._=..August 15, 1998. If for any circumstances that WCL is closed for angling access, no monitoring will be completed.

An observation period will consist of watching and recording disturbance criteria during a minimum of one hour per week. The observations will be made from an area on land that provides a good view of boating and eagle foraging activity.

Disturbance criteria generally follows McGarigal et al, 1991. Data to be recorded, at a minimum, will be: 1). Observation period duration (generally one hour)2). How many boats and how long (in minutes) are boats present within 500 yards from the nest during the observation period.3). Type of boating activity, (either stationary or passing through)4). General eagle behavior when no boats are in the vicinity of the nest (this information will be used as control "no disturbance" data)5). Eagle behavior changes when boats approach or are within 500 yards, categorized into the following criteria: a). no changes b). eagle awareness and/or obvious agitation; defined as any visibly disturbed behavioral state that does not result in flushing, may include attentiveness, frequent vocalizations, wing flicking, and/or flight ready posture c). flushing from nest or roost; flush defined as any flight preceded by agitation behavior.6). Observer estimated distance of boat from nest when disturbance behavior is detected.

May be aided with a rangefinder or benchmarks pre-positioned at known distances.

7). General direction and/or area where adult eagles go to forage (destination determined, if practical).

These observation periods will target early morning (first two daylight hours) and late evening (last two daylight hours), which are typically periods of highest eagle activity (McGarigal et al, 1991). These times are expected to be periods of highest angler Attachment to RP 98-0067 activity, also. Morning observation periods will be conducted every other week, with evening observation periods during alternate weeks. One observation period per month will be completed on a weekend day to ensure that potential disturbance during expected peak angler usage is monitored.

Angler boat distribution will be determined by counting and identifying distribution around the lake from Baffle Dike A and B. Boat distribution will be assessed after morning observation periods, and before evening periods. Data will be compared with nesting eagle foraging observations to determine areas of potential boat/eagle foraging conflicts.

Winter Usage and Feeding Areas Winter-time bald eagle usage and distribution data, collected by WCNOC from fall 1985 through spring 1996, will be reviewed to identify important areas of WCL for eagles with respect to observed boat activity.

Data review will target distribution during peak usage periods in the winters. Eagle use during the winter of 1998-99 will be determined from eagle count data collected during routine waterfowl surveys conducted by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.Angler boat distribution around WCL during the December, 1998 and January, 1999 will be determined using identical methods as for nesting season disibution.

Comparisons will be made to determine any potential areas of overlap of high boat activity and historical eagle preferences.

REPORTING 3q P`#Monitoring results will be sent to the USFWS and the USCOE byt Recommendations on appropriate angler management or exclusions will be proposed.LITERATURE CITED McGarigal, K., R. G. Anthony, and F. B. Isaacs, 1991. Interactions of Humans and Bali 5 Eagles on the Columbia River Estuary. Wildlife Monographs No. 115. The Wildlife Society. 47pp.

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Kansas Field Office 315 Houston Stree, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 -j April 9, 1998 John W. Johnson Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 RE: Bald eagle monitoring at Wolf Creek Lake

Dear Mr. Johnson:

This is in response to your letter of March 31, 1998, in which you provided for our review a copy of your proposed plan to monitor recreational boaters' impacts on bald eagles at Wolf Creek cooling lake in 1998-1999.

Your letter also outlined measures taken during 1997 to minimize disturbances to bald eagles from boaters, both during nesting" and wintering periods.The Service is appreciative of your efforts to provide undisturbed habitat for bald eagles at Wolf Creek lake. I agree that the exclusion area imposed around the nest area in 1997 was adequate to provide protection from disturbance, and recommend no changes for the new nest site in 1998. After reviewing your proposed monitoring plan, we have no changes to recommend.

It appears that the information needed to identify any interactions between eagles and humans should be adequately documented with your proposed plan.Thank you for your continued interest in conservation of the bald eagle, and foryour coordination with this office.Sincerely, William H. Gill Field Supervisor.

cc: KDWP, Pratt, KS (Environmental Services)KDWP, Emporia, KS (Nongame & T&E Species)WHG/dwm W*LF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Clay C. vlayC.,eci ,ow.n o.February 19, 1999 Vice Preident & Chief Operating OfficerFe r a y 1 , 9 9 RP 99-0020 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 315 Houston street, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 Attention:

William H. Gill, Field Supervisor

Subject:

Changes to Bald Eagle Monitoring Plan at Coffey County Lake (Formerly Wolf Creek Lake)

Dear Mr. Gill:

This letter is to inform you of a necessary schedule change to the bald eagle/angler disturbance monitoring plan for Coffey County Lake (formerly Wolf Creek Lake). This monitoring plan was previously sent to you, and a copy is attached for your reference.

In the plan, intentions were to monitor potential angler boat disturbance to the nesting bald eagle.However, the lake was closed to. fishing until June 22, 1998, which was too late in the nesting season to allow for adequate assessment.

Consequently, we intend to monitor through the 1999 nesting season for the presence of angler disturbance of bald eagles. The reporting date of April 30, 1999 in the monitoring plan will be changed to September 30, 1999 to allow time to include the 1999 data. Please let us know if these changes are acceptable.

Currently helping with the study is Angie Babbitt, a graduate student from Emporia State University.

Her interest and enthusiasm will no doubt enhance the project. If you have any questions, please feel free to call Dan Williamson at (316) 364-8831, extension 4609, or Dan Haines at extension 4672.Sincerely, Clay C. Warren CCW/jaf Attachment P0. Box 411 /Burlington, / Phone: (316) 364-8831 An ;Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCGVET Attachment to RP 99-0020 Measuring Angler Disturbance of Bald Eagles at Wolf Creek Lake Proposed Monitoring Plan INTRODUCTION The addition of angler activity to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) has the potential to impact previous usage of the lake by the bald eagle, federally listed as a threatened species..Disturbance from boating activity is the primary concern, especially to eagle nesting activity on the :lake. Eagle disturbance in important feeding areas, both during nesting and winter periods, is also a concern. Monitoring for the presence of angler disturbance will also provide information on the effectiveness of the buoyed boat exclusion area around the nest (currently 300 yards), and help determine if this zone should be increased.

The lake was closed to public fishing on November 2, 1997 so that boating safety issues could be explored.

Removing the 50 boat per day limit is a proposed change to lake access operation.

This will probably occur if WCL is reopened for public fishing.Monitoring eagle/angler interaction during the 1998 nesting season will advantageous because the 1998 fishing season is expected to be the first when an unlimited number of angler boats will be allowed on the lake.Monitoring bald eagle and angler usage during the winter of 1998/99 may be the first opportunity to observe eagle/angler interactions, if eagle usage is comparable to usage before public fishing was allowed. Eagle usage during the first winter angling was allowed was not considered normal, due to little ice-cover formation on area lakes. Both the use of WCL by wintering eagles, and the number of boats was low during the winter of 1996-97. The lake was closed to fishing during the winter of 1997-98, due to the administrative reason identified above.This monitoring plan will satisfy the supplemental requirements in the U. S. Corps of Engineers (USCOE) section 404 authorization (95-02651) to construct the lake access boat ramps and breakwater.

The supplemental conditions to this authorization were added by recommendation of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), responsible for administering threatened and endangered species regulations.

OBJECTIVES 1). Determine presence and frequency of angler boat disturbance to the nesting eagles on WCL, 2). Determine general feeding areas of nesting eagles, 3). Determine general winter feeding areas on WCL, Attachment to RP 99-0020 4). Determine the need to increase the 300-yard boat exclusion area surrounding any nests 5). Determine the general angler distribution around WCL to identify any needs to restrict with buoys any boating activity in important feeding areas.METHODS Nesting Season Boating disturbance to nesting eagles will be monitored with regular behavior and interaction observations through the nesting season. For the purposes of this study, the nesting season will be from March 1, 1998 through early post-fledging, approximately August 15, 1998. If for any circumstances that WCL is closed for angling access, no monitoring will be completed.

An observation period will consist of watching and recording disturbance criteria during a minimum of one hour per week. The observations will be made from an area on land that provides a good view of boating and eagle foraging activity.

Disturbance criteria generally follows McGarigal et al, 1991. Data to be recorded, at a minimum, will be: 1). Observation period duration (generally one hour)2). How many boats and how long (in minutes) are boats present within 500 yards from the nest during the observation period.3). Type of boating activity, (either stationary or passing through)4). General eagle behavior when no boats are in the vicinity of the nest (this information will be used as control "no disturbance" data)5). Eagle behavior changes when boats approach or are within 500 yards, categorized into the following criteria: a). no changes b). eagle awareness and/or obvious agitation; defined as any visibly disturbed behavioral state that does not result in flushing, may include attentiveness, frequent vocalizations, wing flicking, and/or flight ready posture c). flushing from nest or roost; flush defined as any flight preceded by agitation behavior.6). Observer estimated distance of boat from nest when disturbance behavior is detected.

May be aided with a rangefinder or benchmarks pre-positioned at known distances.

7). General direction and/or area where adult eagles go to forage (destination determined, if practical).

These observation periods will target early morning (first two daylight hours) and late evening (last two daylight hours), which are typically periods of highest eagle activity (McGarigal et al, 1991). These times are expected to be periods of highest angler Attachment to RP 99-0020 activity, also. Morning observation periods will be conducted every other week, with evening observation periods during alternate weeks. One observation period per month will be completed on a weekend day to ensure that potential disturbance during expected peak angler usage is monitored.

Angler boat distribution will be determined by counting and identifying distribution around the lake from Baffle Dike A and B. Boat distribution will be assessed after morning observation periods, and before evening periods. Data will be compared with nesting eagle foraging observations to determine areas of potential boat/eagle foraging conflicts.

Winter Usage and Feeding Areas Winter-time bald eagle usage and distribution data, collected by WCNOC from fall 1985 through spring 1996, will be reviewed to identify important areas of WCL for eagles with respect to observed boat activity.

Data review will target distribution during peak usage periods in the winters. Eagle use during the winter of 1998-99 will be determined from eagle count data collected during routine waterfowl surveys conducted by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks.Angler boat distribution around WCL during the December, 1998 and January, 1999 will be determined using identical methods as for nesting season boat distribution.

Comparisons will be made to determine any potential areas of overlap of high boat activity and historical eagle preferences.

REPORTING Monitoring results will be sent to the USFWS and the USCOE by April 30, 1999.Recommendations on appropriate angler management or exclusions will be proposed.LITERATURE CITED McGarigal, K., R. G. Anthony, and F. B. Isaacs, 1991. Interactions of Humans and Bal Eagles on the Columbia River Estuary. Wildlife Monographs No. 115. The Wildlife Society. 47pp.

United States Department of the Interior FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE Kansas Field Office 315 Houston Street, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 March 3, 1999 Clay C. Warren Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp.P.O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839

Dear Mr. Warren:

This is in response to your February 19, 1999 letter advising us of a necessary change in the scheduling of your proposed plan to monitor boat angler disturbances on bald eagles at Coffey County Lake. This monitoring was originally to have been completed by April 1999;however, an unforeseen lake closure precluded its completion.

We have reviewed your proposed schedule extension, until September 30, 1999, and concur this would be beneficial for the nesting bald eagles at the lake.If you have any further comments or questions, please direct them to me or Dan Mulhern of this office. Thank you.Sincerely, William H. Gill Field Supervisor cc: KDWP, Pratt, KS (Environmental Services).

WHG/dwm WEJ~F CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION August 24, 1999 RP 99-0139 U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 315 Houston Street, Suite E Manhattan, Kansas 66502-6172 Attention:

William H. Gill, Field Supervisor

Subject:

Completion of Bald Eagle/Angler Disturbance Monitoring at Coffey County Lake

Dear Mr. Gill:

The monitoring for potential disturbance of bald eagles by anglers using Coffey County Lake has been completed.

The enclosed monitoring report satisfies the project specific conditions "a" and"b" of the U.S. Corp of Engineers authorization (95-0265 1) to construct the lake access park.We were pleased to discover that little interaction occurs between the eagles and anglers. The compatibility of public access and eagle use -was enhanced by the 300-yard exclusion zone around the nest, the nest being in an area not frequented by anglers, and the lake areas that were closed to public access. Angler impacts were also reduced by the administrative closing of the lake to public access during severe winter weather, which coincides with increased lake use by eagles. Current public access management is sufficient to protect the lake's benefits to bald eagles and no further actions are necessary.

If you have any questions, please feel free to call Dan Williamson at (316) 364-8831, extension 4609, or Dan Haines at extension 4672.Sincerely, John W. Johnson JWJ/jaf CC: R. E. Lenning, USCOE, Kansas City, MO (Regulatory Branch)C. Mammoliti, KDWP, Pratt, KS (Environmental Services)J. Horak, KDWP, Emporia, KS (Nongame and T&E Species)P.O. Box 411 /Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (316) 364-8831 An EqualOpportunity'Employef MtF/HCNET Angler Disturbance Impacts on Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) at Coffey County Lake Angie Babbitt Emporia State University Dan Haines Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation August 19, 1999 EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This study demonstrates that angler access to Coffey County Lake (CCL) has been compatible with bald eagle nesting and wintering use. The 300 yard angler exclusion boundary around the eagle nest was adequate to minimize angler disturbance.

Foraging areas of nesting eagles appears to be widespread, with no particular location preferred.

Two situations were identified during which potential angler impacts to wintering eagles were greatest.

These were angler preferences for the heated water effluent from Wolf Creek Generating Station, and greater eagle usage of CCL during severe winter periods.The lake areas closed to public access, and administrative lake closures during adverse winter conditions minimized these potential impacts. Angler boat distribution, eagle responses to approaching boats, and observation of foraging sites were monitored to assess impacts to nesting eagles. Winter period boat distribution was compared to past eagle use data to determine potential impacts to eagles wintering in the area. This monitoring report and conclusions satisfies the special conditions in the U.S.. Corps of Engineers' (USCOE) authorization to construct the public access park during 1996 (Authorization 95-02651).

Angler Disturbance Impacts on Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalis) at Coffey County Lake INTRODUCTION The addition of angler activity to Coffey County Lake (CCL) has the potential to impact usage of the lake by the bald eagle, federally listed as a threatened species. The lake was opened for public access on October 1, 1996. Disturbance from boating activity was the primary concern, especially to eagle nesting activity on the lake. Eagle disturbance in important feeding areas, both during nesting and winter periods, was also a concern.Monitoring for the presence of angler disturbance would also provide information on the effectiveness of the buoyed boat exclusion area around the nest (currently 300 yards), and help determine if this zone should be increased.

Eagle usage during the first winter that angling was allowed (1996-97), was not.considered normal, due to little ice-cover formation on area lakes, principally John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). Both the use of CCL by wintering eagles, and the number of boats was low during this winter. The lake was closed to fishing during the winter of 1997-98, and most of the nesting season of 1998, so that boating safety issues could be reviewed.

For the purposes of this study, the winter of 1998-99 and the nesting season of 1999 was considered a period of normalized angler and eagle use of CCL.This monitoring satisfies the supplemental requirements in the U. S. Corps of Engineers (USCOE) section 404 authorization (95-02651) to construct the lake access boat ramps and breakwater.

The supplemental conditions to this authorization were added by recommendation of the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), responsible for administering threatened and endangered species regulations.

METHODS NESTING SEASON Boating disturbance to nesting eagles was monitored with regular behavior and interaction observations through the nesting season. An observation period consisted of watching and recording disturbance criteria for approximately one hour per week. The observations were made from an area on land which was approximately 300 yards from the nest, and provided a good view of boating and eagle foraging activity.

Eagle behavior was observed using spotting scopes. The distance of boats from the eagle nest was estimated using a range finder and landmarks.

Eagle behavior was recorded throughout the one-hour observation period. All boats within the north end of the lake were marked on a map. If a boat came within -500 meters of the nest, the behavior of the eagles with respect to the boats was record ed on a data sheet. The amount of time the boat was moving or stationary was recorded.

The method of recording eagle disturbance criteria generally followed that of McGarigal et al. (199 1), which were: a. No changes.b. Eagle awareness and/or obvious agitation (agitation defined as any visibly disturbed behavioral state that does not result in flushing, may include attentiveness, frequent vocalizations, wing flicking, and/or flight-ready posture).c., Flushing from nest or roost (flushing defined as any flight preceded by agitation behavior).

Additionally, eagle foraging locations were noted whenever possible during each survey period. Boater distribution was determined by marking the locations of boats on a map.(Figure 1). As much of the lake as possible was surveyed for boat distribution from strategic points around the lake, or by boat.WINTER SEASON Winter-time bald eagle usage and distribution data, collected by WCNOC from 1986 through spring 1996 were reviewed to identify important areas of CCL for eagles. Data review targeted distribution during December through February of each winter, when peak eagle use typically occurred.Angler boat distribution around CCL during the December, 1998 through February, 1999 were determined using identical methods as for nesting season boat distribution.

Comparisons were made to determine any potential areas of overlap of high boat activity and historical eagle preferences.

Bald eagle use and. locations were recorded during these surveys.RESULTS AND DISCUSSION NESTING SEASON Generally, human-eagle interactions were low during the 1999 nesting season. Potential impacts to the nesting eagles would be highest during periods of heavy angler use, and at times when the eagles were vulnerable to disturbance, such as at the time of hatching.Most anglers respected the 300 yard buoyed area around the nest and did not cross into the exclusion zone. In addition, the nest's location was in an area of CCL that was not frequented by anglers. Finally, the eagle's foraging area was likely widespread, with no particular area preferred, although this monitoring could not conclusively determine this.

Boat/Eagle Interactions In mid-February, 1999, the nesting pair of eagles at CCL began to show signs that eggs had been laid. Between 19 February and 13 June 1999, the nest was observed for an average of 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> per week for a total of 16.75 observation hours (Table 1). There were only two instances of angler disturbance observed.

Both of these occurred when 50 or more boats were on the lake (Table 1). On 21 March 1999, 50 boats were on the water during the day. Between 13:20 and 13:30, three boats were observed within 500 yards of the eagle nest. All three boats passed along side the restriction buoys, 300 yards from the nest. As one of the boaters approached, a roosting eagle became agitated.

When that boat increased speed, the roosting eagle flushed. The nesting eagle remained on the nest and did not appear agitated at any time. Both eagles appeared to be very alert prior to the arrival of the boats, probably because the eggs had recently hatched. The date of hatching was estimated to be 15 March 1999 (Don Eccles, personal communication).

The second observed angler disturbance occurred on 8 May 1999, when 66 boats were reported on CCL. Between 17:30 and 18:30, a boat entered into the restricted area around the nest and passed by the nest tree. The adult that was present flushed from the perch when the boat was within about 75 yards of the nest tree. Agitation behavior could not be determined prior to flushing.

This was the only instance known when anglers entered within the 300 yard exclusion zone around the nest. Additional buoys were placed to better delineate the exclusion zone.During two other observation periods, boats entered within 500 yards of the nest, but stayed outside the buoyed exclusion zone. No disturbance was observed in the nesting eagles during either incident.

On 28 March 1999, a boat approached the nest area of the lake, came within 500 yards and immediately turned around and left the area. On 31 May 1999, a boater slowly approached the restriction buoys and observed the eagle nest with binoculars for approximately five minutes. The boater traveled at slow speeds, particularly when near the restriction buoys. Coffey County Lake officials reported 29 and 59 boats on the water on 28 March and 31 May, respectively.

The disturbance of eagles by anglers at CCL was minimal during the entire period of observation from 19 February to 13 June 1999. The two observed disturbances occurred when greater than 50 boats were on the lake in one day. Disturbance appeared to be related to the distance from the eagles and/or speed of the boats. Stalmaster and Kaiser (1998) found that fishing boats caused more disturbance in wintering bald eagles than did eagle-viewing boats..

1999 Spring and Summer Angler Boat Distribution During the spring and summer, the anglers primarily used the south end of the lake for fishing. Only 5.3% of all boats observed during distribution surveys were seen in the nest area (Location A) of the lake during the spring and summer (Figure 1). The majority of boaters used the area around the dam, the islands at the south end of the lake and the baffle dikes. The few days when boaters were observed in the nest area of the lake, tended to be during days of heaviest boat use.Foraging During the nesting season, the eagles departed the area to the east, west, and southeast.

Very few foraging locations were observed during nesting, and few conclusions can be drawn. Bald eagles have opportunistic foraging habits (Lish and Lewis 1975, Steenhof 1978, Keister et al 1987). The nesting eagles appeared to take advantage of the foraging habitat in the area, and didn't rely on a particular location on CCL. This may explain why foraging observations were few. At any rate, because the nesting eagles did not appear to depend on a particular site for feeding, further restricting angler access to the lake would provide no benefits.WINTER SEASON The opening of CCL for fishing introduced potential impacts to wintering bald eagles due to angler disturbance, especially since the heated water discharges from Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) would enhance winter-time angling popularity of the lake.To assess these impacts, past monitoring data for CCL and John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) were reviewed to determine the importance of CCL to area bald eagles. Spatial bald eagle use of CCL was reviewed to identify important use areas, and this was compared with winter-time angler boat distribution to identify potential areas of conflict.Lastly, lake administrative controls of angler access that may mitigate disturbance potential were reviewed.Coffey County Lake Use by Area Bald Eagles Coffey County Lake did not appear to be more important to area bald eagles than JRR, except for during the coldest periods. Typical usage of both lakes indicates a random pattern generally exists with no lake being used at the expense of the other. During most winters, the heated water discharge from WCGS did not affect the distribution of area eagles. Only during periods of complete ice cover of JRR did CCL appear to become important for area eagles. Therefore, the greatest potential for angler disturbance impacts to area eagles would be during periods when JRR becomes unavailable as a foraging site (i.e., 100% ice cover).

As an indication of lake preference, eagle usage of JRR was compared with that on CCL.No significant (p< 0.05) relationship was found (Figure 2). This dispersed distribution pattern was likely due to the bald eagle's opportunistic foraging habits (Lish and Lewis 1975, Steenhof 1978, Keister et al 1987). Disproportionate use of CCL did not occur, even with existing eagle disturbance potential due to public access to JRR. Consequently, similar disturbance on CCL was not expected to alter eagle usage between the two lakes.The heated water discharges from WCGS provide ice-free water during winters, thus increasing wintering eagle habitat in the area. To determine the weather conditions when eagles may take advantage of this, if at all, eagle usage was compared with air temperatures.

Bald eagle use was expressed as percent of area eagles (CCL and JRR combined), and this was compared to the average air temperatures (from a Topeka weather station) for the three days prior to each survey. There were no significant (p<0.05) relationships found (Figure 3). This comparison was made to characterize the typical winter usage with conditions normally experienced.

The lack of any relationship further supports the dispersed use of available winter habitats of CCL and JRR, at least during the majority of past winters.However, review of past survey data did reveal greater use by area eagles of CCL during extreme, relatively short-lived, cold periods (Figure 4), and that this relationship was significant (r 2 = 0.83, p< 0.05). There were only six comparable eagle surveys from 1988 through 1995 during which ice cover estimates were recorded for both CCL and JRR, and when JRR was estimated as completely ice covered. The percent of area eagles on CCL was compared with percent ice cover on CCL from these six surveys. As shown in Figure 4, when JRR has 100% ice cover, and as ice cover increases on CCL, the proportion of area eagles found on CCL also increased.

This tendency may result from the combination of decreasing foraging habitat along the Neosho River at JRR, and increasing fish availability due to decrease in CCL temperatures.

Despite few data points, this comparison suggests that the potential for angler disturbance impacts would be greatest during these periods.Bald Eagle/Boat Distribution Angler impacts to wintering bald eagle usage of CCL would be greatest if same portion of the lake were preferred by both (i.e., the heated water discharge from WCGS). Winter eagle use in specific areas of CCL could be determined from past surveys because use data was consistently segregated for different sections of the lake. Boat distribution surveys allowed for a general description of angler location use during winter.The area of CCL most influenced by the heated water discharges from WCGS was used significantly (p< 0.05) greater than all other areas of the lake over a ten year period (Table 2). This is an area where ice cover rarely develops, and has abundant flooded trees suitable for eagle perch sites. The warmer water also attracts fish and waterfowl during winters, possibly increasing eagle foraging opportunities, especially as other areas begin to freeze. Winter die-off of fish has also attracted eagles to the area (WCNOC 1996).This interpretation of eagle use resulted from combining past monitoring years to characterize typical conditions.

Use during any single winter may vary.Not surprisingly, winter angler use was also greatest in the heated water discharge area.A total of 51 boat observations were completed to characterize winter angler use of CCL (Table 3). When the approximate boat locations were combined and marked on a lake map (Figure 5), the heaviest use is obvious, with 69 percent of the boat observations concentrated in the area of warm water. This area was immediately adjacent to the buoy line restricting access to the WCGS discharge area. Consequently, this would be an area where the greatest potential exists for angler disturbance of wintering eagles.Factors Minimizing Impacts It has been established that there were two situations during which potential bald eagle impacts due to angler disturbance on CCL were greatest.

The first was to baldeagles wintering in the CCL/JRR area during extreme cold winter periods of sufficient duration to cause JRR to become completely ice covered. The second was the coinciding use of the warm water discharge by both anglers and eagles using CCL during winter. However, administrative controls of angler access will reduce the potential for angler disturbance.

Angler access to CCL was managed to reduce the potential for boating accidents, and maximize public safety. Access was not allowed during dangerous weather or lake conditions, especially during the winters. During December 1998 through February 1999, the lake was closed 24 of the available 90 days (27%). Eleven of the closed days were due to strong wind, nine due to ice on CCL, and the remainder due to extreme cold temperature and holidays.

Consequently, few angler disturbance impacts to wintering area bald eagles would exist during winter periods with lake ice formation because anglers typically were not allowed on CCL due to unsafe conditions during such times.The potential angler/eagle conflicts in the heated water discharge area were also minimized by administrative controls.

Buoys restrict anglers from the immediate area of the heated discharge area (Figure 5). It is within this closed area that the heated water has the greatest affect. Bald eagle winter foraging habitat was abundant within the closed area, due to greater fish and waterfowl concentrations attracted to the area during winter periods. Roost sites were also present within the closed area.

SUMMARY

AND MANAGEMENT IMPLICATIONS Potential impacts to bald eagles due to angler disturbance exist on CCL, but administrative controls serve to minimize these impacts. During the nesting season, few anglers used the area of the lake where the eagles nested during 1999. The 300 yard exclusion zone, identified with buoys around the nest, seems appropriate.

Eagle foraging areas appeared widespread.

Potential winter impacts identified were CCL usage by eagles during extreme winter conditions, and the coinciding use by anglers in the lake area heated by WCGS discharges.

Administrative closure of the lake to boaters during extreme winter conditions reduced disturbance potential.

In addition, most of the heated discharge area of WCGS was closed to anglers, creating a refuge in the area of CCL, and during winter conditions when CCL appears to be most important for wintering eagles.Consequently, no changes to the buoyed exclusion zone around the nest, current areas closed to fishing, or administrative management of the lake are considered necessary.

LITERATURE CITED Duncan, D. B. 1955. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics 11: 1-42.Keister, G. P., R. B. Anthony, and E. J. O'Neill. 1987. Use of communal roosts and foraging areas by bald eagles wintering in the Klamath Basin. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(2): 415-420.Lish, J. W. and J. C. Lewis. 1975. Status and ecology of bald eagles wintering in Oklahoma.

Proc. Southeastern Assoc. Game and Fish Comm. 29: 415-423.McGarigal, K., R.G. Anthony, and F.B. Isaacs. 1991. Interactions of humans and bald eagles on the Columbia River Estuary. Wildlife Monographs 115: 1-47.Stalmaster, M. V. and J. L. Kaiser. 1998. Effects of recreational activity on wintering bald eagles. Wildlife Monographs 137: 1-46.Steenhof, K. 1978. Management of wintering bald eagles. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. FWS/005-78/29.

59 pp.Wolf Creek Nuclear Operation Corporation (WCNOC). 1996. Wolf Creek Generating Station 1995-1996 Operational Wildlife Monitoring Report. Internal Report.Burlington, KS. 30 pp.

Table 1. Summary of angler boat spring and summer use and angler disturbance of bald eagles on Coffey County Lake, February 1999 through June 1999.Total Boats within Total boats for Maximum observation Boats at north 500 yds of the day disturbance Date time (min) end of lake nest observed*2/19/99 50 0 0 3 a 3/1/99 60 4 0 22 a 3/7/99 60 0 0 7 a 3/21/99 90 3 3 50 c 3/23/99 60 0 0 2 a 3/28/99 60 3 1 29 a 4/3/99 55 0 0 17 a 4/29/99 60 0 0 12 a 5/8/99 120 2 1 66 c 5/24/99 80 0 0 8 a 5/26/99 55 2 0 30 a 5/31/99 60 1 1 59 a 6/2/99 75 0 0 24 a 6/8/99 60 0 0 12 a 6/13/99 60 0 0 62 a Total 1005 15 6 403* a. No changes b. Eagle awareness and/or obvious agitation (agitation defined as any visibly disturbed behavioral state that does not result in flushing, may include.attentiveness, frequent vocalizations, wing flicking, and/or flight ready posture).c. Flushing from nest or roost (flushing defined as any flight preceded by agitation behavior).

Methods generally follow McGarigal et al. (1991).

Table 2. Lake subdivision descriptions and bald eagle winter usage of Coffey County Lake. Winter usage data are from December through February surveys during the 1986-1987 through 1996-1997 winters. Figures 1 and 5 illustrate locations.

Total Significantly Area Counted Different From

• General Area Description A (upper)B (discharge)

C (main body)D (southeast)

E (plant intake)199 663 242 213 31 B (less than)A,C,D,E (greater than)B (less than)B (less than)B (less than)This is the upstream area of the lake, relatively shallow, turbid, with abundant flooded trees. Heated plant effluents typically keep the southern portion of this area ice-free.

Approximately 1/3 of this area is closed to angler access. The 1999 eagle nest was within this area.This is the area most influenced by the heated discharge from the power plant. It has intermediate depths, with some flooded trees.Due to the heated effluent, ice cover rarely develops.

Fish are attracted to this area during winters. Approximately 1/3 of this area is closed to angler access.This is the main body of the lake, has relatively deep, clear water, and has no flooded trees. Heated discharges influence only the northern reaches.This is the southeastern portion of the lake, is of intermediate depth, and has a relatively small amount of flooded trees. The heated plant discharges have no discernible influence to this area. Complete ice cover is common.This is the area where the plant's cooling water is pumped from. It has intermediate depths and few flooded trees. This area has typically been the first area to develop ice cover each winter. All of this area was closed to angler access.* Significant at p<0.05, using Duncan's New Multiple Range Test, (Duncan, 1955).

Table 3. Summary of angler boat winter distribution surveys for Coffey County Lake, December 1998 through February 1999.# Boats at.Date Survey Period Total Boats for the Day Eagles Present 12/17/98 12/19/98 12/23/98 12/31/98 12/10/98 1/5/99 1/18/99 1/15/99 1/23/99 2/6/99 2/12/99 2/19/99 Total 6 0 0 0 3 0 15 5 0 22 0 0 51 7 Lake closed due to ice/wind Lake closed due to cold temp..0 3 Lake closed due to ice 21 11 3 38 Lake closed due to wind 3 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 19 3 0 I 2 30 m, r I Areas Closed to Angler Access x = Approximate Boat Location Location A X Lake Access --'ri Location B j 114 WCGSI X -X Location E W4 E Location C N X X X% X 5ix ý.ýX X N Location D X Figure 1. Angler boat distribution on Coffey County Lake during the spring and summer of 1999.

Winter Bald Eagle Use of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR)and Coffey County Lake (CCL)(comparable survey dates during December through February, 1986 through 1996)120 100 0)wD 80 60 40 20 0 R2 = 0.0147 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 CCL Eagle Use Figure 2. Winter bald eagle use of John Redmond Reservoir compared with use of Coffey County Lake from December through February eagle surveys from 1986 through 1996.

Relationship of Bald Eagle Usage of Coffey and Winter Conditions County Lake C 0 U)M 0)ý0 100'-0)80 60 040-020 -0 R = 0.1554""" *, *. * ** " " 0 i i ii .ii 4 I ! 9 M q 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 3-day Average Temperature Prior to Survey Date (at Topeka, Kansas)40 45 .50 Figure 3. Percent of area bald eagle use on Coffey County Lake compared with average temperatures prior to survey dates during winter periods from 1986 through 1996.

Area Bald Eagle Winter Use During Periods of 100% Ice Cover on JRR 100 o 90 --w 80 70 w 60 UW 050 (D040O S230 -R = 0.8291.g 10 0 I I II t I 0- ---------0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 CCL % Ice Cover Estimates Figure 4. Percent of area bald eagle use on Coffey County Lake compared with percent ice cover estimates of Coffey County Lake during periods of complete ice cover estimates of John Redmond Reservoir, 1988 through 1995.

j Location A Lake Access -'Loca IAreas Closed to Angler Access= Approximate Boat Location tion B elf ,.X~WCGSj Location E X NI Location C X x X X X x Location D Figure 5. Angler boat distribution on Coffey County Lake during the winter of 1998-1999.

A65 DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR u~s. U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE I~ LFEDERAL FISH AND WILDLIFE PERMIT U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird Permit Office P.O. Box 25486, DFC (601 54)Denver, Colorado 80225-0486 (303) 236-8171 1. PERMITrEE WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORP.ATTN: JOHN JOHNSON P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 U.S.A.3-201 (1/97)2. AUTHORITY-STATUTES 16 USC 703-712 REGULATIONS (Attached) 50 CFR Part 13 50 CFR 21.27 3. NUMBER MB715225-0

4. RENEWABLE

5. MAY COPY YES YES NO J ] NO I 6. EFFECTIVE

7. EXPIRES 04/01/2003 j 03/31/2006

8. NAME AND TITLE OF PRINCIPAL OFFICER (Iftl1 is a bushess) 9. TYPE OF PERMIT JOHN W. JOHNSON SPECIAL PURPOSE MANAGER RESOURCE PROTECTION

10. LOCATION WHERE AUTHORIZED ACTIVITY MAY BE CONDUCTED WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION (COOLING LAKE AND VICINITY)

LOCATED IN CENTRAL COFFEY COUNTY, NEAR BURLINGTON, KANSAS.(CONTINGENT UPON ACQUISITION OF APPROPRIATE STATE AUTHORIZATION)

11. CONDITIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS:

A. GENERAL CONDITIONS SET OUT IN SUBPART D OF 50 CFR 13, AND SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CONTAINED IN FEDERAL REGULATIONS CITED IN BLOCK #2 ABOVE. ARE HEREBY MADE A PART OF THIS PERMIT. ALL ACTIVITIES AUTHORIZED HEREIN MUST BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORD WITH AND FOR THE PURPOSES DESCRIBED IN THE APPLICATION SUBMIrTED.

CONTINUED VALIDITY, OR RENEWAL OF THIS PERMIT IS SUBJECT TO COMPLETE AND TIMELY COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE FILING OF ALL REQUIRED INFORMATION.

AND REPORTS.B. THE VALIDITY OF THIS PERMIT IS ALSO CONDITIONED UPON STRICT OBSERVANCE OF ALL APPLICABLE FOREIGN, STATE, LOCAL OR OTHER FEDERAL LAW.C. VALID FOR USE BY PERMITTEE NAMED ABOVE.AND ANY OTHER PERSONS UNDER THE DIRECT CONTROL OF, UNDER, CONTRACT TO, OR EMPLOYED BY THE PERMITTEE ONLY TO THE EXTENT NECESSARY IN ACCOMPLISHING THE PURPOSE AUTHORIZED BELOW. SUBMIT A LIST OF SUBPERMITTEES WITH ANNUAL REPORT.D. Permittee, and subpermittee(s), are authorized to salvage live migratory birds found sick, injured or otherwise incapacitated in the cooling lake for treatment and release to the wild.E. All reasonable efforts shall be made to recover ALL dead birds observed.F. Birds when sufficiently recovered from their afflictions shall be returned to the wild in cooperation with the State Fish and Game Department.

Birds found dead or those that die during recovery efforts shall be promptly disposed of, by burial or incineration, if they are unsuitable for donation.

With approval from the issuing office, dead birds, or any parts thereof, may be deposited with a qualified public educational or scientific institution as defined in 50 CFR 10.12.G. Permittee, and subpermittee(s), shall carry and display, upon request, a copy of this permit whenever exercising its authority.

H. Failure to comply with ANY, of these conditions listed may result in the immediate suspension of this permit.I. Permittee shall maintain records as required in 50 CFR 13.46.J. All required records relating to permitted activities shall be kept at the location as indicated in writing by permittee to the issuing office.ADDITIONAL CONDIONS AND AUTHORIZATIONS ALSO APPLY 12.,REPORTING REQUIREMENTS NNUAL REPORT DUE: 01/31 ISSUED BY .TITLE DATE)~...-i( ~CHIEF, MBPO, REGION 6 .11/17/2003 (00" K. A detailed annual report shall be submitted to the Migratory Bird Permit Office, P.O. Box 25486-DFC (60154), Denver, Colorado 180226-0486, with the following information for each bird or carcass: I) Species name; 2) date recovered;

3) location recovered (ie. water, bank, etc.); 4) weather conditions;

5) date of death; 6) name of person who recovered the bird or carcass; 7) date of release; 8) post-release observation efforts and 9) beginning and ending dates of recovery efforts including daily accounts of number of hours and time of day these efforts were conducted.

L. All dead birds NOT recovered shall be documented by species (if know), date and location observed and reported in the annual report.

A66 PERMIT CONDITIONS I K A i4S AS]STATE OF KANSAS SCIENTIFIC, EDUCATION, OR EXHIBITION WILDLIFE PERMIT (Collecting and Salvage)Permit No. SC-083-2007 I. Only species listed to be collected, etc.: ALL FISH, EXCEPT NEOSHO MADTOM, IN THE NEOSHO RIVER, WOLF CREEK, JOHN REDMOND, AND COFFEY COUNTY LAKE. RADIOLOGICAL SAMPLES MAY INCLUDE GAME BIRDS AND MAMMALS. SALVAGE SPECIMENS INCLUDE NONENDANGERED MIGRATORY BIRDS. ANY AQUATIC NUISANCE SPECIES OF FISH WILLNOT BE RELEASED IF CAPTURED.2. Number of specimens:

FISH MANAGEMENTAPPROXIMATELY 10,000.RAD SPECIMENS APPROXIMATELY TEN/SPECIES/MONTH.

SALVAGE APPROXIMATELY 50.3- Counties to be covered by activity (collecting will be allowed on_ýlin counties listed: COFFEY, LYON, ANDERSON, OSAGE.4. Anticipated dates of activity:

DATE OF ISSUANCE THROUGH DECEMBER 31,2007.5. Specific purposeof activity:

COLLECTIONS ARE FOR FISHERY MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT IN THE VICINITY OF WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION.6. Methods of collecting:

FISH WILL BE COLLECTED WITH TRAP NETS, GILL NETS, AND ELECTROFISHING.

LEGAL HUNTING METHODS WILL BE USED FOR GAME ANIMALS.7. Place where specimens are to be housed: FISH WILL BE RETURNED TO WATER OR DONATED TO BIRD REHABILITATORS.

RAD SAMPLES WILL BE SENT TO ANALYSES LAB. SALVAGE SPECIMENS WILL BE PER FEDERAL PERMIT.Authority-KS.A.32-952 & K.A.R. 115-18-3 Permittee KEVIN MOLES Subpermittee DANIEL E. HAINES, DANIEL L.WILLIAMSON, ROBERT A. HAMMOND, DONALD R. ECCLES, TERESA L. RICE, RALPH L. LOGSDON Only the permittee and subpermittee(s) may collect. If the permittee is affiliated with an educational institstiolt, students may collect forthe perrnittee, while in the company of the pertnittee.

Specimens collected by such students must be placed in the possession of the persnittee at the collection site, for housing of the specimen atrthe place(s) listed on the permit. The permittee or iubperinittee(s) may not acquire specimens originating in the wild from other persons (including other holders of scientific, education, or exhibition wildlife permits), without permission from the Kansas Dept. of Wildlife & Parks.Affiliation WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Address 1550 OXEN LANE BURLINGTON KS 66839 Phone Number 620-364-8831, ext. 4565 U I PERMISSION TO ENTER ANY LANDS, EITHER PUBLIC OR PRIVATE, TO CONDUCT PERMITTED ACTIVITY MUST BE OBTAINED FROM THE OWNER OR MANAGER BEFORE ENTRY.Issued February 2, 2007 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF WILDLIFE AND PARKS E-Mail Address Federal Permit 1'Expiration Date: December 31, 2007 The permit holder must notify the KDWP Regional Law Enforcement Supervisor(s) prior to conducting activity in the counties listed above: