Text

Enclosure to AEP-NRC-2009-32 - Donald C. Cook, Units 1 and 2 - 2008 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Cover Through Appendix Iv
	ML091340523
Person / Time
Site:	Cook
Issue date:	04/29/2009
From:	; Indiana Michigan Power Co
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	AEP-NRC-2009-32, FOIA/PA-2010-0209
	Download: ML091340523 (313)
	v • d • e

ENCLOSURE TO AEP-NRC-2009-32 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 06 Cl)C Annual CL Environmental

~Operating Report EJanuary 1 2008, through December 31, 2008 Indiana Michigan Power Company Bridgman, Michigan 0 0 Docket Nos. 50-315 & 50-316 L)6 C 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS PaQe 1. Introduction 1 II. Changes to Environmental Technical Specifications 1 Ill. Non-Radiological Environmental Operating Report 1 A. Non-Routine Reports 1 B. Environmental Protection Plan 1 C. Plant Design and Operation 1 D. Environmental Monitoring

-Herbicide Application 2 E. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program 2 F. NPDES Applications 2 G. Special Reports 3 IV, List of Appendices Appendix Title I. Non-Routine Reports -2008 II. Herbicide Application Report -2008 Ill. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program Report -2008 IV. NPDES Applications

-2008 V. Special Reports -2008 INTRODUCTIONTechnical Specifications Appendix B, Part II, Section 5.4.1, requires that an Annual Environmental Operating Report be produced and include summaries and analyses of the results of the environmental protection activities required by Section 4.2 of theEnvironmental Protection Plan for the report period. The Annual Environmental Operating Report shall include a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), previous non-radiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment.

This report serves to fulfill these requirements and represents the Annual Environmental Operating Report for Units 1 and 2 of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) for the operating period from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008.The following table summarizes the pertinent data concerning CNP's operation during the period from January 1, 2008, through December 31, 2008.Parameter Unit I Unit 2 Gross Electrical Generation (megawatt 5,829,281 9,696,184 hours0.00213 days 0.0511 hours 3.042328e-4 weeks 7.0012e-5 months )Unit Service Factor (%) 61.6 98.5 Unit Capacity Factor -Maximum 62.3 99.3 Dependable Capacity Net (%)II. CHANGES TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS There were no changes to Environmental Technical Specifications in 2008.III. NON-RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT A. Non-Routine Reports A summary of the 2008 non-routine events is located in Appendix I of this Report. No long-term, adverse environmental effects were noted.B. Environmental Protection PlanThere were no instances of noncompliance with the Environmental Protection Plan in 2008.C. Plant Design and Operation During 2008, there were no changes in station design, operations, tests, or experiments that involved a potentially significant unreviewed environmental issue. There were no environmental evaluations performed during the reporting period.1 D. Environmental Monitoring

-Herbicide Application Technical Specification Appendix B, Part II Section 4.2, requires the use of herbicides to conform to the approved use of selected herbicides as registered by the EPA and approved by State authorities.

There were no preoperational herbicide studies to which comparisons could be made. Herbicide applications are managed by plant procedure PMP-2160-HER-001, Guidelines for the Application of Approved Herbicides.

A summary of the 2008 herbicide application is contained in Appendix II of this report. Based on observations, there were no negative impacts or evidence of trends toward irreversible change to the environment as a result of the herbicide applications.

Based on our review of application records and field observations, the applications conformed to Environmental Protection Agency and State requirements for the approved use of herbicide.

E. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program Macrofouling monitoring and control activities during 2008 are discussed in Appendix III of this report.F. NPDES Applications Groundwater There was no Groundwater permit application correspondence in 2008.Surface Water On April 2, 2008, Indiana Michigan Power Company (I&M) submitted an Industrial and Commercial Wastewater Discharge Application for renewal of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit M10005827. On May 27, 2008, I&M provided a supplement to the application that included data for Outfall 0OB and for information, data sheets for Outfalls 00A and OOC. Copies of the application and the supplement were provided to the NRC by letter dated May 28, 2008, ADAMS Accession No. ML 081570609.Also on April 2, 2008, I&M submitted pursuant to NPDES Permit M10005827, Part I Section A.11, Cooling Water Intake Structure the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. The CDS contains information regarding Source Water Physical Data, Cooling Water Intake Structure Data, Cooling Water System Data, the Proposal for Information Collection, and the Fish Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study as required by the NPDES permit.

A copy of the CDS is provided in Appendix IV of this report.On December 12, 2008, I&M requested an amendment to the current NPDESpermit application to allow the use of a C02 generator during shutdown periods for our electrical generator lay-up process. A copy of the permit amendment request is provided in Appendix IV of this report.2 G. Special Reports On June 8, 2007, an interim report was submitted to the U.S. EPA, Office of Chemical Emergency Preparedness and Prevention in Chicago, IL. The report was submitted in accordance with paragraph 22 of the Consent Agreement and Final Order (CAFO) to address the status of the supplemental environmental project (SEP) and associated costs to upgrade CNP's sodium hypochlorite system. This report was included in the Plant's 2007 Annual Environmental Operating Repofr. On August 15, 2008 the U.S. EPA responded that they had received, evaluated, and accepted the SEP completion report as per the terms of the CAFO.Mexel, a chemical product in the general classification of filming amines was evaluated for use as a preventive molluscicide control program at CNP. An on-site research facility was constructed and operated continuously for 365 days to evaluate Mexel efficiency in preventing zebra mussel infestation on modeled cooling water intake tunnels at CNP. The findings indicated that a Mexel product dosage regimen of 4 ppm for 40 minutes/day proved effective in, preventing infestation of zebra mussel colonies in corrugated pipes patterned after CNP's intake tunnels with no negative impacts to Lake Michigan.

The study results were documented in a report title, "Mexel Efficiency Study, D. C.Cook Nuclear Plant, Bridgman, Michigan", February 2008 Copies of these two reports are included in Appendix V, Special Reports of this report.3 APPENDIX I NON-ROUTINE REPORTS 2008 2008 Non-Routine Reports February 11, 2008 -Notice was made to the MI DEQ that the Turbine Room Sump discharge (Outfall 00D) samples for Sodium and Sulfate during the water treatment system regeneration were not obtained for the month of January. The sample was not obtained due to a communication error between departments at CNP. This missed sample did not pose a threat tothe environment, public health, or safety. We have initiated a weekly data review to prevent missed samples.February 19, 2008- Wild ducks were entrained in the intake cribs of CNP starting on January 7, 2008. The species are believed to be primarily lesser scaup, with some bufflehead, scoter, and red head. Beginning December 27, 2004, we have been performing annual observations from October through April to determine the approximate number of ducks rafting in the area of CNP's intake cribs. This number has been between approximately 100.and 1,000 ducks. It is believed these ducks have congregated in the area due to the open water and abundant food supply of zebra mussels on the limestone riprap covering our intake pipes. Through January 23, 2008, 134 ducks have been entrained in CNP's intake cribs and collected on the intake screens within the screehhouse.

The number of ducks that have been entrained the intake cribs has increased over the previous year's total of 48.Two duck deterrent technologies were tested including using a laser and a flare gun type launcher that fires a charge up to 300 yards to scatter rafting ducks. The laser was effective in low light conditions (dusk and dawn), but had minimal effect in daylight hours and dark hours.The flare gun was suspended due to the result of driving the rafts of ducks further out over the intake structures.

CNP has continued to use annual fall cleaning of the intake cribs, thereby removing the zebra mussel food source as the most effective means of mitigating duck entrainment.

May 20, 2008 -Notice was made to the Ml DEQ informing them that the Total Suspended Solids (TSS) concentration on Outfall OOH, Turbine Room Sump Emergency Overflow, exceeded the maximum daily limit of 100 mg/l. Two samples were taken on May 11, 2008, and analyzed on May 15, 2008. The first of the two indicated a TSS concentration of 99.25 mg/I; however, thesecond sample indicated 102.6 mg/I, which was over the maximum daily limit of 100 mg/l. The period of non-compliance was from 0041 to 2050 hours0.0237 days 0.569 hours 0.00339 weeks 7.80025e-4 months on May 11, 2008. A pipe from the neutralization system was determined to be leaking and had to be removed from service.Subsequent resin bed regeneration waste was discharged directly to the turbine room sump.This condition resulted in the discharge of regeneration waste at a faster rate than normal through Outfall OOH. The concentration of TSS was just above the exceedence criteria and occurred over a period of approximately 20 hours2.314815e-4 days 0.00556 hours 3.306878e-5 weeks 7.61e-6 months . The pipe was repaired and returned to service. There were no adverse environmental effects noted from this incident.

September 29, 2008 -On September 20, 2008, at 2005'hours, the CNP Unit 1 turbine failed and the generator caught fire. Approximately 50 gallons of non-PCP lubricating oil was released to the on-site absorption pond during the fire fighting activities and subsequent oil system leaks.Approximately 1500 gallons of oil were contained by the sump pumps and floor drains. The concrete containment berms and floors were cleaned using oil absorbent pads and oil dry material.

The oil in the sumps and absorption pond was recovered using a vacuum truck and absorbent materials.

No oil was discharged to Lake Michigan.

This spill did not pose a threat to the environment, public health, or safety. The on-site absorption pond was cleaned of the spilled oil by September 26, 2008.1 APPENDIX II HERBICIDE APPLICATION REPORT 2008 Date Subject From To A unit of American Electric Power February 25, 2009 2008 Herbicide Spray Report -Cook Nuclear Plant Steve Hitt Jon Harner, Environmental Manager The following herbicides were applied per manufacturers' direction by certified Michigan licensed applicators on Cook Nuclear Plant property during 2008: Via Contractor Oust XP/DupontDMA4 VM/Dow Edict IVM/Nichino America Helosate Plus/Helm Agro Garlon 4/Dow Via AEP Personnel Round-Up Pro DeAnelo Brothers Applications:DeAngelo Brothers; a Michigan licensed herbicide applicator on contract to the AEP Energy Delivery and Customer Relations performed the applications (Joseph Deckard).On June 30, 2008 a mixture of Oust XP, Helosate Plus, DMA 4, and Edict IVM, were used for total plant control in the 69 KV and 765 KV switch yards (345 KV yard not sprayed), railroad (right-of-way) tracks, switches, derails

& train bridge. The rail areas were applied with a spray pattern corresponding to railroad specifications, generally 16'to 20' wide pattern from an All-Terrain Vehicle fitted with a tanker where grass was present along railroad.

Any ditches along the right-of-way were checked for water and spray pattern decreased in these areas. A total of 48 oz of Oust XP, 24 qt. Helosate Plus, 24 qt. DMA 4, and 33 oz. Edict IVM were used for the application and spread over 26 acres in accordance with the manufacturers' labels. On June 05, 2008, a mixture of 7 oz of Garlon 4 was spot sprayed and applied to approximately 1/2 acre for-cut stump treatment of transmission right-of-way off Livingston Road.Product Name Quantity Quantity Quantity Used Used/Acre Allowed/Acre Oust XP 48 oz 1.8 oz 2.0 ozHelosate Plus 24.0 qt 0.91 qt 4.0 qt DMA 4 24.0 qt 0.91 qt 2.0 qt Edict IVM 33.0 oz 1.25 oz 2.75 oz Garlon 4 7.0 oz 14.0 oz 8.0 qt Maintenance Buildine and Grounds:

Round-up and Round-Up Pro mixed with water in a sprayer were applied to Owner Controlled Areas by licensed applicators from the Maintenance Building and Grounds crew (L. Everett Hartwig Sr. and John Mock).During the 2008 growing season, there was not any fertilizer applied to the grounds by Facilities/Maintenance.

Weeds were sprayed in all gravel areas East and South of the Protected Area (no RWSTyards), inside the Protected Area on gravel areas around lawn and fence, North Access,Sidewalks, roadways and 2 microwave zone, on the railroad tracks

& gravel areas from North Access to Training Center, the Railroad tracks & gravel areas from the Training Center to Red Arrow Highway, and the gravel area along the TSOC parking lots (length of building x 10' wide) and road way. A total of 27.5 gallons of Round-Up Pro were used for spraying in 2008. According to the product label, spraying should contain a 5 -10% solution and a total permitted concentration of 40 gallons per acre. A total of 27.5 gallons of solution were used to treat 9.5 acres (total of 340 gallons of 8-10% mixed solution used).The following table details the application rates used for weed control in the grass and garden beds compared to the allowable application rates.Product Name Quantity Concentration Used Concentration Used Allowed 7.8% solution -22.5 gallons of .40 gallons per Round-Up Pro 22.5 gal solution for 290 gallons used. acre, 8.0 acres treated.10% solution -5.0 gallons of solution 40 gallons per Round-Up 5.0 gal for 50 gallons used acre, 1.5 acres for 50_ gallons_ usedtreated.

Mortality Inspection:

The 2008 herbicide effectiveness survey was performed per PMP-2160-HER-00 1 on November 12 and 14, 2008. There was no evidence of spillage, overspray or excessive application; no adverse environmental effects were noted during the inspection.

Herbicides were applied in accordance with manufacturer's label instructions and Federal and State requirements by Michigan-licensed applicators.

Preparation and application descriptions were documented on PMP-2160-HER-001 Data Sheet 1, Herbicide Request.

Herbicides used were Oust, Helosate Plus, DMA 4 VM, Garlon 4, and Edict IVM were applied by DeAngelo Brothers; Round-up and Roundup Pro were applied by licensed applicators from the Maintenance Building and Grounds crew.Protected Area inspections included all stone-covered areas and lawns. The following discrepancies were noted: some broadleaf growtlh around the U2 hydrogen tanks, thistles and grasses between the Fire Protection Building and the south plant fence extending upto the 2TR201 CD transformer, also north of the U2 spare Main Transformer. There are grasses around all three U2 Main Transformers and between the Maintenance Outage Facility (MOF) and the fence. Broadleaves are growing in the microwave zone by the Cement Shed and around all three Ul RWST Yard tanks. The area between the Auxiliary Building Crane Bay roll up door and the Radiation Protection Access Control Building (RPAC) has vegetation along with the area around the U1 hydrogen tanks. The lawn weed control was satisfactory.

Outside inspections included the railroad tracks up to the CSX derail, 765 kV and 345 kV switchyards, all stone, mulch and grass areas.

I also inspected the power line right-of-way along Livingston Road. There was considerable vegetation in the steel yard by the Fabrication Shop and several small trees in the Fire Protection Tank yard; these stone areas were not treated this year. The other outside areas had very effective herbicide application.

Summary: In summary, based upon our review of the application records, manufacturer specifications, material safety data sheets (MSDSs) and observations of the treated areas, the herbicides were applied according to the manufacturer's labeled instructions and according to Federal and State requirements.

All personnel performing herbicide applications were licensed by the State of Michigan.

A detailed map and application records are filed in accordance with PMP-2160-HER-00 1, Guidelines for the Application of Approved Herbicides. No signs of over spray or spillage were observed.

No adverse environmental effects occurred.

APPENDIX III MOLLUSC BIOFOULING MONITORING PROGRAM REPORT 2008 Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program 2008 Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Performed and Submitted by Cook Plant Environmental Prepared for: American Electric Power Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, Michigan MOLLUSC BIOFOULING MONITORING PROGRAM 2008 April 2009 Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental Section 2 Table of Contents Page #List of Tables and Figures 4 Executive Summary 5 Chapter 1 -Introduction 7 1.1 Past History 7 1.2 Objectives 8 Chapter 2 -Methods 9 2.1 Whole-Water Sampling 9 2.2 Artificial Substrates 10 2.2.1 Intake Forebay 102.2.2 Service Water Systems 11 2.2.3 Artificial Substrate Cumulative Sample 11 Analysis Chapter 3 -Results and Discussion 12 3.1 Whole-Water Sampling 13 3.2 Artificial Substrate Sampling, Biocide Treatment, and 14 Mechanical Cleaning 3.2.1 Circulating Water System Artificial Substrate 14 Sampling 3.2.2 Service Water Systems and Miscellaneous 15 Sealing and Cooling Water System Artificial Substrate Sampling 3.2.3 Biocide Treatment 17 3.2.4 Mechanical Cleaning 17 Chapter 4 Summary and Recommendations 18 4.1 Summary 18 4.2 Recommendations 19 References 21 Appendix Table 1 SWS Chlorination Values for 2008 Zebra 28 Mussel Monitoring Program 3 List of Tables and Figures Table # Title Page #2-1 Sampling Schedule for Zebra Mussel Monitoring at 22 the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant in 2008 3-1 Whole-Water Sampling Program Number of Zebra 23 Mussel Veligers Per Cubic Meter, Veliger Size Range, and Mean Veliger Size (um) Collected in the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Forebay in 2008 3-2 Density, Average Size, and Size Range of Settled 24 Zebra Mussel Post-veligers Collected on Cumulative Artificial Substrates Placed in the Forebay, in the Service Water Systems and the Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water System in the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant in 2008 Figure #3-1 2008 D.C. Cook Plant-Whole-Water Zebra Mussel 25 Veliger Density and Water Column Temperature in Intake Forebay 3-2 2008 D.C. Cook Plant-Whole-Water Zebra Mussel 26 Veliger Density and Zebra Mussel Post-veliger Cumulative Settlement in the Service Water Systems 3-3 Screenhouse Intake Forebay 27 4 Executive Summary Biofouling studies have been conducted at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant since 1983. In 1991, monitoring of zebra mussels in the circulating water, essential service water (ESW), and nonessential service water (NESW) systems was'added to the program. The objectives of this monitoring program are to detect the presence and determine the density of zebra mussel veligers in the Circulating Water System and postveliger settlement and growth rate in the forebay andservice water systems, and to determine the effectiveness of oxidizing and non-oxidizing biocides in the plant systems by comparing densities and sizes of settled zebra mussels when applicable.

Veligers were present in the forebay from 24 April through 4 December 2008. Peak densities occurred on 22 May, 23 July, 28 August, and 4 September, the last of these 4 September 2008 being the largest peak (335,000 veligers/m

3) during the 2008 sampling season. Historical data supports that zebra mussel density is independent of the volume of water entering the plant, as the concentration of veligers in the water remains the same regardless of the flow rate through the plant. Historical data collected for the past seventeen years suggests that the zebra mussel population is highly variable and future populations of zebra mussels are difficult to accurately predict.Cumulative settlement was monitored in the forebay by using a six-inch PVC pipe as an artificial substrate.

As in 2007, the time period of collection was made to more accurately coincide with the annual fall intake crib cleaning to estimate the size and density of mussels the divers might encounter at the time of cleaning.

The PVC pipe was deployed on 8 November 2007 and was retrieved on 6 November 2008. The settlement density and average size of postveligers for the 12-month period was 272,026 individuals/m 2 and 2,526 pm (2.5 mm). As a comparison, the substrate sample collected during the 2007 sampling had a density of 129,425 individuals/m 2 5 and an average size of 3,328 pm (3.3 mm). Higher numbers of individuals encountered during the 2008 sampling could possibly be attributed to a higher peak veliger density of 335,000 veligers/m 3 in 2008 as compared to 2007 (196,000 ind./m 3).Service Water Systems and Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water The return sides (after systems' use) of the ESW and NESW systems and the Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water (MSCW) system were monitored in the 2008 Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program. The results indicate that the chlorination system was effective in preventing growth and prolonged settlement of post veligers in the service water systems. In 2008, the ESW system experienced variability in TRC residuals due to inadequacies in the liquid sodium hypochlorite injection design.1 However, the results showed that even when the system was taken out of service for short periods of time for system maintenance, or that system TRC residuals fell below their target band of 0.08-0.6 ppm due to design inadequacies, settlement control was quickly re-established.

Biocide TreatmentThere were no biocide treatments in 2008."This design issue is being addressed by plant modification EC-48566.

Chapter 1 Introduction 1.1 Past History American Electric Power Company (AEP) has been conducting zebra mussel monitoring studies at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) since 1991. The purpose of these studies is to monitor zebra mussel veliger and post-veliger settlement densities in the Circulating Water, Essential Service Water (ESW), Nonessential Service Water (NESW), and MiscellaneousSealing and Cooling Water (MSCW) systems to help determine the effectiveness of the zebra mussel control program.Private consulting firms had been involved in the past (1991-2004) to aid in the performance and analysis of the program. However, in 2004 the program was taken "in house" by the CNP Environmental staff who conducted the monitoring program designed to detect the timing of spawning and settling of zebra mussels at CNP. The program also determines densities for: 1) whole water samples for planktonic veligers; and 2) artificial substrates set within the ESW, NESW, and MSCW systems for cumulative post-veliger settlement.

In the Circulating Water System, a section of PVC piping, utilized as an artificial substrate, was used to determine the cumulative settlement in the intake forebay.7

1.2 Objectives

Specific objectives for the 2008 Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program were as follows:Conduct whole-water sampling of the Circulating Water System weekly (July through September), bimonthly (May, June, October and November), and monthly (April and December) to determine the presence and density of larval zebra mussels.Deploy artificial substrates (microscope slides in test tube racks) in the service water systems to determine cumulative settlement of post-veligers.

Collect samples monthly from May through December.-Deploy a PVC piping section, also as an artificial substrate, in the intake forebay to determine cumulative settlement for approximately one year.

Chapter 2 Methods 2.1 Whole-Water SamplingWhole-water sampling of the Circulating Water System was conducted from 24 April to 4 December 2008 (Table 2-1). Samples were collected from mid-depth in the intake forebay by pumping lake water through an in-line flowmeter into a plankton net. The sampling location was consistent with that of previous studies. Two replicates (2,000 liters each) were collected during each sampling date.A Myers Model 2JF-51-8 pump or equivalent was connected to an in-line flowmeter assembly (Signet Model #P58640) and pumped water into a plankton net for approximately one hour. To minimize organism abrasion, measured flow was directed into a No. 20 plankton net that was suspended in a partially filled 55-gallon plastic barrel.Samples were gently washed into the cod-end bucket of the plankton net using filtered Circulating Water System water and then transferred to a one-liter plastic container.

Filtered water was added to the container to ensure that a full liter was analyzed.

The two sampleswere analyzed in an on-site laboratory.

Samples were mixed thoroughly for three minutes using a magnetic stir plate. Then, using a calibrated Pasteur pipette, a 1-milliliter aliquot of mixed sample was placed into a Sedgewick-Rafter cell for counting.

An Olympus SZ-1 145 binocular microscope (18-11 Ox) equipped with cross-polarizing filters was used. Ten aliquots were counted and the average was extrapolated to determine the number of individuals per cubic meter.9 The density was calculated as follows: Density (#/m 3)=(average

- DF)/0.001 L*1 L/2000L*1 OOOL/m 3 DF- Dilution Factor This process was repeated for a second replicate and the mean of the two values was calculated to yield a final density value. Size measurements were recorded for up to 50 organisms from each sample. Veliger size was measured using an ocular micrometer that was calibrated to a stage micrometer.

2.2 Artificial

Substrates To-determine zebra mussel settlement in the Circulating Water, a section of PVC pipe was deployed in the intake forebay, upstream of the trash racks. Bio-box side-stream samplers were installed on the return sides of both service water systems (ESW and NESW) and on the MSCW system to determine settlement in these systems. The side-stream samplers consisted of modified test-tube racks designed to hold microscope slides and placed in bio-boxes for cumulative sampling.2.2.1 Intake Forebay On 6 November 2008 the PVC pipe, utilized as an artificial substrate, was retrieved from the forebay. The pipe, which had been installed on 8 November 2007, measured 6 inches in length and had an inside diameter of 3.5 inches. The pipe had been cut in half lengthwise, rejoined using hose-clamps, attached to a rope weighted by a stainless steel pipe section, and suspended at mid-depth in the intake forebay. The PVC sampler was analyzed for densities 10--

and shell sizes by analyzing scrapings from two separate one-inch square sections of the PVC sampler. The PVC sampler was designed to provide information on zebra mussel accumulated infestation and sizes occurring over a 1-year period.2.2.2 Service Water Systems Side-stream bio-boxes were placed on the return side of the service water systems (1 ESW, 2 ESW, NESW) and the Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling (MSCW) Water System. Each bio-box contained two modified test tube racks containing a total of 80 microscope slides. The racks held the slides above the bio-box base that allowed silt and sediment to fall out before they could affect the slide settlement.

The bio-boxes were covered with a plant-approvedfireproof fabric to limit light exposure.

CNP personnel inspected the bio-boxes to ensure that flow was constant and unimpeded.

Adjustments were made when necessary.

Ten slides from each location were collected monthly and were analyzed for post-veliger density and shell size.2.2.3 Artificial Substrate Cumulative Sample Analysis An Olympus SZ-1 145 binocular microscope (18-11 Ox) equipped with cross polarizing filters was used for analyzing samples. Slide preparation consisted of scraping clean one side of the slide allowing for direct placement on the microscope stage. The remaining post-veligers could then be directly counted from the other side of the slide. When the 25mm x 75mm slide surfaces became heavily infested, the following sub-sampling technique was used:-Growth on slides was divided into either 2 or 4 equal subsections (depending on density of growth) and then a subsection was counted and the findings were extrapolated to give a 1]

number for the whole slide. Counts were then proportionally extrapolated to one square meter.Settlement rates were calculated by taking the average number of mussels from the ten slides and multiplying this value by 533.33 [(1,000,000,000 mm 2 )/(25mm x 75mm = 1875mm 2), surface area of slide] to obtain the density of zebra mussels per square meter. (One post-veliger/microscope slide equals 533.33 post-veligers per square meter.)Shell diameters were measured for up to 50 random individuals to obtain maximum, minimum and mean sizes. Diameters were measured at the longest dimension across the shell using an ocular micrometer calibrated to a stage micrometer.

Chapter 3 Results and Discussion The zebra mussel monitoring system provided representative numbers for whole-water veliger and artificial substrate settlement densities.

The whole-water sampling for free-swimming veligers coupled with monitoring post-veliger settlement on artificial substrates provided sampleresults that could be compared with previous years' data.Appendix Table 1 shows the chlorination values for the ESW and NESW systems. A 0.08-0.6 ppm total residual chlorine (TRC) was the target band for the control of zebra mussel settlement.

Most of the TRC values were within or close to target levels of 0.08-0.6 ppm total residual chlorine for the ESW and NESW systems. The MSCW system, which was cross-connected to the NESW system, was chlorinated on all of the dates that the NESW 12 _.

system was chlorinated.

The ESW system experienced variability in TRC residuals due to inadequacies in the liquid sodium hypochlorite injection design that will be discussed further.3.1 Whole-Water Sampling Sampling of planktonic veligers in the circulating water system was initiated 24 April 2008 and was completed on 4 December 2008. Results are presented in Table 3-1 and in Figure 3-1.Veligers were present in all samples throughout the monitoring season.Heaviest spawning activity occurred during late-August to early-September followed by the period from early May to mid-June. The overall peak number of individual veligers occurred on 4 September (335,000 ind./m 3). This overall peak occurred 6 weeks later than peak levels recorded in 2007 (20 July 2007) and was closer to the timing of other peak events in recent history (excluding 2007).

The total number of individuals recorded was nearly twice that of 2007 (196,000 ind./m 3), and closer to 2003 and 2005 levels of 450,000 ind./m 3 and 455,000 ind./m 3 , respectively.

Whole water veliger densities declined dramatically following their peak on 4 September 2008. Water temperatures fell suddenly during the same time frame to 60 degrees and were back up to 73 degrees within one week on 11 September 2008. Lake temperatures fell off predictably to a season-low of 38 degrees on 4 December 2008. Veligers were present in the whole water samples through the December sampling, further enforcing the need for chlorination in service water systems throughout the end of the year.The 2003 report concluded that yearly results in peak abundances make it difficult to predict when the peak abundance will occur each season other than estimating some time between July and October. Continued whole-water monitoring during the veliger spawning season is therefore necessary to detect when these peak abundances occur.1.3-Whole-water densities recorded during 1993 through 1995 for the November and December sampling periods were less than 1,000 ind. /m 3 for sampling conducted after 3 November.During the 2005 through 2008 sampling seasons, whole-water densities recorded in November were up to fifty times greater than those of the 1993 through 1995 period.

Reasons for this increase could possibly be attributed to lake temperatures remaining warmer into the fall season than in the past, therefore allowing for spawning to occur late into the fall. Another potential contributing factor is an increase in the overall numbers of zebra mussels occurring in Lake Michigan, and potential changes in food supply as productivity and planktivorous fish populations fluctuate.

Because of the late fall spawning in recent years, chlorination needs to continue into the late fall months to prevent mussel settlement and growth in plant service water systems.In summary, zebra mussel veligers were present in the water column on all sampling dates from 24 April through 4 December.

Spawning commenced in late April and continued through the end of the sampling program. Peak veliger densities occurred at a maximum level of, 335,000 ind. /m 3 on 4 September 2008 with the second highest recorded level occurring on 28 August 2008 (132,750 ind. /m 3).3.2 Artificial Substrate Sampling, Biocide Treatment, and Mechanical Cleaning

3.2.1 Circulating

Water System Artificial Substrate Sampling Cumulative settlement was monitored in the intake forebay using a six-inch PVC pipe with a 3.5 inch inside diameter.

The PVC pipe was set in the forebay on 8 November 2007 and retrieved on 6 November 2008 to determine the average density and size range for 12 months.The density on-the substrate was 272,026 ind./m 2.Individuals ranged from 190 pm-1 1,172 pm 14 (0.19 mm -11.17 mm) and the mean size of fifty randomly selected individuals was 2,526 pm (2.5 mm). As in 2007, the time period of collection was designed to coincide with the annual fall intake crib cleaning to estimate the size and density of mussels the divers might encounter at the time of cleaning.

For comparison, the sample substrate that was pulled in 2007 had a density of 129,425 individuals/m 2 and an average size of 3,328 pm (3.3 mm). An explanation forthis difference could be attributed to a large peak veliger density (335,000 ind./m 3 ) occurring in the fall of 2008 that was more than twice the peak veliger density (196,000 ind./m 3 ) occurring in the fall of 2007.3.2.2 Service Water Systems and Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water System Artificial Substrate Sampling The return sides (after systems' use) of the ESW and NESW systems and the MSCW system were monitored in the 2008 Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program. Chlorine is injected beneath each ESW pump suction. The ESW trains are typically cross-tied downstream of the chlorine injection point so that both ESW trains are served.

A separate chlorine injection point, which is in the suction header, serves the NESW system and subsequently the MSCW system.The plant's Zebra Mussel Monitoring

& Control Program calls for continuous chlorination at 0.08-0.6 ppm total residual chlorine (TRC) of the service water and MSCW systems from Maythrough November to correspond with the zebra mussel spawning season.Cumulative settlement sampling and analysis was performed on a monthly basis in 2008.Artificial substrate slides were installed on 24 April and ten slides per month were examined and not replaced.

Results are shown in Table 3-2 and Figure 3-2.15 In 2008, the chlorination system was challenged by maintaining target levels of chlorine at 0.08-0.6 ppm in the ESW system and TRC levels were variable.

This variability in ESW TRC residuals was attributed to inadequacies in the liquid sodium hypochlorite injection design. The chlorine feed diffusers beneath the ESW pump bells were originally designed to feed gaseous chlorine.

A permanent liquid sodium hypochlorite feed system installed under 12-MOD-50719 on 18 July 2005 was tied into these original gaseous chlorine diffusers.

It is believed that varying currents in the Plant's intake forebay affect the delivery of liquid sodium hypochlorite from the diffusers located below the ESW pump bells. This is most apparent when hypochlorite delivery is aligned to the west ESW pumps that are closer to the flow patterns in the intake forebay. This design deficiency is being addressed by a plant modification (EC-48566) that will plumb the liquid sodium hypochlorite feed directly into the ESW pump bells. Because the hypochlorite feed is plumbed directly into the NESW pump suction header, the NESW system was unaffected by these fluctuations and maintained target levels throughout the sampling season. A direct correlation was observed between inadequate chlorine levels and elevated numbers of individuals settling on artificial substrate.

In summary, data indicated that when chlorine levels remained within the target range of 0.08-0.6ppm, that total number of settled post-velligers was below or only slightly higher than the target level of < 1000 ind./ M 2.Chlorination has proven effective in the historical data as well as in the 2008 sampling event. As stated earlier, chlorine appears to have a direct correlation on the number of individuals settled on artificial substrates.

When operating properly, the chlorination of system water appears to be an effective mechanism for the control of the zebra mussel settlement.

16

3.2.3 Biocide

Treatment There were no biocide treatments in 2008.3.2.4 Mechanical Cleaning During the Unit 1 Cycle 22 (March-April) refueling outage, divers were employed to mechanically clean sand, zebra mussels, and debris from the walls and floors of the Unit 1 Circulating Water Intake Forebay and Unit 1 Condenser Inlet Tunnel. The Unit 1 Condenser Inlet Tunnel was cleaned in its entirety.

The Unit 1 Intake Forebay was cleaned on the east (pump) side of the traveling screens (Figure 3-3). This included areas of the Unit 1 Circulating Water Pump and Unit 1 ESW Pump bays. The west side (lake side) of traveling screen bays 1-7 and 2-1 and 1-5 and 1-6 were cleaned in their entirety to the trash racks. The trash racks in front of traveling screen bays 1-1 thru 2-1 were cleaned. The area further west of the trash racks extending to the west wall of the intake forebay was not cleaned as well as the west sides of traveling screen bays 1-1 and 1-2, and 1-3 and 1-4 to the trash racks.In the Fall of 2008, the divers cleaned the intake crib velocity caps, ice guards, and trash racks of zebra mussels to remove the food source that attracts wild ducks to the intake cribs.

17 Chapter 4 Summary and Recommendations

4.1 SummaryThe

2008 Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program was initiated on 24 April and continued to 4 December.

Heaviest spawning activity occurred during late-August and into early-September.The most pronounced spawning peak occurred on 4 September 2008 (335,000 ind./m3).

Whole water veliger densities declined to levels less than ten times than that of the 4 September event.However, veligers were observed through the end of the year 4 December 2008 sampling.

The whole water densities show that there are substantial numbers of veligers in the forebay, indicating the need for effective chlorination in the service water systems throughout the reproductive season into the end of the year. Based on historical data, veligers have been present in system water from the April sampling through the end of December and it is still difficult to predict when peak abundance levels will occur each season. The 2003 report concluded that yearly results in peak abundances make it difficult to predict when the peak abundance will occur each season other than estimating sometime between July and October.Therefore, it is recommended that the current chlorination and monitoring program remain inplace. Continued whole water monitoring during the veliger spawning season will detect when these peak abundances occur.The intake forebay PVC sampler, collected on 6 November 2008, zebra mussel density was 272,026 ind./m2. Individuals ranged from 196pm-10,898pm (0.20 mm -10,90 mm) and the mean size of fifty randomly selected individuals was 2,526pm (2.5 mm). As in 2007, the time period of collection was designed to coincide with the annual fall intake crib cleaning to estimate the size and density of mussels the divers might encounter at the time of cleaning.

For 18-comparison, the sample substrate that was pulled in 2007 had a density of 129,425 individuals/m2 and an average size of 3,328pm (3.3 mm).The data indicates that the chlorination system, when operating correctly, was effective in preventing growth and prolonged settlement of postveligers in the service water systems.Reports of visual inspections of heat exchangers performed during the Unit 1 Cycle 22 Refueling Outage showed no live zebra mussel colonies residing in systems that were chlorinated.

4.2 Recommendations

Based on observations made during the course of this program and on previous historical data, it is recommended that:-Whole-Water sampling should continue to be initiated in April to determine the presence of veligers in the water column, as currently implemented. The whole-water sampling frequency in 2005 was reduced from weekly to twice monthly in the months Qf June, October, and November to lessen the sampling burden and better target sampling based on previous years'. spawning data. This sampling frequency reduction proved to be effective from 2005 through 2008 as the major spawning peaks were still able to be captured, but with less sampling and analysis effort.This reduced sampling schedule should be continued as currently implemented.

-Studies of cumulative post-veliger settlement should continue to be conducted from May through December, as currently implemented.

19

-Continuous chlorination maintained in the 0.08 -0.6 ppm target band should continue to run throughout the spawning season, as currently implemented.

Zebra mussel sampling and analysis in 2008 confirmed the efficacy of this target band.-Chlorination system outages should be kept to a minimum and the chlorination system checked on a regular basis to assure that target levels are being maintained.

-Chlorine levels should be checked in the system water to verify chlorine levels.-Maintain daily bio-box flow checks to ensure bio-box conditions are representative of system conditions.

Chlorination data from all water systems (ESW, NESW, and MSCW) and temperature data should continue to be made available to allow meaningful interpretation of results.20 References Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP. 1995. Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1994, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant: Final Report.Great Lakes Environmental Center. 1996. A Zebra Mussel (Dreissena)

Monitoring Survey for the Donald C. Cook Plant April-December 1995: Final ReportLawler, Matusky,&

Skelly Engineers LLP. 1997. Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1996, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant: Final Report.Lawler, Matusky,& Skelly Engineers LLP. 1998. Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1997, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant: Final Report.Lawler, Matusky, & Skelly Engineers LLP. 1999. Mollusc biofouling monitoring during 1998, Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant: Final Report.Grand Analysis.

1999. Zebra Mussel Monitoring Project for 1999. Performed at Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Grand Analysis.

2000. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Project for 2000. Performed at Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Grand Analysis. 2001. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2001. Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Grand Analysis.

2002. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2002. Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Grand Analysis.

2003. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2003. Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental.

2004. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2004.Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.

Final Report.Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental.

2005. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2005.Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant.

Final Report.Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental.

2006. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2006.Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.Cook Nuclear Plant Environmental.

2007. Mollusc Biofouling Monitoring Program for 2007.Performed at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Final Report.21 TABLE 2-1 SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING AT THE D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT IN 2008 Date Whole Water Artificial Substrates April 24 X (1).May 8 X 22 X X June 5 X 19 X X July 3 X Missed Sample AR00836216 9 X 17 X X 23 X 31 X August 7 X 14 X X 21 X 28 X September 4 X 11 x x 18 X 25 X October 9 X X 23 X November 6 X X(2).20 X December 4 X X (1). Deploy slide racks.(2). Retrieve PVC pipe section.

Read, clean & re-deploy.

22

)TABLE 3-1 Whole-Water Sampling Program Number of Zebra Mussel Veligers Per Cubic Meter, Veliger Size Range, and Mean Veliger Size (um) Collected in The D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant Forebay in 2008 Density Size Range Mean Size Date (No./m 3) (urn) (urn)4/24/08 25 100 100 5/08/08 20350 100-150 99 5/22/08 42750 100-158 124 6/05/08 16450 100-200 126 6/19/08 31200 116-250 159 7/03/08 Missed sample AR00836216 7/09/08 20800 83-300 162 7/17/08 2275 11-300 1417/23/08 52750 100-383 204 7/31/08 4700 100-383 190 8/07/08 34900 100-441 168 8/14/08 14325 100-383 161 8/21/08 39200 100-291 1658/28/08 132750 100-200 168 9/04/08 335000 84-416 138 9/11/08 3500 100-400 178 9/18/08 31400 67-300 109 9/25/08 7700 100-266 145 10/09/08 33700 67-333 13610/23/08 16325 100-266 128 11/06/08 1750 109-432 172 11/20/08 19100 100-574 172 12/04/08 4775 100-333 150 23 TABLE 3-2 Density, Average Size, and Size Range of Settled Zebra Mussel Post-veligers Collected on Cumulative Artificial Substrates Placed in the Forebay, in the Service Water Systems and Miscellaneous Sealing and Cooling Water System in the D.C. Cook Nuclear Plant in 2008.Cumulative Samples Forebay NESW MS&CW 1 ESW 2 ESW Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg. Avg.Density Size Range Density Size Range Density Size Range Density Size Range Density Size Range Date (no/m2) (um) (urn) (no/m2) (um) (um) (no/m2) (urn) (urn) (no/m2) (urn) (urn) (no/m2) (urn) (urn)78-5/22/2008 853 165 1137 2133 97 78-118 1706 99 78-118 267 94 78-118 100- 100- 100- 100-6/19/2008 2453 133 216 1440 152 283 640 150 266 533 162 250 157- 235-7/17/2008 0 --1227 276 353 267 306 431 53 157 157 118-8/14/2008 1653 136 78-255 3467 255 98-392 427 169 333 4587 273 98-529 118- 118-9/11/2008 373 246 392 1440 301 78-510 2027 303 78-470 2507 303 470 157-10/9/2008 160 314 314 1013 299 666 587 280 98-510 2560 275 78-510 294- 100- 117-11/6/2008 272,026 2526 11035 533 145 83-200 800 294 566 640 246 450 1173 215 83-683 353- 274- 118- 235-12/4/2008

---107 412 470 373 358 510 107 196 274 107 333 431 24 Fig 3-1 2008 D.C. Cook Plant- Whole-Water Zebra Mussel Veliger Density and Water Column Temperature in Intake Forebay-24 0 q22 0"p201816 U 14 0 4)0 01 S2 0 I5 335,000 ind./m 3 I ýst9I Temp.8.43 1I I._....I.m I_.l._80-754--60 >40-55 0 (U-&a-45 S-40-35*30 5. 2 8, eQ CAJ co 0 I It CO cl 0') 0) I",. I t C,4 o, N.-) , T- r4 It to U) 0 (o ro o oý oo co co0 0 0 0 0 00 0 c 0 0 I I I I I I I 0 0 0 1 I a I I 0 T: 6 L6 G; :l (6 :j-,10 04 0 CA1 0 0 0 0) 0" 0" 'Sample Date 25 Fig 3-2 2008 D.C. Cook Plant- Whole-Water Zebra Mussel Veliger Density and Zebra Mussel Postveliger Cumulative Settlement in the Service Water Systems 5000O WWDenit , 45.00 E -~1:. SWens 4 25.00 .2 E 15.00 0,0 2~5.00 20 .00 c) Co oý a a a oý a a a 0 o) $. '- -'.6. u U' (n <n~ _-j _j ~- 00 00 I'D 110 0) 0 C) ~t-NJ 0I NJ CD I-A 0 P_ w F-4 rj NJ 0 Nj 0D rj 0-P oo rNj Un I'D U.# _.j I-. o 00 I- n k.0 U.' (71 C0 4 o~~~~~C CD CD ,o 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 26 Figure 3-3 Screenhouse Intake Forebay Note: Lined out areas were cleaned during Ul C22 Refueling Outage 27 Appendix Table 1 SWS Chlorination Values for 2008 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Program U-I ESW [C12] U-2 ESW [C12] U-I NESW U-2 NESW East West East West [C12] [C12]Date ppm ppm PPM PPM ppm ppm5/2/2008 0.04 0.12 0.1 0.03 0.45 0.145/5/2008 0.09 0.12 0.11 0.07 0.55 0.47 5/7/2008 0.41 0.16 0.17 0.1 0.55 0.49 5/9/2008 0.09 0.18 0.25 0.11 0.37 0.36 5/12/2008 0.1 0.15 0.18 0.08 0.32 0.41 5/14/2008 0.2 0.11 0.1 0.15 0.07 0.04 5/16/2008 1.79 0.29 0.38 1.44 0.32 0.365/16/2008 0.54 0.48 5/19/2008 0.1 0.15 0.15 0.09 0.40 0.445/21/2008 0.02 0.13 0.15 0.05 0.28 0.365/21/2008 0.15 0.08.5/23/2008 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.23 0.33 0.355/26/2008 0.13 0.28 0.18 0.27 0.34 0.34 6/2/2008 0.3 0.1 0.08 0.43 0.19 0.21 6/4/2008 0.16 0.53 0.33 0.19 0.25 0.256/6/2008 0.15 0.44 0.28 0.15 0.22 0.246/9/2008 0.05 0.25 0.2 0.06 0.21 0.306/11/2008 0.05 0.07 0.07 0.05 0.46 0.556/12/2008 0.06 0.14 0.1 0.15 ....6/13/2008 0.03 0.1 0.14 0.06 0.43 0.35 6/16/2008 0.09 0.16 0.22 0.03 0.24 0.29 6/17/2008 C12 OFF 6/18/2008 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.02 0.65 0.806/19/2008 0.09 0.16 0.16 0.1 0.51 0.59 6/20/2008 0.2 0.21 0.2 0.08 0.39 0.42 6/23/2008 0.2 0.21 0.24 0.22 0.43 0.366/25/2008 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.14 0.31 0.25 6/27/2008 1.19 0.24 0.27 0.52 0.35 0.366/30/2008 0.02 0.2 0.29 < 0.02 0.25 0.557/2/2008 0.44 0.15 0.27 0.29 0.41 0.30 28 U-I ESW [C12] U-2 ESW [C12] U-1 NESW U-2 NESW East West East West

[C12] [C12]Date ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm 7/4/2008 < 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.17 0.237/7/2008 0.04 0.16 0.17 0.07 0.34 0.02 7/9/2008 < 0.02 < 0.02 <-0.02 < 0.02 0.32 0.567/10/2008 0.07 0.29 0.27 0.06 7/11/2008 0.02 0.09 0.08 < 0.02 0.29 0.477/11/2008 0.49 0.66 0.61 0.37/14/2008 0.26 0.18 0.29 0.07 0.27 0.157/14/2008 0.57 0.55 0.24 0.44 7/15/2008 0.03 0.24 0.27 0.16 7/18/2008 0.06 0.17 0.18 0.07 0.36 0.477/21/2008 0.05 0.18 0.24 0.08 0.32 0.32 7/23/2008 0.02 0.24 0.34 < 0.02 0.44 0.45 7/25/2008 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.057/28/2008 0.04 0.13 0.08 0.02 0.39 0.43 7/31/2008 0.09 0.29 0.24 0.09 0.37 0.39"'8/1/2008 0.03 0.1 0.13 0.03 0.34 0.378/4/2008 0.08 0.34 0.19 0.1 0.36 0.358/6/2008 0.05 0.43 C12 OFF C12 OFF 0.36 0.388/8/2008 0.06 0.1 0.43 0.02 0.12 0.26 8/11/2008 0.03 < 0.02 0.1 0.11 0.29 0.20 8/13/2008

< 0.08 0.57 0.04 0.02 0.33 0.458/15/2008 0.17 0.88

< 0.08 0.38 0.43 0.44 8/16/2008 0.04 0.84 0.27 8/18/2008 0.02 0.17 0.04 0.32 0.36 8/20/2008 0.21 0.23 0.16 < 0.02 0.36 0.21 8/22/2008

< 0.02 0.02 0.55 0.35, 0.41 0.56 8/22/2008

<0.02 0.03 <0.02 <0.02 8/22/2008 0.05 0.03 0.02 < 0.02 8/25/2008 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.23 0.288/27/2008 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06, 0.42 0.58 8/29/2008

< 0.02 < 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.33 0.30 8/29/2008

< 0.02 < 0.02 9/1/2008 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.33 0.35 29 U-1 ESW [C12]East West ppm ppm U-2 ESW [C12] U-1 NESW U-2 NESW East West [C12] [C12]ppm ppm ppm ppm Date 9/3/2008 < 0.02 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.34 0.37 9/5/2008 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.31 0.35 9/8/2008 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.46 0.53 9/10/2008

< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.36 0.35 9/11/2008 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 9/12/2008 0.02 < 0.02 0.02 < 0.02 0.50 0.53 9/15/2008

< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.35 0.45 9/17/2008

< 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 0.40 0.519/19/2008 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.39 0.58 9/22/2008 0.27 0.11 0.23 0.4 0.26 0.52 9/24/2008 0.14 0.17 0.22 0.18 0.17 0.20 9/26/2008 PSC 0.08 0.09 PSC 0.08 9/26/2008 C12 OFF C12 OFF C12*OFF C12 OFF C12 OFF C12 OFF 9/27/2008 C12 ON C12 ON C12 ON C12 ON 0.17 0.17 9/27/2008 0.1 0.34 0.36 0.09 9/29/2008 0.14 0.45 0.42 0.15 0.20 0.22 9/30/2008 C12 OFF C12 OFF C12 OFF C12 OFF C12 OFF 10/1/2008 0.21 0.42 0.33 0.17 0.36 0.29 10/3/2008 0.14 0.21 0.17 0.14 0.26 0.09 10/6/2008 0.45 0.15 0.47 0.14 C12 OFF 0.32 10/7/2008 0.14 0.4 0.43 0.14 0.35 0.34 10/8/2008 0.15 0.33 0.33 0.14 0.25 0.2610/10/2008 0.18 0.15 0.49 0.15 0.34 0.39 10/10/2008 C12 OFF C12 OFF 10/12/2008 C12 ON C12 ON 10/13/2008 0.14 0.4 0.45 0.12 0.34 0.38 10/15/2008 0.14 0.27 0.31 0.12 0.26 0.27 10/17/2008 0.11 0.33 0.34 0.12 0.27 0.26 10/20/2008 0.1 0.53 0.37 0.09 0.19 0.10 10/22/2008 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.12 0.18 0.23 10/24/2008 0.15 0.37 UNABLE 0.33 0.33 0.3410/27/2008 0.17 0.15 0.28 0.22 0.33 0.32 10/29/2008 0.15 0.36 PSC 0.14 0.32 0.3610/31/2008 0.18 0.27 psc 0.15 0.39 0.46 11/3/2008 0.13 0.35 psc 0.12 0.21 0.27 30 U-1 ESW [C12] U-2 ESW [C12] U-1 NESW U-2 NESW East West East West [C12] [C12]Date ppm ppm 2ppm ppm ppm ppm 11/5/2008 0.18 0.46 psc 0.15 0.33 0.32 11/7/2008 0.17 0.35 PSC 0.12 0.30 0.31..11/10/2008 0.21 0.45 ...........

psc 0.19 0.22 0.21 .11/12/2008 0.15 0.26 psc 0.1 0.34 11/14/2008 0.19 0.25 psc 0.14 0.39 0.44 11/17/2008 0.26 0.24 psc 0.18 0.35 0.35 11/19/2008 0.6 0.45 0.59 0.52 0.39 0.42 11/21/2008 0.27 0.27 0.44 0.2 0.19 0.06 11/24/2008 0.14 0.27 PSC 0.1 0.32 0.2511/26/2008 0.19 0.23 0.26 0.18 0.40 0.4411/28/2008 0.38 0.28 0.44 0.36 0.43 0.37 31 APPENDIX IV NPDES APPLICATIONS 2008 April 2, 2008 Transmittal of Comprehensive Demonstration Study Power Comnpany Cook Nuclear Plant MICN _-_-N One Cook Place POWE Bridgman, MI 49106 Mr. Asad Quraishi Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau -Permit Section P.O. Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909-7773 April 2, 2008

Dear Mr. Quraishi:

Subject:

Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. MI0005827 Part I Section A.l1, Cooling Water Intake Structure Pursuant to NPDES Permit No. MI0005827, Part I Section A.1l, Cooling Water Intake Structure, enclosed is a copy of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. This CDS contains information regarding Source Water Physical Data, Cooling Water Intake Structure Data, Cooling Water System Data, the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC, sent 6/10/05), and the Fish Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study as required by the NPDES Permit. In addition the CDS contains an estimate of the number of fish that would have been impinged and entrained had the Cook Nuclear Plant been constructed using a cooling water intake similar to the baseline case intake defined in the now-suspended Section 316(b), Phase II rule. The enclosed CDS does not contain all of the information and data analyses that is required by the suspended Phase II rule, only the baseline case analysis.If you have questions or wish to discuss the contents of this CDS, please contact me at (Z69) 465-5901 extension 2102.Sincerely, Jon H. Harner Environmental Manager Enclosure c: Mr. John Vollmer 2 00 8-305 Mr. Asad Quraishi Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS)Page 2 April 2, 2008 I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted on this and all attached documents, and based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information,.I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete.

I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.J. H. Harner Environmental Manager 2008-305 I This Page Intentionally Blank I Comprehensive Demonstration Study National Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Pollutant Discharge Elimination Permit M10005827 System Prepared for American Electric Power Service Corporation Environmental Services Division Water and Ecological Resources Section 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215-2373 Prepared by ARCADIS 8 South River Road Cranbury, NJ 08512-3698 March 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction

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

t.......................................................................................................

1 1.1 NPDES Permitting History for CNP ...........................................................................

1 1.2 USEPA § 316(b) Rule Background

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

1 2 Information Required Under 40 CFR § 125.95(a)

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

4 2 .1 Intro d u ctio n .....................................................................................................................

4 2.1.1 Source Water Physical Data

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

4 2.1.2 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data ...................................................................

4 2.1.3 Cooling Water System Data .................................................................................

4 2.2 Source Water Physical Data (40 CFR § 122.21 (r)(2)) ..............................................

5 2.2.1 Description of Source Water Body ......................................................................

5 2.2.2 Hydrological and Geomorphological Features of Source Water Body ......................

6 2.2.2.1 H yd rology

.................................................................................................. ..6 2.2.2.2 Geomorphology/Geology

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

72 .2 .2 .3 W ate r Q ua lity .....................................................................................................

7 2.2.3 Cooling Water System CWIS Zone of Influence

[40 CFR § 122.21(r)(2) (ii)] ........ 8 2.3 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data [40 CFR § 122.21(r)(3)]

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

8 2.3.1 CNP CWIS Description

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

9 2.3.2 CNP CWIS Location ..........................................................................................

9 2 .3 .3 C W lS O pe ratio n .......................................................................................................

10 2.3.3.1 D esign Flow s ........................................................................................... ..10 2.3.3.2 CWlS Operation Schedule ..................................

11 2.4 Cooling Water System Data [40 CFR § 122.21(r)(5)]

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

11 2.4.1 Narrative Description of CWS and its Relationship to the CWlS [40 CFR §12 2 .2 1(r)(5 )(i)] ... ................................................................................................. ..1 1 2.4.2 Design and Engineering Calculations Prepared by Qualified Professional

[40 CFR §12 2 .21 (r)(5 )(ii)] ....................................................

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

................... ..13 3 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study [40 CFR §125.95(b)(3)]

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

14 3.1 Introduction and Overview ......................................................................................

14 3.2 Taxonomic Identification of All Life Stages of All Species Present in the Vicinity of the CWIS [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(i)]

and Annual, Seasonal and Diel Variations in the Representative Species and Target Species in the Vicinity of the CWIS [40 CFR §12 5 .95 (b)(3)(ii)]

.................................................................................................... ...14 3 .2 .1 F is h S p e c ie s ..............................................................................................

............. 1 5 3.2.1.1 N earfield S tudy ........................................................................................ ..15 3.2.1.1.1 Ichthyoplankton Sampling .....................................................................

16 3.2.1.1.2 G ill N et Sam pling ..................................................................................

19 ii 3.2.1.1.3 O tter Traw l Sam pling ...........................................................................

21 3.2.1.1.4 Beach Seine Sampling ..................................

22 3.2.1.2 Fish Species Characterization

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

23 3.2.1.2.1 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

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

23 3.2.1.2.2 Bloater (Coregonus hoyi) ......................................................................

23 3.2.1.2.3 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) ...........................

24 3.2 .1.2 .4 C yprinidae

........................................................................................... ..24 3.2.1.2.5 Spottail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius)

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

24 3.2.1.2.6 Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)

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

25 3.2.1.2.7 Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)

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

25 3.2.1.2.8 Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

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

25 3.2.1.2.9 Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

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

26 3.2.1.2.10 Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis).........................................

26)3.2.1.2.11 Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus)

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

27 3.2.1.2.12 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax) ....................................................

27 3.2.1.2.13 Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus)

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

27 3.2.1.2.14 Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum)

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

28 3.2.1.2.15 Slim y Sculpin (Cottus cognatus)

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

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

28 3.2.1.2.16 White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni)

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

29 3.2.1.2.17 Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)

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

29 3.3 Species Protected under Federal, State or Tribal Law (Threatened or Endangered Species) [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(i) and (ii)] ............................................................

29 3.3.1 Summary of Data on Threatened'or Endangered Species Impingement

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

30 3.4 Station Operating Scenarios Used in the CDS [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)]

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

30 3.4.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shoreline Configuration -Calculation Baseline Station Configuration and Operations

[40*CFR § 125.95(b)(3)])

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

30 3.4.2 Current Conditions Scenario (Current Station Configuration and Operations

[40 C FR § 125.95(b)(3)])

........................................................................................ ..31 3.4.3 Estimation of Impingement Mortality

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(iii)]

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

31 3.4.3 .1 D ata ........................................................................................................ ..3 1 3.4:3.2 Methodology for Calculating Impingement Mortality

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

32 3.4.3.2.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario Impingement

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

33 3.4.3.2.2 Current Conditions Scenario Impingement

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

33 3.4.3.3 Estimates of Impingement Mortality

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

343.4.3.3.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario ...............................................................

34 3.4.3.3.2 Current Conditions Scenario .................................................................

36 3.4.3.4 Estimation of Entrainment

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(iii)]..................

39 3.4.3.4.1 Data ..............................................

39*iii&,

3.4.3.4.2 Methodology for Calculating Entrainment

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

40 3.4.3.4.3 Estimates of Entrainment Mortality

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

423.4.4 Impingement and Entrainment Reduction

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

48 3 .4 .5 C o nclusio n ........................................................................................................ ..50 4 Literature C ited ...................................................................................................................

51 Tables Table 2.1 Mean Monthly Temperature of Lake Michigan near St. Joseph, MI Table 2.2 Mean Monthly Precipitation at Benton Harbor Ross Field, MI Table 2.3 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Lake Michigan at the Cook Nuclear Plant Table 2.4 Pertinent Plant Data Table 2.5 CWIS Design Flow Table 2.6 Percentage of Water Used for Cooling Table 3.1 2005 and 2006 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary Shoreline Station Table 3.2 2005 and 2006 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary Intake Station Table 3.3 2005 and 2006 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary Experimental Station Table 3.4 2005 and 2006 Gill Net Sampling Data Summary Table 3.5 2005 and 2006 Otter Trawl Sampling Data Summary Table 3.6 2005 and 2006 Seine Sampling Data Summary Table 3.7 Estimated Monthly and Annual Impingement for the Regulatory-Defined I Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shoreline)

Table 3.8 Estimated Monthly and Annual Impingement for the Current Conditions Scenario Table 3.9 Estimated Monthly and Annual Entrainment for the Regulatory-Defined Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shoreline)

Table 3.10 Estimated Adult Equivalence for Annual Entrainment Assuming Regulatory-Defined Calculation Baseline Scenario Table 3.11 Estimated Monthly and Annual Entrainment for the Current Conditions Scenario Table 3.12 Estimated Adult Equivalence for Annual Entrainment Assuming Current Conditions Scenario Table 3.13 Estimated Loss Reduction Between the Calculation Baseline and Current Conditions Scenarios Figures Figure 1-1 Site Location Map Figure 2-1 Aerial Photo Site Layout Figure 2-2 Cooling Water Intake Structure Plan ViewFigure 2-3 Cooling Water Intake.Structure Section View Figure 2-4 Cooling Water Flow Diagram Figure 3-1 Calculation Baseline Scenario Estimated Monthly Impingement Figure 3-2 Calculation Baseline Scenario Annual Impingement Proportions Figure 3-3 Current Conditions Scenario Estimated Monthly Impingement iv Figure 3-4 Current Conditions Scenario Annual Impingement Proportions Figure 3-5 Calculation Baseline Scenario Entrained Species and Life Stages Figure 3-6 Calculation Baseline Scenario Annual Entrainment Species and Life Stage Proportions Figure 3-7 Current Conditions Scenario Entrained Species and Life Stages Figure 3-8 Current Conditions Scenario Annual Entrainment Species and Life Stage Proportions Appendices Appendix 1 Proposal for Information Collection

-.Prepared for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant to fulfill requirements of 40 CFR Part 125.95(b)(1), dated June 10, 2005 Appendix 2 Section 316(b), Phase II Fish Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Appendix 3 Post-hoc ANOVA Tests Used in Evaluating the Influence of Diel Period and Month on Sample Results Variation Appendix 4 Fish Community Density Calculation Appendix 5 Life History Parameters Used in the Adult Equivalency Analysis.V Executive Summary The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), owned by Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC; a wholly owned subsidiary of American Electric Power [AEP]), lies on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan in Lake Charter Township, Berrien County, Michigan.

CNP is a base-loaded, two-unit plant with a total capacity of 2,191 megawatts (MW): Unit 1 is 1,084 MW electric (Mwe) and Unit 2 is 1,107 MWe. Both units use once-through cooling systems that withdraw water (>50 million gallons per day) from Lake Michigan.The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated the Section 316(b)Phase II (large existing electric generation facilities) regulations on September 7, 2004 (69 Fed.Reg. 131, 41687; Phase II Rule). These regulations were challenged by several groups, and major sections of the Phase II Rule were either remanded or considered illegal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, No. 04-6692 [2d Cir. 2007]). Subsequently, the USEPA suspended the entire Phase II Rule effective July 9, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg.

130, 37107-37109). In the notice of suspension, the USEPA directed permitting authorities to develop Best Professional Judgment controls for existing facility cooling water intake structures (CWIS) that reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact.CNP operates under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit M10005827, which was issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality on September 24, 2004 (modified December 11, 2007). This permit requires (Part I.A.10, inter alia) requires that CNP submit the information required in 40 CFR 122.21 (r)(2), (3) and (5), Source Water Physical Data, CWIS Data and Cooling Water System Data; and 40 CFR 125.95(b)(3)

Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study. This report is submitted to satisfy that permit requirement.

Impingement and entrainment, and fish community characterization studies were conducted at nearfield lake locations in the vicinity of the CNP intakes from June through November 2005, and April through November 2006. These studies, and studies conducted by the Great Lakes Research Division of the University of Michigan, were used to determine losses due to operation of the CNP cooling system and to determine calculation baseline losses if the intake structure was a shoreline structure as defined by the USEPA [40 CFR 125.95(b)(3)].

Although the Phase II Rule was suspended, reductions of losses at the current intake were compared to the losses based on the calculation baseline.

Furthermore, the higher design flow rates were used, instead of the lower observed flow rates, when annual losses were extrapolated from the impingement and entrainment data. When the annual loss estimates for the baseline and current conditions were compared, it was determined that the current intake has a percentage loss reduction of 98 percent for impingement and 86 percent for entrainment.

In conclusion, monitoring programs conducted by AEP evaluated potential losses due to the operation of CNP's cooling water system as currently configured.

Program results indicate that the reductions shown above are likely attributable to the existing intake design and location.

Based on information contained in this report, AEP believes that the current configuration and operation of the CWIS represents the best technology available for the CNP CWIS.

1 Introduction The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP), owned by Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC), a wholly owned subsidiary of American Electric Power (AEP), lies on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan in Lake Charter Township, Berrien County, Michigan (Figure 1-1) (United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

[U.S. NRC], 2005). Lake Charter Township is approximately 55 miles east of Chicago and 11 miles south-southwest of the twin cities of St. Joseph and Benton Harbor. Bridgman, the nearest town, lies approximately 2 miles south of CNP (Figure 1-1).The CNP property occupies approximately 650 acres, including 4,350 feet of lake frontage, and extends approximately 1% miles eastward from Lake Michigan (Figure 2-1). Site topography rises gently from the shores of Lake Michigan for approximately 200 feet where it rises up along the lakeshore dunes. Rural land use, predominantly agricultural fields and undeveloped lakeshore, surrounds CNP.CNP is a base-loaded, two-unit plant with a total capacity of 2,191 megawatts (MW): Unit 1 is 1,084 MW electrical (MWe) and Unit 2 is 1,107 MWe. Unit 1 underwent a unit uprate in fourth quarter 2006. Unit 1 began operation in August 1975, and Unit 2 in July 1978. Both units use once-through cooling systems that withdraw water from Lake Michigan.

Many components of the intake system (intake cribs, intake tunnels and intake forebay and screen house) are shared by both units.

The Net Demonstrated Capability Factors for 2005 through 2007 (the mean of the annual Net Demonstrated Capability Factors) was 88.87 percent for Unit 1 and 89.13 percent for Unit 2.1.1 NPDES Permitting History for CNP CNP operates under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit M10005827, which was issued by the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ) on September 24, 2004. Part I.A.10., Cooling Water Intake Structure Application Submittal for Phase II Facilities, requires the owner and operator of CNP to submit a Comprehensive Demonstration Study by January 1, 2008. One of the required submittals for complying with Part I.A. Condition 10 of the permit is the submission of a Proposal for Information Collection (PIC), which was submitted to the MDEQ on June 13, 2005 (Appendix 1). The NPDES Permit wasrenewed and a final issued with an effective date of September 24, 2004 and modified effective December 11, 2007 (Current NPDES Permit).1.2 USEPA § 316(b) Rule Background The Clean Water Act of 1972 (33USC § 1326(b)), states,"[a]ny standard ... applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing'adverse environmental impact." The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) promulgated the Section 316(b) Phase II. (large existing electric generation facilities) regulations on September 7, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 131, 41687; Phase II Rule).The Phase II Rule is the second phase of a three-phase rule making. Phase II applies to existing power-generating facilities that have the design capacity to withdraw at least 50 million gallons per day (50 mgd) of cooling water from waters of the United States, and use at least 25 percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes.

These regulations contained requirements, among others, regarding the contents of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS), which was to be submitted by a facility on a prescribed schedule and subsequently with each NPDES permit renewal.These regulations were challenged by several groups, including environmental and utility industry groups and several state governments.

Major sections of the Phase II Rule were either remanded or considered illegal by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals (Riverkeeper, Inc. v. EPA, No. 04-6692 [2d Cir. 2007]). In light of this action, the USEPA suspended the entire Phase II Rule effective July 9, 2007 (72 Fed. Reg.

130, 37107-37109).

In the Federal Register suspension of final Phase II Rule action, the USEPA directed permitting authorities to develop Best Professional Judgment (BPJ) controls for existing facility cooling water intake structures (CWIS)that reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact (AEI). The Current NPDES Permit states: The permittee shall submit the information regarding Source Water Physical Data, Cooling Water Intake Structure Data, Cooling Water System Data, and Impingement Mortality and/orEntrainment Characterization Study report on or before April 4, 2008. The permittee shall also submit the remaining applicable portions of the Comprehensive Demonstration Study upon notification by the Department.

The NPDES Permit also states: Based on the review of the above information, the Department will determine appropriate requirements and conditions, such as specified below, to be included in the permit, either by modification or reissuance of the permit.a. Cooling water intake structure requirements, b. Monitoring conditions, c. Record keeping (sic) and reporting, and d. Biennial status report.This submittal complies with the referenced NPDES Permit language.

Due to the fact that the MDEQ has notified neither CNP nor IMPC regarding remaining applicable portions of the CDS, this submittal is organized as follows:* Section 2 contains the information required pursuant to 40 CFR § 125.95(a) and describes the Source Water Physical Data, CWIS Data and Cooling Water System Data." Section 3 is the Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study pursuant to 40 CFR § 125. 95(b)(3) and describes the taxonomic identification of all life stages of all species present in the vicinity of the CWIS; species protected under federal, state or tribal law (threatened and endangered

[T&E] species);

annual, seasonal and diel variations species in the vicinity of the CWIS; annual spatial distribution and abundance, including seasonal and diel variations; station operating scenarios used in the CDS; existing station configuration and operations; calculation of the baseline station configuration and operations; and estimations of impingement mortality and entrainment losses. Entrainment performance standards comply with 40 CFR § 125.94(b)(2)(ii) and are not subject to the additional regulations set forth in 2 125.94(b)(3) becaUse CNP withdraws cooling water from the Lake Michigan, one of the Great'Lakes.Section 4 presents references used to prepare this CDS.3

REFERENCE:

BASE MAP USGS 7.5 MIN. QUAD., BRIDGMAN, MICHIGAN, 1970, PHOTOREVISED 1978.

2000' 0 2000'I I I ,INDIANA MICHI(GAN POWFR C 0 QC.)C)MPANY Aprxmt I Icle " o20 Approximate Scale: 11" a 2000'LraL Area Location 4: D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT COMPREHENSIVE DEMONSTRATION STUDY SITE LOCATION MAP ARCADIS FIGURE 1-1 A 2 Information Required Under 40 CFR § 125.95(a)2.1 Introduction MDEQ guidance requires submission of information as described in 40 CFR 122.21(r).

The Phase II Rule requires at § 122.21(r)(ii) that Phase II existing facilities (as defined in Part 125, subpart J) must submit to the Director forreview the information required under paragraphs (r)(2), (3) and (5) of this section.2.1.1 Source Water Physical Data These include: (i) A narrative description-and scaled drawings showing the physical configuration of all source water bodies used by your facility, including areal dimensions, depths, salinity and temperature regimes, and other documentation that supports your determination of.the water body type where each cooling water intake structure is located;(ii) Identification and characterization of the source waterbody's hydrological and geomorphological features, as well as the methods you used to conduct any physical studies to determine your intake's area of influence within the waterbody and the results of such studies; and (iii) Locational maps.2.1.2 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data These include: (i) A narrative description of the configuration of each of your cooling water intake structures and where it is located in the water body and in the water column;(ii) Latitude and longitude in degrees, minutes, and seconds for each of your cooling water intake structures;(iii) A narrative description of the operation of each of your cooling water intake structures, including design intake flows, daily hours of operation, number of days of the year in operation and seasonal changes, if applicable;(iv) A flow distribution and water balance diagram that includes all sources of water to the facility, recirculating flows, and discharges; and (v) Engineering drawings of the cooling water intake structure.

2.1.3 Cooling

Water System Data These include (for each CWIS): 4 (i) A narrative description of the operation of the cooling water system, its relationship to cooling water intake structures, the proportion of the design intake flow that is used in the system, thenumber of days of the year the cooling water system is in operation and seasonal changes in the operation of the system, if applicable; and (ii) Design and engineering calculations prepared by a qualified professional and supporting data to support the description required by paragraph (r)(5)(i) of this section.The following subsections contain the information to satisfy these requirements.

2.2 Source

Water Physical Data (40 CFR § 122.21(r)(2))

As required by 40 CFR 122.21 (r)(2), this section provides Source Water Physical Data, including source water body narratives, descriptions of source water body hydrological-and geomorphological features, and a Site Location Map.2.2.1 Description of Source Water Body Lake Michigan is the largest freshwater lake located entirely in the United States. The lake has a surface area of 22,300 square miles (mi2 ) and a volume of 1,180 cubic miles (mi 3) (American Electric Power Service Corporation

[AEPSC], 2005). The maximum width and length of the lake are 118 miles (mi) and 307 mi, respectively, with a shoreline length of 1,640 mi (Great Lakes Information Network

[GLIN], 2006). The greatest depth of the lake is 925 feet, while the average depth is 279 feet (GLIN, 2006). The southern basin of the lake has a maximum depth of 540 feet. The surface elevation of the lake averages 577 feet above sea level (International Great Lakes Datum [IGLD], 1985) (GLIN, 2006).The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) compiled 10 years (1983 to 1992) of surface-water temperature data from Lake Michigan near St. Joseph, MI (approximately 10 mi northeast of CNP) and used this long-term dataset to calculate monthly mean temperature values. Water temperature data was collected 1,200 feet offshore at the Water Intake Plant in St. Joseph, MI. Mean surface-water temperatures near CNP range from 1.1 degrees Celsius (°C; 33.9 degrees Fahrenheit

[°F])-in February to 19.4 0 C (66.9 0 F) in August. Table 2.1 presents monthly mean temperature values (NOAA, 1996).Table 2.1 Mean Monthly Temperature of Lake Michigan near St. Joseph, Mi Month Temperature oc OF January 1.3 34.3 February 1.1 33.9 March 2.9 37.3 April 7.1 44.7 May 10.7 51.2 June 14.9 58.8 5 Table 2.1 Mean Monthly Temperature of Lake Michigan near St. Joseph, MI Month Temperature OF July 18.6 65.5 August 19.4 66.9 September 17.9 64.2 October 13.5 56.2 November 8.6 47.4 December 3.2 37.7 2.2.2 Hydrological and Geomorphological Features of Source Water Body Lake Michigan is the source water body for CNP. In total, Lake Michigan drains approximately 45,600 mi 2 of land (AEPSC, 2005). The retention time of the lake is approximately 99 years (GLIN, 2006). This section describes the hydrology, geomorphology and water quality of Lake Michigan.2.2.2.1 Hydrology The major tributaries to Lake Michigan include the Fox-Wolf River, Grand River, St. Joseph River and Kalamazoo River. The Fox-Wolf River flows into Green Bay and has a drainage area of 6,429 mi 2.The Grand River, St. Joseph River and Kalamazoo River are all located on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan and have drainage areas of 5,572 mi2, 4,685 mi 2 and 1,863 mi 2 , respectively.

Precipitation data obtained from Benton Harbor Ross Field show a mean yearly precipitation of 36.4 inches (data from 1941 to 1995). Benton Harbor Ross Field is located approximately 14 mi northeast of CNP. Table 2.2 shows the mean montlfly precipitation, values (WorldClimate, 2008).Table 2.2 Mean Monthly Precipitation at Benton Harbor Ross Field, MI Mean Precipitation (inches)January 2.5 February 1.8 March 2.6 April 3.7 May 3.4 June 3.2 July 3.4 August 3.3 September 3.5 6 I-/

Table 2.2 Mean Monthly Precipitation at Benton Harbor Ross Field, MI Mean Precipitation (inches)October 3.0 November 3.3 December 2.9 2.2.2.2 Geomorphology/Geology The bottom contours of Lake Michigan have been formed by glacial scouring and gouging. The overlying sediments were deposited by glacial ice melting and recession.

The sediments have been reworked and sorted by wave action. In general, water flows in a counterclockwise direction past CNP due to wind (AEPSC, 2005).

CNP is located within Berrien County. This county covers a total area of 571 mi 2.Most land in this area is rural and is either used for agricultural production, forested or vacant. The Grand Mere State Park is approximately 1 mi northeast of CNP and the Warren Dunes State Park is approximately 3.5 mi southwest of the CNP. The parks include 1 mi of Lake Michigan shoreline and 2 mi of Lake Michigan shoreline, respectively (AEPSC, 2005).2.2.2.3 Water Quality As part of the Fish Impingement Mortality

& Entrainment (IM&E) Characterization Study (Normandeau Associates, Inc. [NA], 2007) that was conducted at CNP between June 2005 and January 2007, dissolved oxygen (DO) was measured near CNP. Table 2.3 shows all monthly surface DO results that were measured in 40 feet of water offshore of CNP during the gill net sampling portion of the study.Table 2.3 Dissolved Oxygen Data for Lake Michigan at the Cook Nuclear Plant Dissolved Oxygen (mglL)June 2005 9.3 July 2005 -7.6August 2005

9.7 September

2005 8.7October 2005

9.7 November

2005 10.5 April 2006 13.6 May 2006 12.4 June 2006 11.0 July 2006 8.9August 2006 9.1 7 (9 Table 2.3 Dissolved Oxygen Data forLake Michigan at the Cook Nuclear Plant Dissolved Oxygen (mg/L)September 2006 8.5 November 2006 10.7 Note: mg/L = Milligram per liter.2.2.3 Cooling Water System CWIS Zone of Influence

[40 CFR § 122.21(r)(2) (ii)]There have been no physical studies conducted to determine the hydraulic zone of influence (HZI) within Lake Michigan for the cooling water intakes. However, the zone of influence for the existing intakes was studied using computational fluid dynamics (CFD) (Electric Power Research Institute

[EPRI], 2004). The CFD model was run with assumed lake currents of 0.2 and 0.4 feet per second parallel to the shoreline and moving south to north.These are only two of a relatively large number of flow conditions that can exist in Lake Michigan near CNP.The EPRI (2004) report concluded from the CFD analysis that the CNP intake structures do not substantiallydraw particles toward them. This is a result of the low intake velocity and is evident by the shape of the HZI, which is very narrow in the direction perpendicular to the current. Particles that enter the intake structures must actually be carried to the intake by the lake currents.2.3 Cooling Water Intake Structure Data [40 CFR § 122.21(r)(3)]

This CWIS data section provides information on the design, location and operation of the CWIS at CNP. The information included in this section is intended to characterize the CWIS to assist in evaluating the potential for IM&E.CNP is located on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan, near the town of Bridgman, Michigan, as shown on Figure 1-1. The plant consists of two'nuclear-fueled units. The plant generates power using a thermal cycle with high-pressure steam as the thermodynamic medium. After the steam exits the steam turbines, it passes through the condensers where it undergoes cooling and is returned to the thermal cycle as condensate.

The water that is used to condense the steam is referred to as circulating water (CW) and-accounts for themajority of the flow through the CWIS. The remainder of the water, which is used by the auxiliary plant equipment for both cooling and non-cooling purposes, is called service water (SW). Both an Essential Service Water (ESW) and a Non-Essential Service Water (NESW) system are present at CNP.Table 2.4Pertinent Plant Data Net Demonstrated Net Average Unit Capability Fuel Capacity Factor'(MW) 2005-2007 1 1,084 Nuclear 88.87%2 1,107 Nuclear 89.13%1 Represents the mean of the annual net capacity factors from 2005 to 2007.8 2.3.1 CNP CWIS Description The CNP CWIS consists of three separate intake cribs located approximately 2,250 feet offshore, in 24-foot-deep water. Each intake crib contains a smooth elbow covered by an octagonal heavy structural steel frame provided with bar racks and guides that form an 8-inch by 8-inch grid. The top of the structural frame is covered with a plate steel roof to prevent the formation of vortices and serves as a velocity cap. Each intake elbow is connected to a 16-foot-diameter steel intake pipe, which is buried in the lake bottom and routes the cooling water to the screen house, which is located on the shoreline.

The screen house contains the trashracks, traveling screens, CW pumps, ESW pumps and associated equipment. Figures 2-2 and 2-3 provide plan and section details of the water intake system for CNP.The CWIS draws water through each of the three intake crib structures. The water passes through the 8-inch by 8-inch grid on the surface of the intake crib structures and is then routed through the three 16-foot-diameter intake pipes to the screen house. Under normal operating conditions, the water velocity through the 8-inch by 8-inch intake grid is 1.27 feet per second (fps) (United States Atomic Energy Commission

[USAEC], 1973).During the winter deicing period, the cooling water is drawn in through two of the three intake cribs and heated discharge water is pumped back through the third (middle) crib to control icing conditions on the other two intake crib structures.

This increases the intake velocity through the 8-inch by 8-inch grids on the two operating cribs to approximately 1.9 fps. The water velocity in the 16-foot-diameter intake pipes, under normal operating conditions, is approximately 6 fps. Water then passes through the screen house trashracks, which are %-inch-thick steel bars set on edge and spaced at 39/16 inches on center, providing a 3 3/16-inch clear spacing betweenthe bars.

After passing through the trashracks, the water then passes through 14 rotating Geiger Multi-Discscreen assemblies with %-inch and 5/16-inch mesh. A spray wash system removes debris from the Geiger screens. The debris removed from the screens is separated from the screen wash water and disposed of off site. Beyond the traveling screens, water flows to the three CW pumps for Unit 1 and the four CW pumps for Unit 2, as well as the four ESW pumps. The four NESW pumps are located on the discharge side of the CW pumps.Sodium hypochlorite is periodically injected into the cooling water just upstream of the trashracks for biofouling control. In 2003, a high-frequency sound system was installed on the intake crib steel frames to deter alewives for plant equipment protection.

The system consists of 12 stainless steel sound projectors mounted on each of the three intake crib structures.

The sound projectors are spaced to provide the appropriate acoustic levels around each crib structure.

The system generally operates between April 1 and the end of August each year.

2.3.2 CNP CWIS Location The CNP CWIS consists of three offshore intake crib structures that draw water into three 16-foot-diameter steel intake pipes. The cribs are located approximately 2,250 feet offshore in 24 feet of water at 410 58' 37.7" N latitude and 860 34' 29.8" W longitude.

The intake screen house is located at 410 58' 33.1" N latitude and 860 33' 59.6" W longitude (United States Geological Survey [USGS] 7.5' topographic map; Bridgman, MI quadrangle).

9 (7C-)

2.3.3 CWIS Operation 2.3.3.1 Design Flows CNP contains two nuclear steam electric generating units that draw cooling water through the intake structure.

Unit 1 uses three CW pumps per steam condenser and Unit 2 uses four CW pumps per steam condenser.

The CW system uses the majority of the water that passes through the CWIS. In addition; CNP also uses a SW system, which supplies water for cooling auxiliary plant equipment and for other miscellaneous uses. The SW system comprises an ESW system and an NESW system. The ESW pumps draw water directly from the same intake structure as the CW pumps. The NESW pumps draw water from the intake tunnels that are after the CW pumps. An alternate supply of water for the NESW pumps can be taken from the discharge tunnels for Units 1 and 2. The flows through the CWIS for both units can be characterized by the design flows for the condenser cooling water and SW systems, and are summarized in Table 2.5 (USAEC, 1973; AEPSC, 2005). Figure 2-4 shows a flow schematic of the entire site.

Table 2.5 CWIS Design Flow Condenser Essential SW Non-Essential Unit No. Cooling Water (gpm) SW (gpm)(gpm)1 & 2 1,645,000 16,000 9,000 Note: gpm = Gallons per minute.Using the system design flows from Table 2.5, the total design intake flowis 1,670,000 gpm (2,405 mgd).The CNP Current NPDES Permit (Part I Section A. 1. authorizes a discharge of a maximum of one billion five hundred million (1,500,000,000) gallons per day of noncontact condenser cooling water, miscellaneous low volume waters and storm water runoff from Monitoring Point 001A through Outfall 001; and a maximum of one billion eight hundred and twenty million (1,820,000,000) gallons per day of noncontact condensercooling water, miscellaneous low volume waters and storm water runoff from Monitoring Point 002A through Outfall 002.Although a varying proportion of the total flow does not involve either impingeable or entrainable fish, AEP determined that the use of this volume of water contained in the Current NPDES Permit for estimating impingement and entrainment loss estimates is conservative and would be used in this CDS for these estimates.

Using the Current NPDES Permit flow values, the total flow is 3320 mgd (average 2,305,555 gpm).10 C2(

2.3.3.2 CWIS Operation Schedule Both of the steam electric generating units at CNP are base-loaded units with a capacity use rate of 88.87 percent for Unit 1 and 89.13 percent for Unit 2, as shown in Table 2.4. Because both units are base loaded with a high-capacity factor, all three CW pumps for Unit 1 are in operation when the unit is in service and all four CW pumps for Unit 2 are in operation when that unit is in service. In addition, at least some capacity for the SW systems (ESW AND NESW) is in service 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months per day, 365 days a year under full or some percentage of full flow. The flow depends on how many units are in operation and is described in more detail in Section 2.4.2.4 Cooling Water System Data [40 CFR § 122.21(r)(5)]

This section describes the operation of the cooling water system, relationship of the cooling water system to the CWIS, portion of the CWIS design flow that is used in the cooling water system, number of days per year that the cooling water system is in operation and any seasonal changes in the operation of the system. In addition, any engineering calculations and/or supporting data will be provided as required.Both the CW and ESW pumps draw water directly from a common intake structure.

The NESW pumps draw water from the intake tunnels that are between the CW pumps and the condensers.

At CNP, the two plant cooling water systems consist of the condenser CW system (which supplies water to the steam surface condensers) and the SW system (which supplies both essential and nonessential cooling water to the auxiliary plant equipment and water for other general use and plant processes).

Sections 2.4.1 and 2.4.2 discuss the operation of the plant cooling water systems.2.4.1 Narrative Description of CWS and its Relationship to the CWIS [40 CFR § 122.21(r)(5)(i)]

CNP has two cooling water systems that receive water through the CWIS: CW system and SW system. The majority of all water entering the CWIS is for the CW system, which provides cooling water to the steam surface condensers to condense the steam after it leaves the steam turbine. The SW system provides water to auxiliary plant equipment and systems for both cooling and non-cooling purposes.

This section describes the operation of the CW system for CNP (which is the primary use of cooling water) and the SW system (which provides cooling water toconsiderably smaller heat loads for auxiliary plant equipment).

CNP's CW system has seven electric-motor-driven CW pumps. Unit 1 uses three CW pumps and Unit 2 uses four CW pumps for their respective condenser systems. Each CW pump is located in its own bay at the rear of the common intake structure, behind the traveling screens. For Unit 1, the three CW pumps discharge into a large intake header that supplies water to all three condensers for Unit 1, so that any of the three pumps can supply any of the condensers with cooling water. The four .CW pumps for Unit 2 also discharge into a large intake header that supplies water to all three condensers for Unit 2, so that any of the four pumps can supply any of the condensers with water. After the condensers, the CW from the Unit 1 condensers combines into a common discharge tunnel and pipe that flows back into Lake Michigan.

Similarly for Unit 2, the CW that leaves the Unit 2 condensers combines into a common discharge tunnel. and pipe that flows back into Lake Michigan.The SW system supplies non-contact cooling water and non-cooling water for auxiliary plant equipment.

The SW system has four pumps dedicated to ESW needs and four pumps dedicated to NESW needs. The same 11 intake structure is used for the CW and the ESW systems. The four ESW pumps are each located in a separate bay at the rear of the intake structure between the three CW pumps for Unit 1 and the four CW pumps for Unit 2. The two NESW pumps for Unit 1 can draw water from either the intake tunnel or the discharge tunnel for Unit 1. Similarly, the two NESW pumps for Unit 2 can draw water from either the intake tunnel or the discharge tunnel for Unit 2. Piping ties together the NESW pump water supply points for Units 1 and 2. All water discharged from the ESW and NESW systems combines with the CW system discharge water and flows into either the Unit 1 or Unit 2 discharge tunnels/pipes, which then flow into Lake Michigan.All of the CW and the majority of the SW are used for cooling purposes at CNP. The total permitted flow for the condenser cooling water, ESW and NESW systems is an average 2,305,555 gpm (3320 mgd).The cooling water system for each unit has been defined as being in operation as long as at least one pump oneach system is in use. For CNP, the CW system for Unit 1 was in operation approximately 88.5 percent of the time during 2006 (January 1 through December 31). Similarly, the CW system for Unit 2 was in operation approximately 92.9 percent of the time for the same time period. Operation of the SW system is not as closelytied to unit operation as the CW system. Typically, the SW system is in operation regardless of unit operationstatus, because it provides water for auxiliary plant equipment operation. The SW system was in operation approximately 96.2 percent of the time for Unit 1 and approximately 100 percent of the time for Unit 2 during 2006. These percentages are based on 2006 operating records obtained from CNP.Units 1 and 2 at CNP are base-loaded units that operate most of the time. Both units are typically kept online during the summer and winter months, while refueling outages occur during the spring and fall periods. As such, the cooling water systems for CNP tend to use more water in the summer months and less during other times of the year. The 5-year average monthly cooling system flows for CNP range from 1,744 mgd in May to 2,445 mgd in August. The following figure shows the monthly variation in flows for CNP.5-Year Average Monthly Flows for CNP-, 3000 0)2500 2000"7 1500 1000> 500 0II I I I I 1. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Note: Monthly average flows based on daily average flows from 2002 to 2006 from CNP operations records.12

2.4.2 Design

and Engineering Calculations Prepared by Qualified Professional

[40 CFR § 122.21(r)(5)(ii)]Table 2.6 summarizes the data used to determine the minimum percentage of water used for cooling at CNP.During normal operation, the majority of the SW flow and all of the CW flow is for cooling purposes. However, topresent the lowest possible calculation for the percentage of water used for cooling purposes (i.e., to compare to the 25 percent criteria to determine jurisdiction under the Phase II Rule), the calculation of cooling water percentage in this table assumes that none of the SW was used for cooling. From January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2006, the percentage of water used for cooling at CNP was approximately 98 percent. Therefore, CNP is defined as an existing facility under the Phase II Rule [40 CFR 125.91 (a)].Table 2.6 Percentage of Water Used for Cooling Condenser Cooling Water Service Water Flow % Water Used for Cooling Flow Flow (mgd) (2006 Average) (Actual Flow Basis)(mgd) (2006 Average)2016 52 97.48 The average monthly cooling system flows for the 5-year average graph were calculated using actual daily flow data from existing station records. The monthly SW flows were calculated by multiplying the ESW and NESW pump service hours by the respective pump design flow. The hours of operation were determined from hourly pump operating data from January 1, 2006 to December 31, 2006. The condenser cooling water flow is calculated by using the average daily heat rejected to the condenser and the average daily intake and discharge cooling water temperatures.

The sum of the condenser cooling water flow and the SW flow is the total CW flow. To find the minimum percentage of water used for cooling, the volume of water used by the CW system was divided by the total flow (CW flow plus SW flow).13 0 500 1,000 1. DIGITAL ORTHOPHOTOGRAPHY OBTAINED FROM MICHIGAN STATE CENTER FOR GEOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION.

2005.INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY D.C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT COMPREHENSIVE DEMONSTRATION STUDY PIC SI GRAPHIC SCALE Feet AERIAL PHOTO SITE LAYOUT 0ARCADIS FIGURE 2-1

3 Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)]

3.1 Introduction

and Overview The Phase II Rule requires at § 125.95 (b)(3) that a facility preparing a CDS provide an Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study (IMECS). Specific data submittal requirements include: (i) Taxonomic identification of all life stages of fish, shellfish and any species protected under federal, state or tribal law (including T&E species) that are in the vicinity of the CWIS and are susceptible to IM&E.(ii) A characterization of all life stages of fish, shellfish and any species protected under federal, state or tribal law (including T&E species) identified above, including a description of their abundance and temporal and spatial characteristics in the vicinity of the CWIS, based on sufficient data to characterize annual, seasonal and diel variations in IM&E. Historical data that are representative of the existing operation of the facility and of biological conditions at the site may be used if appropriate.(iii) Documentation of the existing IM&E of all life stages of fish, shellfish and any species protected under federal, state or tribal law (including T&E species) identified above and an estimate of IM&E to be used as the "calculation baseline." The IMECS presents key biological data used to demonstrate compliance with the §316(b) Standards.

Section 2 presents a description of the geographic setting of CNP and a physical description of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of CNP. Biological resources are well-defined in this area. The University of Michigan studied effects of CNP operations on the limnological conditions of Lake Michigan during the 1970s and 1980s. AEP collected impingement and entrainment data between June 2005 and January 2007 for Units 1 and 2.Additional nearfield sampling conducted in the vicinity of the intakes characterized the fishery resources at three distinct sampling stations (shoreline, 1 to 6 feet deep; intake depth, 22 to 26 feet deep; and experimental depth,40 feet deep) to identify location-based differences in resources and to evaluate alternative intake locations.

The ichthyoplankton community was sampled at six depth-station combinations using an ichthyoplankton net.The shoreline fish community was sampled with a beach seine, the demersal fish community was sampled with an otter trawl at three stations, and the pelagic fish community was sampled with gill nets at two stations.Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4summarize the present statistical analysis of the University of Michigan and AEP datasets to demonstrate 316(b) compliance.

3.2 Taxonomic

Identification of All Life Stages of All Species Present in the Vicinity of the CWIS [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(i)]

and Annual, Seasonal and Diel Variations in the Representative Species and Target Species in the Vicinity of the CWIS [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(ii)]

CNP lies on the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan, the second largest lake of the Great Lakes by volume (1,180 mi 3) and third largest by area (22,300 mi 2) (AEPSC, 2005). Major tributaries of Lake Michigan include the Fox-Wolf, Grand, St. Joseph and.Kalamazoo Rivers. Lake Michigan is also hydrologically connected to Lake Huron by the Straits of Mackinac.This IMECS relies on Lake Michigan fish community data from a variety of sources. Prior to construction of CNP, the Great Lakes Research Division of the University of Michigan (GLRD -UM) conducted general 14 c;?'7 limnological studies in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the proposed CNP Site. A more extensive limnological study, also developed and conducted by GLRD -UM, followed in 1973. Studies conducted between 1970 and 1982 evaluated site meteorology, lake currents, water temperature, lake bathymetry, shore ice accretion and deterioration, sediments, psammolittoral community, phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos and fish. The GLRD-UM entrainment and impingement sampling for phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, and fish began in late 1973 and continued through 1982. NA, on behalf of AEP, conducted more recent impingement and entrainment studies (nearfield community sampling and IM&E sampling) from June 2005 through January 2007 as part of a compliance effort associated with the Phase II Rule published by the USEPA in the Federal Register July 9, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 41, 576).Since 1982 when the University of Michigan completed their aquatic ecological studies of Lake Michigan near CNP, several exotic species have entered the lake and altered the community structure of Lake Michigan.Therefore, the baseline case for IM&E rates must be established by examining the old data 'and collecting new data for analysis.

As such, this IMECS relies primarily on data collected during June 2005 through January 2007. Fish species information available in peer-reviewed scientific literature supplements thesite-specific data as needed. This section summarizes the 2005 to 2007 nearfield and IM&E study data on species abundance and distribution, and details pertinent life stage information for fish species present in the vicinity of CNP's CWIS.3.2.1 Fish Species Close to 100 fish species occur in Lake Michigan and its major tributaries based on available literature and data (Wisconsin Sea Grant, 2002). Not all of these species, regardless of life stage, are or have been present in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of CNP's CWIS. Results of fish community characterization studies conducted in the vicinity of CNP, and impingement and entrainment data from the CNP CWIS, identify fish species present in Lake Michigan near CNP. Sections 3.2.1.1 and 3.2.1.2 summarize data from the 2005 and 2006 nearfield fish monitoring study, as well as impingement and entrainment data collected from June 2005 through January 2007.3.2.1.1 Nearfield Study Cooling water at CNP is withdrawn through three intake tunnels equipped with velocity caps located approximately 2,250 feet offshore.

The location of these tunnels and velocity caps may serve to reduce IM&E from that which may occur at a baseline case intake structure (i.e., shoreline location).

Ichthyoplankton and fish sampling in the vicinity of the intakes (nearfield area) provides data that may be used to estimate the reduction in IM&E due to the location and configuration of the intakes. Appendix 2 presents additional details pertaining to the nearfield study sampling program and sampling gear.Fish community characterization sampling at nearfield locations (i.e., shoreline, intake and experimental sampling stations) in the vicinity of the CNP intakes occurred from June through 'November 2005, and April through November 2006. Sampling was conducted during day and night using the following sampling techniques to target fish assemblages at various depths and locations:

e ichthyoplankton net (six samples at different depth strata across three sampling stations)" gill net (set mid-water at intake and experimental station)" otter trawl (all three sampling stations)" seining (shoreline station)15 3o 3.2.1.1.1 Ichthyoplankton Sampling 1 Six ichthyoplankton samples were collected at three sampling stations (i.e., shoreline, intake [30 feet] and experimental

[40 feet]). A day and night sample was collected once per month from June to November 2005 and April to November 2006, with the exception of June 2005, when only daytime sampling occurred at the intake and experimental stations.Both a 0.5-meter (m), conical ichthyoplankton net and calibrated flow meter were used to collect samples at the following stations:* shoreline station -between 1 and 6 feet deep (two samples)* 22 feet -intake station (samples taken at the surface, 10 feet and 22 feet)* 40 feet -experimental station (one sample combining surface, 10-foot and 20-foot depth tow, and one sample combining 30-foot and 40-foot depth tows)Surface tows were conducted by attaching a float to the top of the ichthyoplankton net so that the entire sample was obtained from the surface.

Subsurface tows were conducted by attaching a weight to the net and towing it by letting out line of sufficient length (determined using trigonometry) at a 45-degree angle to the water surface to collect the sample at the target depths.

Collected samples were washed down into the cod end from the outside of the net and transferred to sample jars. Samples were preserved in 5 percent formalin and labeled.Shoreline and intake station samples were individually preserved.

At the experimental station, surface, 10-foot and 20-foot tows were composited to create one sample.

The same was done with the 30-foot and 40-foot plankton tows.Ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted once per month (day and night) at the shoreline station from July to November 2005, and from April to November 2006. In general, sampling identified higher ichthyoplankton densities at the shoreline station each sampling year. Higher densities of post-yolk-sac larvae 2 , dominated by alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) and Cyprinidae, characterized the shoreline station (Appendix 2). Theshoreline station was also the only location where fish eggs 3 were captured (alewife [100 percent]).

1 Methods and sampling descriptions are from Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2007.2 The transition stage from development of a complete, functional digestive system to transformation to juvenile form (regardless of the degree of yolk and/or oil globule retention).

3 The embryonic development stage, from spawning until hatching.16 Table 3-1 summarizes the shoreline station data from all months in which ichthyoplankton was collected.

4 Table 3.1 2005 and 2006 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary C Shoreline Station Date Mean Density Life Stage Fish Species.(per 100 m 3) (percent). (percent)yolk-sac larvae (6) Cyprinidae (6)alewife (80)o July 16.9 post-yolk-sac larvae (94) common carp (3)Cyprinidae (11)alewife (40)April 2.2 yolk-sac larvae (100)round whitefish (60)May 0.5 post-yolk-sac larvae (100) yellow perch (100)yolk-sac larvae (50) Cyprinidae (50)alewife (1)June 50.6 post-yolk-sac larvae (36) -----------------------------

OCyprinidae (35)cýegg (14) alewife (14)alewife (2)yolk-sac larvae (6)Cyprinidae (4)July 34.7 alewife (85)post-yolk-sac larvae (94)Cyprinidae (9)August 0.5 post-yolk-sac larvae (100) alewife (100)Sampling was conducted at the intake station during the day in June 2005, and during the day and night from July through November 2005 and April through November 2006. During each sampling event, samples were collected at the surface, mid-depth (11 feet) and near the bottom (22 feet). Relatively equal densities of yolk-sac 5 and post-yolk-sac larvae characterized the intake station (Appendix 2). Ichthyoplankton densities at the intake station were lower than the shoreline station and were relatively similar among sampling depths. Alewife larvae were the dominant species at the intake station.No ichthyoplankton were collected during the months not listed in the table 5 The transition stage from hatching through.the development of a complete, functional digestive system (regardless of the degree of yolk and/or oil globule retention).

17 Table 3.2 summarizes intake station data from all months (2005 through 2006) in which ichthyoplankton was collectedir' Table 3.2 2005 and 2006 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary Intake Station Surface Sample Mid-Depth Sample Bottom Sample Date Mean 'Life Fish Mean Life Fish Mean Life Fish Density Stage Species Density Stage Species Den Stage Species ern (percent) (percent) (per 100 m 3) (percent) (percent) (per 100 m 3) (percent) (percent)post-June 9.2 yolk- sac alewife 0 --.--- 0 ......larvae (100)(100)yolk-sac yolk-sac Cyprinidae o larvae larvae 4post- (50) (11)July 2.0 yolk-sac alewife 8.7 larvae (100) post- post- alewife (77)(100) yolk-sac alewife yolk-sac larvae (50) larvae slimy (50) (88) sculpin (11)post- round S April 1.0 yolk-sac whitefish 0 --- --- 0 larvae (100) (100)yolk-sac alewife (45) yolk-sac larvae larvae alewife (72)(82) yellow (72)perch (37) yolk-sac alewife June 7.3 3.2 1.7 larvae (100)post- Cyprinidae post- (100)yolk-sac (9) yolk-sac Cyprinidae larvae yellow larvae (28)o (28) perch (9) (28)yolk-sac yolk-sac alewife (17) yolk-sac alewife (9)larvae alewife (33) larvae .............

larvae (33) (21) Cyprinidae (18) Cyprinidae (4) (9)July 6.9 24.3 alewife (53) 11.0 alewife (17)post- post- post-yolk-sac alewife (67) yolk-sac Cyprinidae yolk-sac larvae larvae (4) larvae round goby (67) (79) -------------

(81) (64)round goby_______ ______ _______________

____ 1_ (22) 1______ _____ _____Sampling was conducted at the experimental station from June through November 2005, and April through November 2006. This station was sampled during the day in June 2005, and during the day and night starting in July 2005. Two composite samples were collected:

one containing ichthyoplankton collected from the surface (10 feet and 20 feet deep) and the second from 30 feet and 40 feet deep. The density of all ichthyoplankton was lower at the experimental station compared with the other two stations (shoreline and intake), and post-yolk-sac larvae were the dominant life stage (Appendix 2). Alewife and yellow perch (Perca flavescens) larvae were the dominant species at the experimental station.6 No ichthyoplankton were collected during the months not listed in the'table 18 Table 3.3 summarizes experimental station data from all months (2005 through 2006) in which ichthyoplankton was collected.

7 Table 3.3 2005 and 2006 lchthyoplankton Sampling Data Summary Experimental Station Date Surface to 20-foot Depth Interval 40-foot Depth Interval MaFMean ean I Fish Den Life Stage Fish Mean Life Stage pis Density (ecet Species Density Pecn) Species (per 100 m 3) (percent) (per 100 m 3) (percent) (percent)yolk-sac alewife unidentified Cyprinidae larvae (22) (22)(22) yellow perch (11)June 5.7 7.3 alewife (33) yolk-sac yellow perch larvae (22) (22)(77) post-yolk-(7 yellow perch sac larvae yellow perch (44) (56) (56)yolk-sac Cyprinidae larvae (8) (8) post-yolk-alewife July 4.6 5.4 sac larvae (100)post-yolk-(100)sac larvae alewife (92)(92)post-yolk-yellow perch June 0.3 sac larvae (100)(100) (100)yolk-sac yolk-sac o larvae (39) alewife (39) alewife (33) alewif (55) larvae (33)July 6.0 post-yolk-alewife (55) 2.8 alewife (33)sac larvae sac larvae (59) round goby (67) round goby (4) (33)3.2.1.1.2 Gill Net Sampling 8 Gill net sampling was conducted once per month from June through November 2005, and April through November 2006. Sampling occurred during the day in June 2005, and during the day and night during the remaining months.Experimental gill nets, set at mid-depth, were used to sample pelagic fish communities at the intake station (22 feet of water) and the experimental station (40 feet of water). Sampling was conducted with 100-foot, four-panel experimental gill nets. Each 25-foot panel had a different mesh size (A-inch, 1-inch, 2-inch and 3-inch bar-mesh size). Gill nets were set at target depths perpendicular to the eastern shoreline south of the intakes and the no-boating zone. Nets were fished for 4 hours4.62963e-5 days 0.00111 hours 6.613757e-6 weeks 1.522e-6 months and then retrieved.

Fish were removed from the net and identified to the lowest possible taxon, enumerated, measured, weighed and released.7 No ichthyoplankton were collectedduring the months not listed in the table Methods and sampling descriptions are from Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2007.19 Catch-per-unit-effort 9 (CPUE) was higher at the intake station than the experimental station in both years (Appendix 2). Yellow perch and spottail shiner (Notropis hudsonius) dominated the catch at both stations each year.Table 3.4 summarizes gill net sampling data from the sampling months in 2005 and 2006 in which juvenile and adult fish were collected.

Table 3.4 2005 and 2006 Gill Net Sampling Data Summary Sample Station Intake Station Experimental Station Date uTtal Dominant Species (percent)

Total Dominant Species (percent)June 8.2 yellow perch (57) 0.4 lake trout (67)

July 43 spottail shiner (50) yellow perch (57)yellow perch (47) spottail shiner (34)rainbow smelt (31) yellow perch (45)August 1.9 spottail shiner (25) 1.1 rainbow smelt (36)LO CDSeptember

3.7 yellow

perch (63) 0--N Ospottail shiner (50)October 1.0 freshwater drum (38) 1.2 alewife (75)November 1.9 spottail shiner (68) 0.4 spottail shiner (68)Total yellow perch (43) yellow perch (42)spottail shiner (40) spottail shiner (25)April 0.2 gizzard shad (50) 0.1 lake trout (100)spottail shiner (50)May 0.3 spottail shiner (100) 0 --June 1.1 longnose sucker (55) 0 ---spottail shiner (53)July 1.1 spottail shiner (55) 1.3 yellow perch (15)white sucker (15)August 0.5 lake sturgeon (50)* 0.8 spottail shiner (56)yellow perch (44)

C spottail shiner (43) spottail shiner (50)5September 0.8 .0.2 eyellow perch (43) 0 yellow perch (50)October 3.4 spottail shiner (38) 0.9 yellow perch (57)yellow perch (31) freshwater drum (33)bloater (17)bloater (26) lake whitefish (17)bloate (26)longnose sucker (17)November 0.5 lake trout (24) 0.7 spottail shiner (17)lake whitefish (24) walleye (17)yellow perch (17 Total spottail shiner (40) spottail shiner (40)yellow perch (24) yellow perch (40)

Two lake sturgeon collected The number of fish caught by an amount of effort. Typically, effort is a combination of gear type, gear size and length of time gear is used.Catch per unit effort is often used as a measurement of relative abundance for a particular fish (www.ncfisheries.net).

20 3.2.1.1.3 Otter Trawl Sampling 10 An otter trawl was used to sample demersal fish communities at the shoreline station (6 feet), intake station (22 feet). and experimental station (40 feet). Sampling was conducted from June to November 2005, and April to November 2006. However, no shoreline sampling occurred from June to September 2005.The otter trawl was 18 feet long with 0.5-inch bar mesh and a cod end with 0.125-inch bar mesh. The otter trawl was set from the boat at the targeted depth and towed south (parallel to the shoreline) at a similar depth for approximately 400 m. The net was then retrieved and fish were collected, identified to the lowest possible taxon, enumerated, measured, weighed and released.CPUE was highest at the intake station followed by the experimental and shoreline stations (Appendix 2).Yellow perch and round goby (Neogobius melanostomus) were the most common fish captured.

Table 3.5 summarizes otter trawl CPUE and dominant species.Table 3.5 2005 and 2006 Otter Trawl Sampling Data Summary Sample Station .Shoreline Station Intake Station Experimental Station Date CPuEtal Dominant Species (percent)

CPuEtal Dominant Species (percent)

Total Dominant Species (percent)June --- .18 spottail shiner (47) 1 yellow perch (100)yellow perch (28)July --- .0.5 spottail shiner (100) 1 yellow perch (100)August 4- spottail shiner (50) 2 round goby (100)alewife (38) round goby (100)c September

--- 50 yellow perch (98) 2 round goby (100)Nyellowperch4(69)

October 12 gizzard shad (71) 10 yellow perch (55) 16 yellow perch (69)_______bloater (28)November 0 gizzard shad (71) 2.5 yellow perch (80) 0 yellow perch (73) yellow perch (58)Total round goby (22)spottail shiner (15) bloater (22)yellow perch (45)April 1 spottail shiner (50) 1.5 yellow perch (100) 6 round goby (18)yellow perch (50) spottail shiner (18)spottail shiner (63) yellow perch (45)May 4 yellow perch (25) 8 yellow perch (88) 11 round goby (23)round goby (13) lake whitefish (18)June 1 yellow perch (100) 36 yellow perch (94) 6.5 round goby (69)___________

_____ ____________________lake whitefish (15)round goby (47)July 25 yellow perch (100) 59 yellow perch (95) 17 alewife (15)oCD _lake whitefish (15)4 August '0.5 spottail shiner (100) 1 yellow perch (100) 2 round goby (75)September 0 -- 0.5 yellow perch (100) 2 yellow perch (67)October 0.5 spottail shiner (100) 0.5 yellow perch (100) 2 yellow perch (100)November 1 spottail shiner (50) spottail shiner (50) 6.5 spottail shiner (62)yellow perch (50) yellow perch (50) yellow perch (38)round goby (37)Total yellow perch (85) yellow perch (94) yellow perch (29)Sample _ not_ collected.

Ispottail shiner (16)-- Sample not collected.

'0 Methods and sampling descriptions are from Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2007.21 3.2.1.1.4 Beach Seine Sampling'1 Seine sampling characterized the fish community at the shoreline sampling station. Sampling occurred at two sites near CNP along the shoreline from August through November 2005 and April through November 2006. Nosampling occurred in June or July 2005.A 100-foot bag seine (0.25-inch bar mesh, 0.0625-inch bar mesh bag) was used to collect fish from the shoreline station. The sampling team anchored one end of the seine tothe shore and a boat pulled the other end into the water perpendicular to the shore and looped around until the end of the net met around back at the shore. The seine was then pulled in and fish were identified to the lowest possible taxon, enumerated, measured, weighed and released.The highest mean CPUE in 2005 occurred during August and October (Appendix 2). Yellow perch were the most common fish species captured in 2005 (78 percent).

In 2006, the greatest mean CPUE occurred in June and October (Appendix 2). Spottail shiners made up the largest component of the 2006 seine samplingcatch.

Table 3.6 summarizes seine sampling data.Table 3.6 2005 and 2006 Seine Sampling Data Summary Sample Station Shoreline Station Date CPUE Dominant Species (percent)August 334.5 yellow perch (92)spottail shiner (5)bloater (25)gizzard shad (25)September

1.2 spottail

shiner (25)La eastern banded killifish (25)N October 45.8 gizzard shad (66)4.8 bloater (19)November 11.0 gizzard shad (71)spottail shiner (21)Total yellow perch (78)gizzard shad (10)l8.3 round goby (42)spottail shiner (30)May 17.5 spottail shiner (91)June 57.5 spottail shiner (77)July 18.8 spottail shiner (65)yellow perch (56)t1.8 alewife (17)round goby (17)tspottail shiner (17)spottail shiner (57)4 September

2.3 yellow

perch (35)October 39.5 bloater (51)alewife (41)November 1.3 spottail shiner (65)spottail shiner (54)Total alewife (15)bloater (14)Methods and sampling descriptions are from Normandeau Associates, Inc., 2007.22 33-In summary, based on the results of the sampling techniques employing different collection gear, the most abundant and widespread fish species present in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of CNP during the study period include yellow perch, spottail shiner and gizzard shad.3.2. 1.2 Fish Species Characterization A brief synopsis of economic importance and life-history information used to identify the appropriate spatial and temporal boundaries for each of the dominant species is presented in the following paragraphs.

The majority of this information was taken directly from George C.. Becker's Fishes of Wisconsin (1983) and Wisconsin Sea Grant's Fish of the Great Lakes (2002). Additional sources are cited as needed.3.2.1.2.1 Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus)

The alewife reached the upper Great Lakes via the Welland Canal. It appeared in Lake Michigan in 1949, had dispersed throughout most of the lake by 1953 and was common throughout the lake by 1957. The alewife became the dominant fish species in Lake Michligan in the 1960s to 1980s. Great Lake alewives are considerably smaller than the anadromous form along the Atlantic Coast. Currently, alewife dominates the forage base in the lake, contributing to the observed instability in the Lake Michigan fish community.

The species' high sensitivity, inability to survive cold water. temperatures and poor physiological adaptation to life in freshwater accentuates this instability (Madenjian et al., 2002).Alewives spawn in Lake Michigan from June to August. The majority of spawning alewives are in age groups 1 and 2 (158 to 172 millimeters

[mm]). Young alewives inhabit the nearshore zone after hatching there, and then move offshore where they spend their first 2 years in the central mid-depths of the lake. The alewife inhabits every depth and bottom type throughout the year, typically avoiding cold water and moving to the warmest areas deep in the lake during the winter, then moving through the nearshore mid-depths in spring and fall seeking warm water. In the summer, alewives crowd nearshore waters.The overall importance of the alewife to the Lake Michigan ecosystem rests on their ability to be both predator of native species' larval forms and prey for top predators.

Frequently mentioned detrimental effects.of the alewife include overall fish species reduction through direct (predation on larval fish) and indirect (food source[i.e., plankton]

depletion) competition.

They also disrupt the flow at power plant intakes and municipal water filtration plants by plugging intakes. The alewife, although abundant, has little commercial value. Conversely, the alewife serves as an excellent forage fish for high-value sport and commercial species, and may be harvested and converted into fish meal.3.2.1.2.2 Bloater (Coregonus hoyi)The bloater inhabits the deep water areas of Lake Michigan and can be found at all depths from 22 to 178 m.Bloaters live at mid-levels in Lake Michigan until their third year. As such, few bloaters less than 178 mm long are found on the bottom. The majority of adult bloaters larger than 178 mm live near bottom and avoid the warm inshore waters. Spawning occurs mainly in January, February and March in Lake Michigan. Spawning occurs in Lake Michigan at a depth of 51 m, but bloaters may spawn in shallower or deeper water. Advantageous environmental conditions have led to increasing numbers and size, and the bloater has become one of the most important species of whitefish remaining in the fishery of Lake Michigan.

The bloater first entered the commercial fishery in the late 1950s with the introduction of trawl fishing, which provided an efficient means of catching them in large quantities at low cost for human food and fish meal. It is a mainstay in the fishery and provides the bulk of the smoked fish marketed for human consumption.

Although fisheries biologists agree that 23 the abundance of the bloater has been declining at a rate of 20 percent per year since 1969, there is evidence that populations have increased recently (Madenjian et al., 2002).3.2.1.2.3 Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)Common carp adapt to a wider variety of conditions than any native North American fish and has become a characteristic and abundant species in large, shallow lakes and streams. Although tolerant of all bottom types and of clear or turbid waters, carp prefer warm streams, lakes and shallows containing an abundance of aquatic vegetation.

Undesirable habitats include clear, cold waters, high-gradient streams and Chara-type lakes. They normally seek quiet waters and dark holes, avoiding swift water except during the spring spawning runs.

The spawning period for the common carp extends from April to August, with the greatest activity occurring in late May or early June. Spawning occurs in shallow, weedy areas of lakes, ponds, tributary streams, swamps, temporary flood plains and marshes at depths of 8 centimeters (cm) to about 183 cm. Intermittent spawning may last several days to several weeks, possibly with two spawning peaks in some areas. Males typically mature at age 2 and females at age 3, with an average longevity of 9 to 15 years. Common carp are an important source of gonadotropins for many game fishes. Common carp have also been proposed as a source of forage for game fish and grass carp have been used as weed control agents. Some consider the common carp a sport fish and an important commercial species, while others consider it an exotic nuisance.3.2.1.2.4 Cyprinidae The Cyprinidae family, one of the largest fish families, includes approximately 275 genera and more than 1,500 species commonly referred to as minnows and carp. Many minnow species continually spawn throughout a long season, typically called fractional spawning.

This type of spawning decreases the chance that one or more entire generations will be lost to unfavorable environmental conditions.

The use and demand for bait minnows has led to the development of an important business in and around resort or fishing areas. Great demand and uncertain supply have caused many minnow dealers and people who handle live bait to propagate and rear minnows in natural or artificial ponds. The minnow is also an important prey and commercial food fish. For example, the spottail shiner is a forage fish for white bass, smallmouth bass, northern pike and muskellunge.

3.2.1.2.5 Spottail Shiner (Notropis hudsonius)

The spottail shiner, a member of the Cyprinidae family, is well distributed in the shallow water of the Great Lakes and the boundary rivers. Spottail shiner can be found in quiet waters of river sloughs or waters with moderate currents, and near areas with sparse to moderate amounts of vegetation.

In Lake Michigan, it occurs in shoal waters to depths of about 46 m. Considerable yearly movements have been noted for this species in.Lake Michigan.

From February to April, it is irregularly distributed to depths up to about 46 m, with greatest numbers at 5.5 to 31 m. By early May a definite shoreward movement is evident, and from the end of May to the end of August this species is seldom caught at depths greater than 12.8 m. By mid-October, spottail shiners scatter into water as deep as 31 m. Spawning typically occurs from late June to early July in Lake Michigan;however, following a cold spring spawning can occur as late as mid-July to late August or early September.

Spawning occurs in closely packed groups or massed aggregations over areas of gravelly riffles near the mouths of brooks, or along the sandy shoals of lakeshores.

In Lake Michigan, spawning was observed at a depth of 4.6 m above a water intake crib located in 9.1 m of water. All spottail shiners at age 2 were mature in Lake Michigan and apparently do not mature until they are larger than 66 mm. The spottail shiner is an important prey species for white bass, smallmouth bass, northern pike and muskellunge.

It has also been eaten by the loon, common tern, American merganser and kingfisher.

The spottail shiner is considered a bait minnow 24 3c~

of high rank and has been found to be a useful biological indicator of organochlorine contaminants in nearshore habitats.3.2.1.2.6 Freshwater Drum (Aplodinotus grunniens)

Freshwater drum inhabit large rivers, lakes and impoundments, preferring open, turbid waters of warm, sluggish lakes and streams with mud bottoms. The drum is only occasionally found in clear water, but is common in shallow, weedy areas of Lake Erie. In the Great Lakes, it occurs mostly from shallows to waters 12 to 18 m deep. The freshwater drum spawns from May to June in rivers and open water, usually far from shore. Slow growth appears to increase longevity, but few freshwater drums live to be more than 10 years of age. In Lake Michigan, the freshwater drum population is concentrated in lower Green Bay, where it is harvested incidentally in the yellow perch fishery. The catch of freshwater drum in Lake Michigan has been negligible since 1962 because of poor market demand.3.2.1.2.7 Gizzard Shad (Dorosoma cepedianum)

Populations of gizzard shad appear to fluctuate greatly because of winter die-offs due to low winter temperatures.

Gizzard shad mortality events occur during a majority of winters and are typically dominated by young-of-the-year (YOY) fish (White et al., 1986). Die-offs can occur as a result of steadily declining seasonal water temperatures or early in the winter after a more acute cold snap or chilling event. Numerous authors have documented annual mortality events throughout the northern ranges of gizzard shad populations (Bodola, 1966; Trautman, 1981; Adams et al., 1982; Becker, 1983; White et al., 1986; June, 1987; Vasnna, 2005;Fitzgerald et al., 2006; Fost, 2006; Ward et al., 2006). However, any trend that warms the water (e.g., industrial hot-water effluent) may enable carryover of breeding stock through severe winters. Therefore, the establishment and spread of the gizzard shad in Lake Michigan may be supported by artificial warm spots in harbors and industrial bays.Gizzard shad inhabit large rivers, reservoirs, lakes, swamps, bays, sloughs and similar quiet open waters, tolerating water quality ranging from clear to very silty. It is essentially an open-water species, usually living at or near the surface. Gizzard shad are generally caught within 1.6 kilometers (km) of the shores of Lake Michigan and at a depth of 6 to 13 m. Spawning in Lake Michigan occurs over shallow sandy or rocky bars at night from late April and early May to early August. After spawning, the fish return to deeper waters. Almost all males and a high percentage of females mature at age 2.Gizzard shad is considered a poor bait fish because the young are fragile and die quickly. However, they have at times been gathered in large numbers for bait. It is typically not used as food for humans, but is sometimes used as hog, cattle and trout food. It has also been converted to fertilizer.

Young gizzard shad are an important forage fish for sport and predator fishes. Periodic mortality of the gizzard shad also provides an important source of food for numerous species of waterfowl and wading birds. However, gizzard shad's rapid growth soon makes them too large to be threatened by most predatory fish and they tend to overpopulate many waters to a degree that seems detrimental to other species.3.2.1.2.8 Lake Sturgeon (Acipenser fulvescens)

The lake sturgeon is a typical inhabitant of large rivers and lakes, living in shoal water in the Great Lakes. Lake sturgeon migrate to their annual spawning grounds between late April and early June, preferring to spawn in shallow, rocky areas along river banks. Females reach sexual maturity when 24 to 26 years old and about 140 25 cm long. Thereafter, instead of spawning every spring, females spawn once very 4 to 6 years. Males first attain sexual maturity at 20 years of age, but few males mature before they are 114 cm long. Most males spawn every other year, but some do so every year. Lake sturgeon require extensive areas of water less than 914 cm deep with an abundant food source. Until 1870, lake sturgeon were considered a nuisance by commercial fishermen, who destroyed them in great numbers by piling them onshore to rot. However, they are now considered a prized game fish. They were once abundant in Lake Michigan, but are seldom taken there today due to reduced numbers. The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) lists the lake sturgeon as a threatened species. Preservation of habitat is the single most important factor for the survival of lake sturgeon.

Changes in habitat have seriously.

reduced the capacity of Michigan's waters to produce these fish.3.2.1.2.9 Lake Trout (Salvelinus namaycush)

In Lake Michigan, the lake trout was the most valuable commercial species from 1890 until the mid-1940s.

Production in Lake Michigan was usually the highest of any of the Great Lakes in that period. Only two known reproductive events by lake trout have been recorded in Lake Michigan:

one at the rocky, nearshore intake structure at the J. H. Campbell Plant (Jude et al., 1981) and one at the mid-lake reefs in 50 m of water in southern Lake Michigan (Janssen et al., 2007). The lake trout rehabilitation program in Lake Michigan, coordinated by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission since 1965, stocks an average of nearly 2 million yearling lake trout each year.

The program has been highly successful in producing fish to spawning size.Lake trout spend most of their lives in the deeper waters of cold lakes. However, in some areas they move about extensively during certain seasons and may be found at any depth. In the Great Lakes, they are usually most abundant at depths between 30 and 90 m. Generally, they live at or near the bottom, but some may also occur in the open water, far offshore, where they are caught commercially in gill nets suspended below the surface. Spawning occurs in fall, from mid-October to early December.

The depth of spawning grounds may be a few centimeters to 30 m or deeper. Most lake trout spawn on rocky bars that are free from silt by water currents.

In Lake Michigan and Green Bay, reef, shoal or 'honeycomb' rock in 2 to 36 m of water was chosen by lake trout as spawning grounds. The lake trout is the largest of all the trout, may live as long as 20 years and matures at a length of 610 mm. Studies of the movement of native lake trout and hatchery-reared, planted lake trout indicate that most fish live within a radius of about 81 km of their points of hatching or planting.

However, some individuals wander extensively.

The lake trout has always been a prized fish, whether taken by hook and line or secured through commercial fishing efforts. A serious potential human health problem is associated with the lake trout because it bioaccumulates considerable quantities of persistent organochlorine compounds (e.g., DDT, polychlorinated biphenyls, dioxins) and other undesirable substances in its fatty tissues.3.2.1.2.10 Lake Whitefish (Coregonus clupeaformis)

In large lakes such as Lake Michigan, discrete populations with different growth characteristics exist within the same lake, separated by relatively short distances.

Lake whitefish, a strong schooling fish, occurs in the littoral waters of Lake Michigan. The behavior of lake whitefish is characterized by cyclic movements, as twice during the year they move into shoal waters (in the spring and again in the fall spawning period) and migrate into deeper offshore waters when the water starts to warm during the summer.

In Lake Michigan, spawning time may vary from year to year, but typically begins between October 25 and December 15, and continues for approximately 2 to 6 weeks. Spawning occurs at night over gravel, 'honeycomb' rock or small stones in 2 to 18 m of water along the shores of the lake and on the reefs around the islands. By age group 4, almost all lake whitefish are mature. The average lake whitefish weighs 1.8 kg, with a maximum weight of 9 kg. However, the 26 total distance traveled by an individual lake whitefish is generally restricted.

Lake whitefish is a commercial species and its value for food is recognized throughout North America.3.2.1.2.11 Longnose Sucker (Catostomus catostomus)

Population densities and prevalence of longnose sucker in Lake Michigan vary based on latitude.

In northern Lake Michigan, longnose sucker are common, decreasing in prevalence moving south. At the southern tip of the lake, longnose sucker has likely been extirpated.

The longnose sucker rarely appears in Lake Michigan tributaries.

Longnose suckers typically occur in shallow nearshore waters; however, evidence also indicates that the longnose sucker moves offshore to deeper water in the fall. Spawning occurs in April and May during daylight hours, probably in rivers. Longnose sucker have been criticized in the past as a competitor with sport fish for space and food. However, some researchers feel that its value as a forage fish may. outweigh its negative values as a competitor for food.3.2.1.2.12 Rainbow Smelt (Osmerus mordax)Rainbow smelt were introduced to Crystal Lake in the 1920s and later spread to Lake Michigan when the beach was breached (Jude and Leach, 1999). Although essentially a marine species distributed primarily along Canadian coastal waters, the rainbow smelt also inhabits fresh waters of the northeastern states and the Great Lakes. In the Great Lakes, rainbow smelt inhabit waters 14 to 64 m deep and are most abundant in the 18- to 26-m zone. They occasionally occur in small numbers to 91 m. In Lake Michigan, they move in increasing numbers from pelagic to a bottom existence as they grow older. Age 0 fish live in the upper levels until the fallor very late summer, when at least some move to the bottom. Age 1 fish may be found at either mid-levels(commonly in the thermocline) or on the bottom. Fish age 2 and older are typically found on the bottom. Adult smelt on the bottom of southeastern Lake Michigan occupy shallow and intermediate depths.The spawning season occurs from late March through early May and normally lasts about 2 weeks. The adults move inshore and congregate in dense schools in April. Shortly after the icebreaks up and .moves out, the bulk of the spawners migrate upstream, but can spawn in nearshore sandy areas as well as to distances of 0.8 to1.6 km above the stream mouths. Spawning typically takes place during the nighttime.

Relatively few of each night's spawners are found in the streams the following day. Those fish that remain are almost all males and, because the species is light sensitive, they seek darkness under banks and bridges. After spawning is completed, many of the fish drift back to the lake and seek out deep water. Rainbow smelt, because of the timing of spawning and outward migration of the young, have been able to use relatively polluted areas that other anadromous species cannot use. All rainbow smelt are immature after only one growing season, but they are mature after three or more growing seasons.Numerous game species, such as lake trout, walleye, yellow perch, northern pike and burbot, feed on rainbow smelt in the Great Lakes. Smelt is also known as a tasty food fish and useful bait fish.3.2.1.2.13 Round Goby (Neogobius melanostomus)Round goby belongs to a family of fish with a worldwide distribution in both salt and freshwater; however, they had not been found in the Great Lakes prior to 1990. The round goby was first found in the St. Clair River in 1990 (Jude et al., 1992), then rapidly progressed throughout the Great lakes (first in Lake Erie, then Calumet 27 Harbor in southern Lake Michigan and finally into Lake Superior's Duluth/Superior harbor area in 1995 [Jude, 2001]). The fish most likely arrived in ballast water discharged by trans-oceanic ships (Hensler and Jude, 2007).Round gobies are bottom-dwelling fish that perch on rocks and other substrates.

They are aggressive fish and voracious feeders. They will vigorously defend spawning sites, which are typically holes, crevices or excavated sites in rocky or gravel habitats, thereby restricting access of other less aggressive fish, such as mottled, sculpins (Janssen and Jude, 2001), to prime spawning areas. Round gobies also have well-developed sensory systems that enhance their ability to detect prey water movement.

This allows them to feed in complete darkness and gives them another advantage over other fish in the same habitat. Round gobies are capable of rapid population growth. They spawn repeatedly during the summer months, with females producing up to 5,000 eggs. Male round gobies die after spawning.3.2.1.2.14 Round Whitefish (Prosopium cylindraceum)

The round whitefish is essentially a shallow-water species. It is generally believed that the round whitefish moves in schools along the shore, seldom into deep water. In northern Lake Michigan it is most common at 7 to 22 m, occasionally at depths to 59 m. Although normally a lake species, the round whitefish will move considerable distances against strong currents during the spawning run, Spawning occurs in.November and early December.

During spawning there is a decided inshore movement of this species to shallower water. In Lake Michigan the eggs are laid over 'honeycomb' rock and gravel in 4 to 11 m of water. Lake Michigan round whitefish mature between 305 mm and 381 mm. The smallest mature males are between 305 and 315 mm, and the smallest mature females are between 330 and 340 mm. All males longer than 366 mm and all females longer than 378 mm are mature. Round whitefish are a source of food for other fish species. However, as a food source for humans it offers a limited fishery. Round whitefish are not sought extensively by commercial fishermen because of its low market value.3.2.1.2.15 Slimy Sculpin (Cottus cognatus)The slimy sculpin is' not found in many tributaries to Lake Michigan, but it is common in the lake proper from depths nearshore out to 150 m, and most reside from 50 m to shore. Typical habitats of the slimy sculpin are deep, oligotrophic lakes or swift, rocky-bottomed streams. Cold water temperatures are preferred and the species is commonly found in association with trout or salmon. Spawning in streams begins in late April, with larger females spawning first. In southern Lake Michigan, the slimy sculpin began to spawn in early May.Evidence suggests that slimy sculpins spawn in Lake Michigan at depths of 31 to 82 m over bottom types ranging from fine sand to mud. It is a bottom dweller in Lake Michigan and probably deposits its eggs in clumps on the lake bottom.Slimy sculpin larvae are bottom oriented, but may come off the bottom for brief periods at small sizes, whenthey can be found in the hypolimnion and even higher in the water column for short periods of time. Little else is known about the YOY of this species, except that some appear on the lake bottom in the fall. The average life expectancy in southern Lake Michigan is between 4 and 6 years. The majority of slimy sculpins are mature by age 3 and all slimy sculpins are mature at age 4. In southern Lake Michigan, the depth distribution of slimy sculpins ranges from shore to 91 m, but it may occur at depths as great as 150 m. After thermal stratification, the range decreases and the sculpin become more numerous between 46 and 64 m. In southern Lake Michigan, slimy sculpins are distributed throughout a wide depth range during the winter, but they abandon shallow areas in the spring as soon as the waters warm significantly and continue a gradual movement away from shore through the summer and fall.28 The slimy sculpin was an important prey species for lake trout before the lake trout's decline in Lake Michigan, and it is still an important prey species for brown trout during the spring. It has also been accused of being an important predator on salmonine eggs and larvae in streams and offshore reefs where lake trout spawn. The slimy sculpin may also be used as a bait species.3.2.1.2.16 White Sucker (Catostomus commersoni)

The white sucker is generally more tolerant of degraded or variable environmental conditions than most other fish species found in Lake Michigan, and as such, is a common inhabitant of polluted and/or turbid waters. It occurs commonly in lakes or reservoirs in areas with sparse vegetation.

The white sucker is essentially a bottom fish. In deep lakes, few, if any, are captured more than 46 cm off the bottom. They move inshore in the evening and offshore in the morning. Spawning typically occurs from April to May, but has also been observed through late June. The white sucker is associated with migratory runs into tributary streams that may be initiated by water runoff from early melting snow. Water temperature may be an important factor in determining the peak of spawning migration and the duration of the run. The major migration usually takes place at night, starting at dusk. Spawning occurs in swift water or rapids, over a bottom of gravel; however, the white sucker occasionally spawns in lakes, if conditions are suitable.

In lakes, white suckers less than 51 mm long usually feed in water 15 to 20 cm deep along the shore.

In white suckers from Lake Michigan, a small number of males mature at age 2, and some females mature at age 3. However, most white suckers are mature at age 4. The white sucker is an important forage fish, with the chief economic value being in its use as food for sport fishes.

3.2.1.2.17 Yellow Perch (Perca flavescens)

Yellow perch, a glacial lake species, are common in the inshore waters of Lake Michigan.

It is adaptable to a wide variety of habitats, preferring lakes, backwaters and sloughs with modest amounts of vegetation and water of moderate fertility.

In Lake Michigan, yellow perch in their first year of life reside in shallow nearshore waters and then migrate to deeper water in the fall. Adult yellow perch enter shallow water (9 m) in June and remain there until September and October, when they gradually move to water of intermediate depth (18 to 27 m), where they spend the winter. Spawning typically occurs shortly after the ice melt in April or early May in inland lakes, while in Lake Michigan they spawn in mid to late May. They usually seek rocky substrates for spawning and can spawn among woody debris or other objects in the water. Their eggs are a long gelatinous mass that becomes larger with residence in the water column. After eggs hatch, larval fish drift with the currents and can be carried long distances.

They are common in the nearshore zone in upper waters for about 2 weeks in their pelagic stage with sizes from 6 to 9 mm (Perrone et al., 1983). In Lake Michigan, larvae are carried offshore where they grow in the epilimnion and eventually, at a size of about 25 to 30 mm, appear in the nearshore zone on the bottom (Dettmers et al., 2005). Yellow perch are also a very important recreational species in the Great Lakes region. In'Lake Michigan, they usually lead the harvest in the number of fish caught in the lake.3.3 Species Protected under Federal, State or Tribal Law (Threatened or Endangered Species) [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(i) and (ii)]Fish community monitoring studies identified no federally designated T&E species. The United States Department of the Interior indicates an absence of federally listed species within Lake Michigan.

However, the MDNR lists the lake sturgeon (Acipenserfulvescens) as a threatened species in Michigan.29 WJ4

3.3.1 Summary

of Data on Threatened or Endangered Species Impingement T&E species collected during impingement monitoring activities are limited to lake sturgeon.

No lake sturgeon were collected between January and November 2006. In December 2006, 14 lake sturgeon were collected during the impingement study. Additionally, gill net sampling in August 2006 yielded two lake sturgeon.

Data from CNP indicate that station operations do not adversely affect lake sturgeon.3.4 Station Operating Scenarios Used in the CDS [40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)]

The Phase II Rule requires that facilities describe the current configuration and operations of the facility (Current Conditions) as well as the Calculation Baseline configuration and operations (Calculation Baseline Conditions)

[40 CFR §125.95(b)(3)].

Two operational scenarios were employed during this CDS. A Calculation Baseline Scenario was developed to estimate annual losses assuming design-based specifications and CWIS parameter assumptions typical of power plants as defined by the USEPA (40 CFR § 125.93 Calculation Baseline).

A Current Conditions Scenario was developed to estimate the actual annual losses (in terms of impingement and entrainment) on the local fish populations based on the typical operational parameters at CNP.The baseline case for IM&E rates must be established from new sampling and data analysis, as several exotic species have entered the lake and caused extensive changes since the conclusion of the GLRD -UM study in 1982 (NA, 2007). Therefore, impingement and entrainment and field studies were conducted at CNP by NA, on behalf of AEP, between June 2005 and January 2007 as part of a compliance effort associated with the Phase II Rule. The 2005 to 2007 dataset was used to evaluate current IM&E rates.In addition, the annual entrainment losses were placed into perspective by using the Equivalent Age 1 Model, which translates losses of early life stages (egg, larva12 and YOY13) of a species of fish into Age 1 fish.3.4.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shoreline Configuration

-Calculation Baseline Station Configurationand Operations

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)])

The Calculation Baseline Scenario, as defined in 40 CFR § 125.93 Calculation Baseline, is designed to provide estimated impingement and entrainment assuming "standard" power plant design specifications, and no fish impingement and/or entrainment deterrent mechanisms.

The assumptions used in the Calculation Baseline Scenario are described below: " Impingement and entrainment densities calculated from the data collected by NA (Appendix 2). These density estimates are identical to that of the Current Conditions estimates.

Cooling water withdrawn from Lake Michigan through the CWIS is assumed to equal the CWIS daily NPDES permitted discharge flow (3,320 mgd) multiplied by 365 days (100 percent capacity utilization rate).* An intake structure located on the shoreline.

12 Includes yolk-sac larvae and post-yolk-sac larvae.13 The stage from completed transformation to Age 1 (i.e., 12 months after hatching).

A YOY has a full complement of fin rays, identified to that of an adult).30

3.4.2 Current

Conditions Scenario (Current Station Configuration and Operations

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)])

The Current Conditions Scenario is designed to estimate fish impingement and entrainment assuming actual daily operations.

The assumptions used in the Current Conditions Scenario are described below:* Impingement and entrainment densities calculated from the data collected by NA (Appendix 2). The density calculation methodology is presented in Section 3.4.3.2 of this report.

Impingement and entrainment densities are based on the daily recorded CWIS volume reported in the Circulating Water Flow Calculation, Data Sheet 6. Calculations were conducted per Station Procedure 12 EA 6090 EMR.501.* Cooling water withdrawn from Lake Michigan through the CWIS is assumed to equal the CWIS daily NPDES permitted discharge flow (3,320 mgd) multiplied by 365 days (100 percent capacity utilization rate).* An intake structure located at its present location (approximately 2,250 feet offshore).

3.4.3 Estimation

of Impingement Mortality

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(iii)]

3.4.3.1 Data NA conducted impingement sampling at Units 1 and 2 from June 2005 through January 2007. Sampling occurred during the last week of June 2005, every other week from July 2005 through January 2006, and twiceper week from February 2006 through January 2007. During this 20-month sampling period, a total of 244 samples were collected.

Samples were collected over 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months and consisted of all screen-washed material (debris and fish) trapped on the traveling screens of each unit during each 12-hour diel collection period. All fish were separated, when possible, from the screenwash material, identified to species and separated by length class. Appendix 2 presents the sampling methodology and a summary of the June 2005 through January 2007 impingement data.Impingement sampling results are described below.A total of 51,809 fish, representing 42 species, were collected in impingement samples at Unit 1 during the sampling period.14 The highest impingement total (8,681 fish [17 percent])

occurred during December 2006.The majority of the fish found in impingement samples during the 20-month study period were yellow perch (38,038; 73 percent), alewife (4,358; 9 percent) and spottail shiner (4,085; 8 percent).

Impingement of yellow perch occurred in every month but October 2006, and was highest in December 2006 (6,030), February 2006 (5,878), March 2006 (5,438) and January 2007 (5,396). Alewife, the second most abundant species, was collected during every month but November 2005 and October 2006. Alewife impingement was highest in June 2006 (2,810). Spottail shiner was impinged during every month of the sampling period, with the'highest impingement total occurring in December 2006 (1,749).A total of 67,938 fish were collected in impingement samples at Unit 2 during the 20-month sampling period.Similar to Unit 1, the highest impingement rate at Unit 2 occurred in December 2006 (13,709; 20 percent).14 Impingement totals reflect the cumulative number of fish collected during all sampling events in the specified month. Based on the sample frequency outlined in the first paragraph, the number of weeks in each month and the sampling schedule, the total time sampled varies by.month. As such, impingement totals presented here represent a raw data summary. These data were normalized to a level of effort when used in impingement estimate calculations that follow.31 Lt(c, Yellow perch (47,615; 70 percent), alewife (5,527; 8 percent) and gizzard shad (5,238; 8 percent) represented the three most abundant species collected in Unit 2 impingement samples. Impingement of yellow perch and alewife occurred during every month, with the highest impingement totals for yellow perch occurring in December 2006 (11,194) and February 2006 (9,621), and June 2006 (3,590) for alewife. Gizzard shad, the third most abundant species impinged at Unit 2, was not collected in June 2005 or May through August 2006.

The highest impingement totals for gizzard shad occurred in October 2006 (4,290).

3.4.3.2 Methodology for Calculating Impingement Mortality Monthly and annual impingement estimates were calculated using the following procedure.

A daily impingement density (fish impinged per 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months ) was calculated for all sample dates. The potential effects of diel period and month were tested using a post-hoc test in ANOVA on the daily sample results (Appendix 3). Month was found to be a significant contributor to variation, while diel period was not. Therefore, impingement data from Unit 1 and 2 intakes were pooled to yield one 24-hour impingement count.

The 24-hour intake volumes recorded for intake Units 1 and 2 were pooled to yield one daily intake volume. These 24-hour intake volumes were then paired with impingement sampling days (NA, 2007) by date. Sample day impingement density was calculated by dividing the 24-hour impingement count by the corresponding 24-hourintake volume for a given sample day. These steps are summarized in Equation 1.

Equation 1: (ll,d XS 1,d )+ (12,d x S 2 ,d ) +(, x Sl,)+ (I2,n X S2,n)V. +V2. +V. +V21l,d + 2.d + I,n + 2,n Where: D= Daily impingement density for data from a given sample day i (fish/gal).

/,,.= Number of fish impinged for a given unit x (1 or 2) and diel period y (day or night).S.,y = Sample-specific scale factor (multiplier) used when aggregate impingement counts were conducted for a given unit (x) and diel period (y).Vxy = Intake volume recorded for a given unit x and diel period y.Daily sample impingement density (Dj) values for a given month were used to calculate a monthly average Dm (Equation 2). This was done by taking the mean of all Di values for a given month. In cases where more than one year of monthly data were available (i.e., 2005 and 2006 data for June to December) the 2 months worth of Di were combined in calculating monthly averages.Equation 2:~Di Dm- /=n./'m Where: D,= Average monthly impingement density (fish/gal) during a given month.Dim= Sample impingement density from a given sample day i (fish/gal) taken during a given month m.n, = Number of samples taken in a given month m.32 L-)

3.4.3.2.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario Impingement Monthly impingement (number of fish impinged per month) for the Calculation Baseline Scenario was estimatedusing Equation

3. The design flow volume for the CWIS was calculated by multiplying 24-hour design flow (as provided in the NPDES Permit) by the number of days in the month in question.

The Calculation Baseline Scenario assumes a shoreline intake structure (as defined in the Phase II regulations).

As such, the ratio between the shoreline fish density and the intake structure area fish density was used as a multiplier for the Baseline impingement calculation.

The derivation of these ratios is discussed below. These multipliers are designed to account for the expected increase in impingement that would occur from having a greater abundance of fish in the lake near a shoreline intake.Equation 3: MBx = Dx.XFd x dxRX Where: MB, Baseline fish impinged for a given month x (no. of fish).Q, = Measured impingement density for a given month x (fish/gal).

Fd = NPDES Permit flow design flow (gal).dx = Days per given month x (days).Rx = Shoreline to intake area fish community density measured for a given month x (unitless).

Annual Baseline impingement was estimated by summing the 12 monthly baseline estimates from Equation 3.The shoreline to intake area fish community density (Rx) was derived using the nearfield data collected by NA between June 2005 and January 2007, as well as data collected by the University of Michigan for Impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant on Fish (Jude et al., 1986). Both studies report the data as CPUE. To derive a parameter that applies to impingement and entrainment estimates, the two datasets were converted from CPUE to fish community density (fish/m 3). The fish density between sample stations corresponding to the shoreline near CNP and the lake at the depth of the CWIS were used to calculate a ratio (Rx). The procedure for calculating Rx is presented in Appendix 4.3.4.3.2.2 Current Conditions Scenario Impingement Monthly impingement (number of fish impinged) was estimated for the Current Conditions Scenario by multiplying the NPDES Permit flow volume (gal) by the impingement density calculated for the same month (shown in Equation 4). The recorded monthly flow volumes from 2006 were used in calculating monthly Current Conditions estimates.

Equation 4: MI. = D. x FD Where: Mi, = Fish impinged for a given month x (no. of fish).Dx = Measured impingement density for a given month x (fish/gal).

FD = NPDES Permit flow volume for a given month x (gal).33 Annual impingement for the Current Conditions Scenario was extrapolated by summing thel 2 monthly impingement estimates from Equation 4.3.4.3.3 Estimates of Impingement Mortality 3.4.3.3.1 Calculation Baseline Scenario Impingement mortality under the Calculation Baseline Scenario was assumed to be 100 percent of organisms impinged.

Monthly and annual impingement results for the Calculation Baseline Scenario are presented in Table 3.7. Figure 3.1 presents monthly impingement proportioned by species. Figure 3.2 presents annual impingement proportion by species.34 L49~

Table 3.7 Estimated Monthly and Annual Impingement for the Regulatory-Defined Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shoreline)

Gizzard Round Spottail YellowMonth Alewife Shad Goby Shiner Perch Other Monthly Total January 4,486 19,527 15,468 72,812 1,200,808 53,970 1,367,071 February 4,491 12,108 17,748 241,589 8,009,164 78,849 8,363,948 March 726 22,112 16,563 70,050 1,262,943 52,078 1,424,471 April 2,042 694 42,444 85,725 821,626 30,664 983,195 May 59,752 0 363,456 41,827 645,822 41,697 1,152,554 June 7,228,443 0 437,761 43,815 458,884 63,094 8,231,998 July 678,389 1,651 1,548,246 171,661 676,739 151,854 3,228,538 August 1,276,745 40,473 1,777,140 1,769,781 19,107,016 643,891 24,615,046 September 256,146 1,168,475 134,791 257,013 3,305,191 330,692 5,452,308 October 3,759 175,441 7,087 10,552 90,234 4,710 291,782 November 18,296 9,058 7,364 9,005 303,679 1,764 349,166 December 26,347 94,326 40,244 589,905 4,168,072 99,370 5,018,264 Annual 1 1 Total 9,559,621 1,543,864 4,408,312 3,363,734 40,050,177 1,552,634 Grand Total 60,478,342 Figure 3.1 -Baseline Scenario Estimated Monthly Impingement 3.OE+07 -IM Other 0l Spottail shiner 2.5E+07 2.OE+07 1.5E+07 I o Round goby* Gizzard shad U Alewife*l Yellow perch A 0._o.I_E U,.1.OE+07 5.OE+06 0.OE+00 n r H r-7 1 77 =m=1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Month 12 35 Figure 3.2 -Baseline Scenario Annual Impingement Proportions Other, 3%Gizzard shad, 3%Round goby, 7%Spottail shiner, 6%Yellow perch, 66%Based on the extrapolation techniques employed for the Calculation Baseline Scenario, an estimated 43,810,365 fish would be impinged annually.

Forty-one different species were impinged (NA, 2007). Five species make up 97 percent of fish impinged.

Impingement estimates for yellow perch (40,050,177 fish; Table 3.7) represent 66 percent of all fish (Figure 3.2) impinged annually under the Calculation Baseline Scenario.The other major species contributions include alewife (9,559,621 fish; 16 percent), round goby (4,408,312; 7 percent), spottail shiner (3,363,734 fish; 6 percent) and gizzard shad (1,543,864 fish; 3 percent) (Table 3.7 andFigure 3.2).

The highest impingement estimates occur in August (24,615,046 fish), February (8,363,948 fish) and June (8,231,998 fish; Figure 3.1). The remaining months all experience less than 6 million fish impinged.

Yellow perch are the dominant species impinged each month, except for June (alewife) and October (gizzard shad)(Figure 3.1).3.4.3.3.2 Current Conditions Scenario Impingement mortality under the Current Conditions Scenario was assumed to be 100 percent of organisms impinged.

Monthly and annual impingement results for the Current Conditions Scenario are presented in Table 3.8. Figure 3.3 presents monthly impingement proportioned by species. Figure 3.4 presents annual impingement proportion by species.36 Table 3.8,..EstimatedMonthlyand Annual hmpingement, -for he urrnt ond'itions Scenario Gizzard Round Spottail Yellow Month Alewife Shad Goby Shiner Perch Other Monthly Total January 281 1,224 969 4,564 75,261 3,383 85,682 February 281 759 1,112 15,142 501,978 4,942 524,215 March 45 1,386 1,038 4,390 79,156 3,264 89,279 April 106 36 2,196 4,435 42,508 1,586 50,867 May 1,428 0 8,683 999 15,429 996 27,536 June 42,969 0 2,602 260 2,728 375 48,935 July 805 2 1,837 204 803 180 3,830 August 615 19 856 852 9,199 310 11,851 September 1,236 5,640 651 1,241 15,953 1,596 26,316 October 499 23,274 940 1,400 11,970 625 38,708 November 5,940 2,941 2,391 2,924 98,599 573 113,368 December 1,651 5,912 2,522 36,973 261,236 6,228 314,522 Annual Total 55,857 41,192 25,798 73,383 1,114,821 24,058 Grand Total 1,335,109 37 Figure 3.3 -Current Conditions Scenario Estimated Monthly Impingement 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0* Other El Spottail shiner*l Round goby* Gizzard shad* Alewife El Yellow perch n Em7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 38 Figure 3.4 -Current Conditions Scenario Annual Impingement Proportions Gizzard shad, 3%Round goby, 2%Spottail shiner, 5%Yellow perch, 84%Based on the extrapolation techniques employed for the Current Conditions Scenario, an estimated 967,150 fish are impinged annually.

Forty-one different species were impinged (NA, 2007). Five species make up 98 percent of the fish impinged.

Impingement estimates for yellow perch (1,114,821 fish; Table 3.9) represent 84 percent of the total estimated impinged fish (Figure 3.4) annually under the Current Conditions Scenario.

The other major species contributions include spottail shiner (73,383 fish; 5 percent), alewife (55,857 fish; 4 percent), gizzard shad (41,192 fish; 3 percent) and round goby (25,798 fish; 2 percent) (Table 3.8; Figure 3.3).Highest impingement estimates occur in February (524,215 fish), December (314,522 fish) and November (113,368 fish) (Figure 3.3). The remaining months experience approximately 90,000 or less fish impinged.Yellow perch are the dominant species impinged for every month, except for June (alewife) and October (gizzard shad) (Figure 3.3).3.4.3.4 Estimation of Entrainment

[40 CFR § 125.95(b)(3)(iii)]

3.4.3.4.1 Data NA collected entrainment samples from June through November 2005, and February 2006 through January 2007. Weekly sampling occurred from June 23, 2005 through August 31, 2005. Bimonthly sampling occurred from September 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005. No samples were collected in December 2005 and 39 January 2006. Monthly samplingoccurred during February 2006; after February, sampling frequency increased to weekly between March 20 and May 29, 2006. Between June 2 and August 28, 2006, sampling was conducted twice weekly. Weekly sampling resumed from September 4 through September 29, 2006, then decreased to monthly during October, November and December 2006; and January 2007.Entrainment samples were collected using an electric trash pump with 3-inch intake and discharge openings.Each 24-hour sampling period consisted of four samples of 6-hour duration each (0300 to 0900, 0900 to 1500, 1500 to 2100, 2100 to 0300 hours0.00347 days 0.0833 hours 4.960317e-4 weeks 1.1415e-4 months ). A total of 252 entrainment samples were collected during the program.Appendix 2 describes the sampling methodology and summarizes the June 2005 through January 2007 entrainment data, presented by species and life stage.A total of 2,404 fish eggs, larvae and older fish, representing 11 species, were collected during entrainment sampling at CNP from June 2005 through January 2007. Sampling frequency between months varied as described above. Sampling results are summarized below.Post-yolk-sac larvae accounted for 65 percent (1,568 individuals, including 605 round goby, 416 alewife, 249 rainbow smelt, 203 slimy sculpin [Cottus cognatus]

and 95 others) of the total entrained specimens in samples, while eggs accounted for an additional 24 percent (570 individuals, including 491 alewife, 50 unidentified Cyprinidae and 29 others). No other life stage accounted for more than 5 percent of the total species collected.

Dominant entrained taxa during the entire study period included alewife (925 individuals; 38.5 percent of the total) and round goby (612 individuals; 25.5 percent of the total).July 2005 and 2006, the two most productive months of sampling, accounted for 53 percent of the individuals collected during the entire study period. July 2005 sampling, conducted during eight 2-hour events, collected 699 individuals dominated by alewife (537 total, including 309 eggs, 236 post-yolk-sac larvae and one YOY)and slimy sculpin (103 total, including 99 post-yolk-sac larvae, two yolk sac larvae and two unidentified).

Duringthe seventeen 24-hour sampling periods in July 2006 a total of 574 organisms were collected.

Dominant species in July 2006 included round goby (373 total; all post-yolk-sac larvae), unidentified Cyprinidae (108 total, including 38 post-yolk-sac larvae, 36 unidentified, 31 yolk-sac larvae and three eggs), and alewife (88 total, including 86 post-yolk-sac larvae, one yolk-sac larva and one egg) (NA, 2007).3. 4.3.4.2 Methodology for Calculating Entrainment Monthly and annual entrainment estimates were calculated using the following procedure.

The potential effects of diel period and month were tested using post-hoc test in ANOVA on the daily sample results (Appendix 3). Month and diel period were found to be a significant contributor to variation.

Measured entrainment density (ichthyoplankton entrained per 100 M 3) was calculated for all samples using Equation 5.Because diel period was a significant factor in entrainment, density estimates were left on a by-diel-period basis.Equation 5: D_ (ExS)V Where: D = Measured entrainment density for a given sample x (ichthyoplankters/m 3).E= Number of ichthyoplankters entrained in a given sample.40 S = Sample-specific split factor (multiplier) used when aggregate entrainment counts were conducted for a given sample.V = Sample volume (M 3)Diel period entrainment density (number of ichthyoplankters per w 3) was extrapolated to monthly averages.

In cases where more than one year of monthly data were available (i.e., 2005 and 2006 data for June to December) the 2 months of data were combined in calculating monthly averages.Calculation Baseline Scenario Entrainment Monthly entrainment (number of ichthyoplankters entrained) for the Calculation Baseline Scenario was estimated using Equation 6. The design flow volume for the CWIS was calculated by multiplying 24-hour design flow (as provided in the NPDES Permit) by the number of days in the month in question..The Calculation Baseline Scenario assumes a shoreline intake structure as defined by the USEPA (40 CFR § 125.93 Calculation Baseline).

As such, the ratio between the shoreline ichthyoplankton density and the intake structure area ichthyoplankton density was used as a multiplier for the Calculation Baseline Scenario entrainment calculation.

The derivation of this ratio is discussed in Appendix 4. This multiplier accounts for the expected increase in entrainment that would occur from having a greater abundance of ichthyoplankton in the lake near a shoreline intake.Equation 6: MB'x= d D x, LRj Where: MB, = Baseline ichthyoplankton entrained for a given month x (number of ichthyoplankters).

D, = Average entrainment density for a given month x and diel period i (ichthyoplankton/m 3).Fd = NPDES Permit flow (gal).R = Shoreline to intake area ichthyoplankton community density ratio (unitless).

Annual Baseline Scenario entrainment was estimated by summing the 12 monthly baseline estimates from Equation 6.The shoreline to intake area ichthyoplankton community density ratio (R) was calculated following the same procedure used to calculate Rx for impingement. The only difference between entrainment R and impingement Rx is that Rx is monthly, while R is annual. The ichthyoplankton dataset was not sufficient for calculating monthly values (see Appendix 4).Current Conditions Scenario Entrainment Monthly entrainment (number of ichthyoplankters entrained per M 3) was estimated for the Current Conditions Scenario by multiplying the NPDES Permit flow (gal) by the entrainment density calculated for the same month (shown in Equation 7). The recorded monthly flow volumes from 2006 were used in calculating monthly Current Conditions estimates.

41 Equation 7: ME,= DI x D Where: ME, = Ichthyoplankters entrained for a given month x (number of ichthyoplankters).

Dxj,= Measured entrainment density for a given month x and diel period i (icthyoplankters/m 3).FD = NPDES Permit flow volume for a given month x (M 3).Annual entrainment for the Current Conditions Scenario was extrapolated by summing the 12 monthly entrainment estimates from Equation 7.3.4.3.4.3 Estimates of Entrainment Mortality Calculation Baseline Scenario Entrainment mortality rates under the Calculation Baseline Scenario were assumed to be 100 percent. Monthly and annual entrainment results for the Calculation Baseline Scenario are presented in Table 3.9. Figure 3.5 presents the proportional makeup of species primarily entrained by month. Figure 3.6 presents annual entrainment proportions by species.,~., ~,~Tablei~~

Estimated Monthlyand.Annual Entrainment for the Regulatory-Defined Calculation Baseline Scenario (Shorelihne)

Rainbow Alewife Smelt Post- Round Goby Slimy Sculpin Alewife Post-yolk-yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Month Egg sac Larvae Larvae Larvae Larvae Other Monthly Total January 0 0 0 0 0 ' 6,353,802 6,353,802 February 0 0 0 0 0 5,400,089 5,400,089 March 0 0 0 0 0 -6,007,343 6,007,343 April 0 -0 0 0 0 8,675,800 8,675,800 May 0 0 0 4,787,386 0 30,037,092 34,824,478 June 130,469,797 34,988,753 0 87,121,620 23,133,540 159,105,294 434,819,003 July 151,196,793 152,438,302 473,397 179,220,063 47,485,281 87,810,928 618,624,765 August 0 12,078,668 82,627,880 34,624,259 25,604,021 11,102,345 166,037,174 September 0 16,000,534 43,507,326 15,162,493 7,404,865 7,052,101 89,127,318 October 0 11,659,948 12,414,365 0 1,943,325 0 26,017,637 November 0 0 0 0 0 10,256,247 10,256,247 December 0 0 0 0 0 6,663,184 6,663,184 Annual Total 281,666,589 227,166,205 139,022,967 320,915,821 105,571,032 338,464,226 Grand Total 1,412,806,841 42 Figure 3.5 -Baseline Scenario Entrained Species and Life Stages 7.0E+08 N Other 6.OE+08 U Slimy sculpin Post yolk-sac larvae o Round goby Post yolk-sac larvae 5.OE+08 0 Rainbow smelt Post yolk-sac larvae 0 4.OE+08 E Alewife Post yolk-sac larvae C o

Alewife Egg-3.OE+08 2.OE+08 1.OE+08 O.0E+00 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month 43 Figure 3.6 -Baseline Scenario Annual Entrainment Species and Life Stage Proportions Slimy sculpin Post yolk-sac larvae, 7%Alewife Post yolk-sac larvae, 16%Round goby Post yolk-sac larvae, 23%Rainbow smelt Post yolk-sac larvae, 10%Based on the extrapolation techniques employed for the Calculation Baseline Scenario, an estimated 1,412,806,841 ichthyoplankton eggs, larvae and older ichthyoplankton would be entrained annually.

Eleven species were captured during entrainment sampling (NA, 2007). Five species make up 76 percent of ichthyoplankton entrained.

Dominant species and life stages include an estimated 320,915,821 round goby post-yolk-sac larvae (23 percent), 281,666,589 alewife eggs (20 percent), 227,166,205 alewife post-yolk-sac larvae (16 percent), 139,022,967 rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae (10 percent) and 105,571,032 slimy sculpin post-yolk-sac larvae (7 percent) entrained annually (Table 3.9; Figure 3.6).Entrainment would be highest in summer months (Figure 3.6). June through September compose the majority of entrainment.

Approximately 99 percent of entrainment occurs during these 5 months (Figure 3.6). This observation coincides with fish spawning and hatching occurring during the summer months.To provide a common perspective for entrainment loss assessment, the annual entrainment estimates were converted into Age 1 equivalents using the Forward Projection Approach described in EPRI (2005). Equation 8 was used to perform the Age 1 conversions.

Equation 8: n EA SA N I~l 44 e~c7 Where: EA = Age of Equivalence (Age 1).N = Number of fish lost from entrainment or impingement.

Si.A = Fraction of fish expected to survive from the age at which they were impinged or entrained to the age of equivalence.

Only species-specific life stages that were commonly entrained and had available life history parameters were converted.

These included alewife post-yolk-sac larvae and eggs, round goby post-yolk-sac larvae, rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae and slimy sculpin post-yolk-sac larvae. All together, the Age 1 equivalence calculation accounts for 76 percent of species entrained under the Calculation Baseline Scenario.

Life history parameters were taken from EPRI (2005) and the USEPA (2004), and are presented in Appendix 5. Results for the Age 1 equivalence conversions are presented in Table 3.10.Table 3*.10*Estimated Adult EquiValence foir:Annual Entrainment Assuming RegulatoryDefined Calculation Baseiine Scenario Rainbow Smelt Slimy Sculpin Alewife Post- Post-yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Species -Life Stage Alewife Egg yolk-sac Larvae Larvae Larvae Age 1 Equivalents 27,618 77,745 2,571,885 20,229 Total for all Species 2,697,478 Based on the Calculation Baseline Scenario, an estimated 2,697,478 Age 1 equivalents are entrained annually.More than 95 percent of that estimated number is composed of rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae (Table 3.10).Current Conditions Scenario Entrainment mortality rates under the Current Conditions Scenario were assumed to be 100 percent. Monthly and annual entrainment results for the Current Conditions Scenario are presented in Table 3.11. Figure 3.7 presents the proportional makeup of species primarily entrained by month. Figure

3.8 presents

annualentrainment proportions by species.Estimated Monthly andAnnualEntrainment

forih teCurrent Conditin Scenario .Rainbow Alewife Post Smelt Post- Round Goby Slimy Sculpin Alewife yolk-sac yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Monthly Month Egg larvae Larvae Larvae Larvae Other Total January 0 0 0 0 0 882,146 882,146 February 0 0 0 0 0 749,735 749,735 March 0 0 0 0 0 834,045 834,045 April 0 0 0 0 0 1,204,527 1,204,527 May 0 0 0 664,669 0 4,170,275 4,834,944 June 18,114,103 4,857,752 0 12,095,749 3,211,803 22,089,784 60,369,191 July 20,991,787 21,164,156 65,725 24,882,469 6,592,739 12,191,451 85,888,327 August 0 1,676,972 11,471,850 4,807,146 3,554,799 1,541,422 23,052,189 September 0 2,221,474 6,040,449 2,105,123 1,028,073 979,096 12,374,216 45 (C~o Figure 3.7 -Current Conditions Scenario Entrained Species and Life Stages 1.OE+08 9.OE+07 2 8.OE+07 7.OE+07* Other* Slimy sculpin Post yolk-sac larvae O Round goby Post yolk-sac larvae* Rainbow smelt Post yolk-sac larvae* Alewife Post yolk-sac larvae U Alewife Egg C 6.OE+07 a. 5OE+07-0" 4.OE+07 3.OE+07 2.0E+07 1,OE+07 O.OE+00 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 46(, I Figure 3.8 -Current Conditions Scenario Annual Entrainment Species and Life Stage Proportions Slimy sculpin Post yolk-sac larvae, 7%Alewife Post yolk-sac larvae, 16%Round goby Post yolk-sac larvae, 23%

Rainbow smelt Postyolk-sac larvae, 10%Based on the extrapolation techniques employed for the Current Conditions Scenario, an estimated 196,150,596 ichthyoplankton eggs, larvae and older ichthyoplankton are entrained annually.

Eleven species were captured by entrainment samples (NA, 2007). Five species made up 76 percent of ichthyoplankton entrained.

Dominant species and life stages include an estimated 44,555,156 round goby post-yolk-sac larvae (23 percent), 39,105,890 alewife eggs (20 percent), 31,539,192 alewife post-yolk-sac larvae (16 percent), 19,301,604 rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae (10 percent) and 3,554,799 slimy sculpin post-yolk-sac larvae (7 percent) entrained annually (Table 3.11; Figure 3.8).Entrainment is highest in summer months (Figure 3.8). June through September compose the vast majority of entrainment.

Approximately 99 percent of entrainment occurs during these 5 months (Figure 3.8). Thisobservation coincides with fish spawning and hatching occurring during the summer months.To provide a perspective of the losses for comparison, Current Conditions annual entrainment estimates were converted into Age 1 equivalents using Equation 4. Only species-specific life stages that were commonly entrained and had available life history parameters were converted.

These included alewife post-yolk-sac larvae and eggs, round goby post-yolk-sac larvae, rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae and slimy sculpin post-yolk-sac larvae. In total, the Age 1 equivalence calculation accounts for 76 percent of species entrained under the Current Conditions Scenario.

Life history parameters were taken from EPRI (2005) and the USEPA (2004), and are presented in Appendix 4. Results for the Age 1 equivalence conversions are presented in Table 3.12.47 Table 3.12 Estimated Adult Equivalence for Annual Entrainment' s- ASsuming Current Conditions ScenarioRainbow Smelt Slimy Sculpin Alewife Post- Post-yolk-sac Post-yolk-sac Species -Life Stage Alewife Egg yolk-sac Larvae Larvae Larvae Age 1 Equivalents 3,834 10,794 357,074 2,809 Total for all Species 374,511 Based on the Current Conditions Scenario, an estimated 374,511 Age 1 equivalents are entrained annually.More than 95 percent of that estimated number is composed of rainbow smelt post-yolk-sac larvae (Table 3.12).3.4.4 Impingement and Entrainment Reduction Prior to suspension of the Phase II Rule (72 Fed. Reg. 130, 37107-37109), the USEPA allowed five different methods for meeting compliance.

Two of those methods allowed the permittee to demonstrate to the Director that the current design and construction technologies, operational measures ... meet (or will meet, based upon a commitment to modify technology or operation) specified performance standards.

These performance standards were defined as ranges of percent reductions of IM&E. The reductions were defined as the percent reduction of the actual IM&E from the Calculation Baseline impingement mortality or entrainment

[40 CFR 125.94 (a) and (b)]. The Calculation Baseline was calculated and described above as the Calculation Baseline Scenario and the actual IM&E was calculated and described above as the Current Conditions Scenario.The impingement and entrainment estimates from the Calculation Baseline and Current Conditions Scenarios were compared to determine loss reduction.

Table 3.13 summarizes the results from the two scenarios and presents the loss reduction estimate as a percentage.

Tbe3.13 Estimatedi LossReduction Between the.....Calculation Baseline and Current Conditions Scenarios., Scenario Impinged Fish Entrained Fish Calculation Baseline 60,478,342 1,412,806,841 Current Conditions 1,335,109 196,150,596 Percent

'98% 86%When considering impingement, there are several reasons for this reduction in losses. As described above, the CNP CWIS consists of three separate intake cribs located approximately 2,250 feet offshore in 24-foot-deep water. Each intake crib is covered by an octagonal heavy structural steel frame covered with a plate steel roofto prevent the formation of vortices, and serves as a velocity cap. Each intake crib is connected to a 16-foot-diameter steel intake pipe, which is buried in the lake bottom and routes the cooling water to the screen house located on the shoreline.

The screen house contains the trash racks, traveling screens and pumps. Under normal operating conditions, the water velocity into the intake cribs is 1.27 fps (USAEC, 1973). During the winter deicing period, the cooling water is drawn in through two of the three intake cribs and heated discharge water is pumped back through the third (middle) crib to control icing conditions on the other two intake crib structures.

This increases the intake velocity through the two operating cribs to approximately 1.9 fps.48 (,3 The Phase II Rule (40 CFR 125 et seq.) only addresses through-screen -velocity and is silent on velocities at other types of intakes such as velocity caps. In the case of offshore velocity cap-type intake structures such as at CNP, the velocity at the edge of the velocity cap is the most influential in fish behavior to avoid the intake.Studies were conducted under laboratory conditions and in the field to determine the efficacy of fish avoidance of this type of intake. One of the original velocity caps installed was at Southern California Edison's Huntington Beach Steam Station (Weight, 1956). The velocity cap was installed after the station was operational.

The measured reduction of fish entering the structure was approximately 95 percent, with approximately 2 fps velocity.

Schuler and Larsen (1975) conducted laboratory studies to determine fish behavioral response to levels and changes in velocity and direction of flow in velocity cap intake structures.

This study used northern anchovy (Engraulis mordax), queenfish (Seriphus politus), white croaker (Genyonemus lineatus), walleye surfperch (Hyperprosopon argentium) and shiner perch (Cymatogasteraggregata).

These species were selected based on the facility being tested and because they represent sufficiently different behaviors and habitats.

Velocities tested ranged from 0.5 to 2.9 fps. The study found that the optimum velocity for the species tested was 1.5 fps. Results from the final model characterized as most realistic (0.5 to 2 fps), showed a reduction of fish entering the intake of 97 percent at 0.5 fps to 41 percent at 2 fps as compared to a control using a fixed velocity of 2.5 fps.The location of the intake cribs further reduces the number of fish drawn into the intake and subsequently impinged.

The analysis above demonstrates the lower density of fish in the current location of the intake, as compared to the density of fish collected in the shore area. The shoreline to intake area fish community density was derived using the nearfield data collected by NA (Appendix

2) and Jude et al. (1986). As described in Appendix 4, Table A4-3, the monthly average shoreline to intake ratios range from 27 to 8,650 and monthly medians range from 3 to 2,077. This suggests that, depending on the month, if the intake structure was located as described in the Calculation Baseline described by the USEPA (40 CFR 125.93), the intake (on average)would impinge approximately 27 to 8,650 times more fish. Table 3.13, which is based on median ratios, indicates that the location of the existing intake cribs reduces actual impingement losses approximately 98 percent from the Calculation Baseline losses. In other words, the shoreline intake would have impingement losses approximately 45 times greater than the offshore intake.In addition to being located offshore, the CWIS at CNP also has a sound deterrent system. This system was installed to protect the screens from possible damage in the event of a large number of alewives entering theintake. This action was taken proactively and as a plant protection system; CNP is not taking credit for the effect of this sound deterrent system and as such, it was not included in the analysis.Further reduction in impingement mortality would not be reasonably possible at CNP by installing technology employing a fish return system. CNP is located on the shore of Lake Michigan.

A surf zone has been observed as far as approximately 500 to 700 feet (150 to 200 meters) offshore of the beach (Seibel, 1986). Due to the presence of a surf zone, the fish return system would need to return the impinged fish to a locationbeyond this surf zone to increase the likelihood of survival.

In addition, due to the surf zone, the fish return system must be buried to protect it from wave and ice damage. The length and design of a fish return system would create potential survival and operational problems.

The reduction of entrainment can be.attributed to the location of the intake.. As described in Appendix 4, Table A4-4, the annual shoreline to intake ratios range from 1 to 40, with a mean of 13 and a median of 7.2. This suggests that, if the intake structure had been located as described by the USEPA (40 CFR 125.93) in the Calculation Baseline, the intake (on average) would entrain 13 times more fish. Table 3.13, which is based on the median ratio, indicates that the location of the existing intake cribs reduces actual entrainment losses 49 approximately 86 percent from the Calculation Baseline losses. In other words, the entrainment shoreline intake would have losses approximately

7.5 times

greater than the offshore intake.3.4.5 Conclusion AEP has conducted monitoring programs to address potential losses at CNP due to the operation of its cooling water system. Fish and ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted both in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the intake and shoreline with a variety of gear for 20 months, and in the CNP CWIS. This report has analyzed both the current and historical data collected in Lake Michigan in the vicinity of CNP (Jude et al., 1986). It also provides information describing the source water physical data, CWIS data, cooling water system data and data for the IMECS. This information demonstrates that, when compared with the calculated baseline, the current losses are significantly lower. This comparison has demonstrated a 98 percent reduction of impingement and an 86 percent reduction in entrainment.

AEP believes that these reductions are due to the intake design and location.Based on the preceding information, AEP believes that the current construction design and operation of the CWIS represents the best technology available for the CNP CWIS.50 4 Literature Cited Adams, S. M. R. B. McLean and M. M. Huffman. 1982. Structuring of a predator population through temperature-mediated effects on prey availability.

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 39: 1175-1184.

American Electric Power Service Corporation.

1996. Cook Nuclear, Circulating Water System, System Description No. SD-12-CIRCW-100.

June 24, 1996., American Electric Power Service Corporation.

2005. Proposal for Information Collection:

prepared for the Donald C. Nuclear Plant to fulfill requirements of 40 CFR Part 125.95(b)(1).

June 10, 2005.Becker, G.C. 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin.

The University of Wisconsin Press; Madison, WI: 1983. 1053 p.Bodola, A. 1966. Life history of the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum (Le Seur), in western Lake Erie. Fish.Bull. 65:2 391-425.Dettmers, J., B. Pientka, J. Janssen, R. Fulford, and D.J. Jude. 2005. Evidence across multiple scales for offshore transport of yellow perch (Perca flavescens)

Larvae in Lake Michigan.

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci.62:2683-2693.

Electric Power Research Institute.

2004. Using computational fluid dynamics techniques to define the hydraulic zone of influence of cooling water intake structures.

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Tech Rpt.1005528.Electric Power Research Institute.

2005. Parameter development for equivalent adult and production foregone models. Technical Report No.1008832.

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA (2005).Federal Register. 40 CFR, Parts 9, 122, 123, 124, and 125. Vol. 69, No. 131. Friday, July 9, 2004.Fitzgerald, D. G. J. L. Forney, L. G. Rudstam, B.J. Irwin, and A. J. VanDeValk.

2006. Ecol. App., 16:4 1487-1501.Fost, B. A. 2006. Physiological and behavioral indicatOrs of shad susceptibility to impingement at water intakes.Ph.D. Diss. Univ. Tennessee, Knoxville, TE. 44 p.Great Lakes Information Network. 2006. Lake Michigan:

facts and figures. Retrieved on January 9, 2009 from http://great-lakes.net/lakes/ref/michfact.html Hensler, S. ahd D.J. Jude. 2007. Diel vertical migration of round goby larvae as a potential mechanism for advective dispersal and ballast water transport.

J. Great Lakes Res. 33:295-302.

Janseen, J. and D.J. Jude. 2001. Recruitment failure of mottled sculpin cottus bairdi in southern Lake Michigan induced by the newly introduced round goby Neogobius melanostomus.

J. Great Lakes Res. 27:319-328.

51 CeQ' Janssen, J., D.J. Jude, T. Edsall, M. Paddock, N. Wattrus, M. Toneys, and P. McKee. 2007. Evidence of lake trout reproduction at Lake Michigan's mid-lake reef complex: hypotheses regarding the indigenous fish and implications for restoration.

J. Great Lakes Res. 32:749-763.

Jude, D.J., S.A. Klinger and M.D. Enk. 1981. First evidence of natural reproduction by planted lake trout in Lake Michigan.

J. Great Lakes Res. 7:57-61.Jude, D. J., D. Bimber, N. Thurber, F. Tesar, L. Noguchi, P. Mansfield, H. Tin and P. Rago. 1986. Impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant on Fish In: Southeastern Nearshore Lake Michigan:

Impact of the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant. R. Rossmann (ed.) Great Lakes Research Division Pub. 22. pgs. 285-351. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Mi.Jude, D.J., R.H. Reider and G.R. Smith. 1992. Establishment of gobiidae in the Great Lakes basin. Can. J. Fish.Awuati. Sci. 49:416-421.

Jude, D.J. and J. Leach. 1999. Fish Management in the Great Lakes (revised).

Chapter 23, pp. 623-664. In:Fisheries Management in North America, Second Edition. (Eds.) C. Kohler and W. Hubert, American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, MD.Jude, D.J. 2001.

Round and tubenose gobies: 10 years with the latest great lakes phantom menace. Dreissena 11(4): 1-14.June, FC. 1987. Early Life history and winter mortality of gizzard shad in Lake Sharpe, South Dakota.

Pages 75-83 in Limnological and Fisheries Studies on Lake Sharpe, a Main Stem Missouri River Reservoir, 1964-1975. US Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report 8, Washington DC.Madenjian, C., G. Fahnenstiel, T. Johengen, T. Nalepa, H. Vanderploeg, G. Fleischer, P. Schneeberger, D.Benjamin, E. Smith, J. Bence, E. Rutherford, D. Lavis, D. Robertson, D. Jude and M. Ebner. 2002. Dynamics of the Lake Michigan food web, 1970-2000.

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 59:736-753.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

1996. Lake Michigan water temperature data: St. Joseph, Michigan, 1936-1992.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2007. Section 316(b), Phase II Fish Impingement Mortality and Entrainment Characterization Study at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Prepared for American Electric Power (October 2007).Perrone, M., Jr., P.J. Schneeberger and D.J. Jude. 1983. Distribution of larval perch (Perca flavescens) in nearshore waters of southeastern Lake Michigan.

J. Great Lakes Res. 9:517-522.

Schuler, V. J. and L. E. Larsen. 1975. Improved fish protection at intake systems. Journal of the Environmental Engineering Division; Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers.

101:EE6 897-910.Seibel, E. 1986. Lake and Shore Ice Conditions on Southeastern Lake Michigan.

In: Southeastern Nearshore Lake Michigan:

Impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. R. Rossmann (ed.) Great Lakes Research Division Pub. 22. pgs. 401-432. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI.52 Trautman, M. B. 1981. Fishes of Ohio. Ohio State University Press, Columbus, OH. 782 p.United States Atomic Energy Commission.

1973. Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2: Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Indiana & Michigan Electric Company and Indiana &

Michigan Power Company; Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316 (August 1973).United Stated Environmental Protection Agency. 2004. Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule. Part G. Appendix GI. Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division Washington, DC 20460 (February 2004).United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

2005. Generic Environmental Impact Statement Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 20, Regarding Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 and 2, Final Report.NUREG -1437, Supplement

20. U.S. NRC, Washington, DC.Vasnna, M. J. K. K.

Arend; M. T. Bremigan, D. B. Bunnell, J.

E. Garvey, M. J. Gonzalez, W. H. Renwick, P. A.Soranno, and R. A. Stein. 2005 Linking landscapes and food webs: Effects of omnivorous fish and watersheds on reservoir ecosystems.

Bioscinece 55:2 155-167 Ward, M. J., D. W. Willis and G. F. Galinat. 2006. Gizzard shad recruitment patterns in a western South Dakota irrigation reservoir.

J. Fresh. Water Ecol. 21:2 201-207.Weight, R. H. 1956. Ocean cooling water system for 800 mw power station. Paper 1888. Journal of the Power Division; Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers. 84:PO6 1888-1-1888-22.

White, AM, FD Moore, NAAlldridge and DM Loucks. 1986.

The Effects of Natural Winter Stresses on the Mortality of the Eastern Gizzard Shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, in Lake Erie. John Carroll University, Report 78, University Heights, Ohio.Wisconsin Sea Grant. 2002. Fish of the Great Lakes. Accessed December 2007 to January 2008 from http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/framefish.html.

Last updated February 2002.WorldClimate.

2008. Benton Harbor Ross Field, Berrien County, Michigan USA -Average Rainfall.

Retrieved on January 4, 2008 from http://www.worldclimate.com/cgi-bin/data.pl?ref=N42W086+2200+20071 OC.53 Appendix I Proposal for Information Collection Proposal for Information Collection Prepared for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plantto fulfill requirements of 40 CFR Part 125.95(b)(1)

Prepared by American Electric Power Service Corporation Environmental Services Division Water and Ecological Resources Section 1 Riverside Plaza Columbus, OH 43215-2373 June 10, 2005 I Proposal for Information Collection Cook Nuclear Plant Introduction The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recently issued a final rule implementing

§ 316(b) of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (33USC § 1326(b)), which states,"[a]ny standard ... applicable to a point source shall require that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures reflect the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact." The final rule, published in theFederal Register on July 9, 2004 (69 Fed. Reg. 41,576), establishes requirements reflecting the best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact, applicable to the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures.

This rule is the second phase of a three-phase rule making. Phase II applies to existing power generating facilities that have the design capacity to withdraw at least fifty million gallons per day (50 MGD) of cooling water from waters of the United States and use at least twenty-five (25) percent of the water they withdraw exclusively for cooling purposes.Section 125.95 of the rule (codified at 40 CFR § 125.95) describes the information that must be collected and submitted with the next application for a new NPDES Permit. The first submittal is the Proposal for Information Collection (PIC). The PIC is a compendium of the past studies of the cooling water intake structure and a description of the biological, engineering, and cost information that will be collected and analyzed for the Comprehensive Demonstration Study (CDS) described in § 125.95(b) of the new rule.An outline of the data and data analyses the new rule contemplates for the PIC is given in§§ 122.21(r) (2), (3), and (5) and 125.95(b)

(2), (3), and (4). While the PIC is required to contain only the information in § 125.95(b) (2), (3), and (4), the information required by§ 122.21 (r) is included to establish whether the impingement criteria only or impingement and entrainment performance criteria must be met by the facility.Consistent with the information needed to support a CDS, the matters covered in this PICare, Site Description; Facility Description, including facility size, source water physicaldata, cooling water intake structure data, and cooling water system data; Data Collection Description, including proposed implementation technologies, historical biological studies, agency consultations, and sampling plan for biological studies; Intake Technology Assessment; Cost Tests; and Restoration Plans.The NPDES Permit (No. M10005 827) for the Cook Nuclear Plant was issued by theMichigan Department of Environmental Quality September 24, 2004. Part I.A. 10.Cooling Water Intake Structure Application Submittal for Phase II Facilities requires the owner and operator of the Cook Nuclear Plant to submit the Comprehensive Demonstration Study by January 1, 2008. This Proposal for Information Collection is one of the required submittals for complying with the Part I.A. 10 permit condition.

2 Site Description The Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) is in Lake Charter Township, Berrien County, Michigan, on the southeastern shoreline of Lake Michigan.

This location is approximately 55 miles east of downtown Chicago, 50 miles southwest of Kalamazoo, Michigan, and 11 miles south-southwest of the twin cities of St. Joseph and Benton Harbor, Michigan (Figure 1) (U.S. NRC, 2005). The nearest town is Bridgman, which is approximately two miles south of CNP (Figure

2) (U.S. NRC, 2005).The CNP property is approximately 650 acres owned by Indiana & Michigan PowerCompany (I&M) (Figure 3) and includes 4,350 feet of lake frontage. The property extends approximately One and one quarter miles eastward from Lake Michigan.

The local terrain consists of a gentle upward sloping beach that rises sharply into the dunes after about 200 feet. The area surrounding CNP property is largely rural, characterized by agriculture and heavily wooded rugged sand dunes along the lakeshore.

Buildings on the property include two reactor containment buildings, a turbine building, an auxiliary building, service buildings, two switchyards, a radioactive waste building, a training center, a visitor's center, an indoor firing range, and other supporting buildings.

The Grand Mere. State Park is approximately one mile northeast of CNP. The park includes one mile of Lake Michigan shoreline and is characterized by sand dunes and deep blowouts as well as three inland lakes, which lie in an undeveloped natural area behind the dunes (U.S. NRC, 2005).

Warren Dunes State Park is about 3.5 miles southwest of the plant. This park has more than two miles of shoreline with sand dunes rising 240 feet above Lake Michigan, as well as a variety of natural settings (U.S. NRC, 2005). Figure 2 shows the location of these natural areas (U.S.

NRC, 2005).Berrien County occupies roughly 571 square miles of land area (USCB, 2002). Major county-wide land use categories are classified as follows: residential (9.4 %), commercial (1.3 %), industrial (1.5 %), public and semi-public (3.5 %), and agriculturalor vacant (84.2 %) (U.S. NRC, 2005).Approximately

-20 years ago, the county consisted of residential and commercial uses co-existing in the urban centers. Industrial uses were developed in urban centers or just beyond urban boundaries. Parks and recreation areas were scattered throughout the County (as it is presently), with the natural beauty of Lake Michigan enhancing the quality of life. Farming dominated the rural landscape, however the trend of development encroaching on prime farmland was beginning.

Today, the majority of the land in the county is rural in character, either vacant, forested, or in agricultural production.

The land is well suited for the production of a variety of row crops, specialty crops, and livestock.

According to the Farm Bureau, the acreage of 3 fl9N Ba rr'Palisades Nuclear Plant VIn LLuren Lake Michigan St.Joseph Rca an I At. seph 5L. Jloeph Laflartir Mrarhall Kox, dusku Fulton PLUILII Urban Areas 0 S 10 15 20 25 Miles L I I I I 0 10 20 30 40 Kilometers I l I t Figure 1.4 2i-ý Grand Mere Stare Park'I CocA~ Fk~.~ I Lake Michigan CNP 2----Bridgman Warren Dunes Stare Park j State Parks Urban Areas 1'i 0 1 2 3 Miles I 2 i a 2 3 4 5 KilomelersS I I I KLAS0.401 Figure 2.5 Figure 3. Cook Nuclear Plant Site Layout 6 farms has increased, but number of farms has decreased (Berrien County, 2003).

An estimated 315,000 acres comprise the agricultural/vacant land use in the County.Residential land use constitutes the next largest form of land use.

The Twin City Area (St. Joseph, Benton Harbor) and Niles are the major urban centers. With the exception of Niles and the Twin City Area, most developed land is classified as low density residential.

Residential development appears to be moving away from the core urban centers and creating "sprawl".

It is evident that population growth is relatively"stagnant" (U.S. NRC, 2005); however, the trends of smaller household sizes, increased new development, and the boom in subdivisions and condominium construction are on the rise.The Lake Michigan lakefront is continually confronting growth pressures for new residential development.

An estimated 35,000 acres make uP the residential land use inBerrien County (U.S. NRC, 2005).Commercial land uses are centered around core urban areas and along major traffic corridors.

The Fairplain area (Benton Township) has experienced substantial commercial development in the last five years and has built new roads to accommodate the increasedtraffic volumes associated with the new commercial activity.

There is an estimated 4,900 acres of commercial land in the County.

Since the previous Development Plan of 1975, commercial land uses have doubled in size.Industrial land uses throughout the County are typically located near urban areas.Industrial land uses comprise 5,600 acres of the total land area. Since the Development Plan of 1975, industrial acreage has more than doubled. Industrial parks have become the predominant development tools to foster industrial growth. Tax incentives have alsocontributed to the attraction of new industry to the County (Berrien County, 2003).Facility Description The Cook Nuclear Plant is a base loaded, two-unit plant with a total capacity of 2,161 MW, Unit 1 is 1,044 MW and Unit 2 is 1,117 MW. Both units use once-through cooling systems and much of the intake system (intake cribs, intake tunnels and intake forebay: and screen house) is common to both units. The facility capacity factor for 2001 through2003 (the mean of the annual unit capacity factors) was 83.25 % of the 8,760 hours0.0088 days 0.211 hours 0.00126 weeks 2.8918e-4 months a year.Source Water Physical Data (40 CFR 122.21(r)(2))

Cook Nuclear Plant lies on the southeastern shore of Lake Michigan, the only Great Lake that lies entirely within the boundaries of the U.S. Lake Michigan is the second largest of the Great Lakes by volume (1,180 cubic miles) and third largest by area (22,300 squaremiles). It drains an area of 45,600 square miles. The southern basin of the lake has amaximum depth of 540 feet and a mean depth of 276 feet. Major tributaries of Lake Michigan include the Fox-Wolf, Grand, St. Joseph, and Kalamazoo Rivers. Lake Michigan and Lake Huron are hydrologically connected by the Straits of Mackinac.

The 7 I (..

northern part of the Lake Michigan watershed is forested and sparsely populated, except for the Fox River Valley, which drains into Green Bay. Green Bay receives wastes from the world's largest concentration of pulp and paper mills. The southern part of Lake Michigan is among the, most urbanized areas in the Great Lakes region, containing the Milwaukee and Chicago metropolitan areas (U.S. NRC, 2005).Glacial scouring and gouging formed the lake bottom contours; glacial ice melting and recession deposited the overlying sediments, which were reworked and sorted by wave action. The bathymetry of the lake off shore of the plant is shown in Figure 4. The 30-foot contour is about a half mile off shore and the 100-foot contour is five to six miles offshore. -Wind generated water movements create a counterclockwise flow past the Cook Nuclear Plant most of the time. Clockwise flows occur occasionally.

Wind generated water movements are also exhibited by standing waves or seiches. Seiches are normally only a few inches with historical reports of eight feet at the plant site (U.S. AEC, 1973).The hydraulic zone of influence was determined by computational fluid dynamics (EPRI, 2004). The model was run with a south to north current of 0.2 and 0.4 ft/s. The results of this report will be used to evaluate the interaction of the discharge and the intakes and the interaction of the intake with fish movements.-Cooling Water Intake Structure Data (40 CFR 122.21(r)(3))

The cooling water intake system for Cook Nuclear Plant is described in detail in theenvironmental impact statement (AEC, 1973). The design intake flow is 1,645,000 gpm for the condenser cooling water flow, 16,000 gpm for the essential service water, and 9,000 gpm for the nonessential service water system. All cooling water and service water is drawn into the plant through three intake tunnels that extend about 2,250-feet off shore.Each tunnel begins with an octagonal-shaped steel structure and velocity cap crib that protects the upturned elbow that is connected to the intake tunnel. Each intake tunnel is 16 feet in diameter and the tunnel carries the water from the offshore location into the screen house. The intake cribs are located in 24 feet of water at 579 ft MSL water elevation.

Water flows into the cribs through an 8 in x 8-in mesh grid work that is intended to keep large objects out of the intakes. The water velocity through the 8 in x 8-in grid is 1.27 ft/s and the water velocity through the tunnels is about 6 ft/s.Each intake tunnel is 16 feet in diameter and the tunnel carries the water from theoffshore location into the screen house. Inside the screen house the water enters a common forebay (common to both units). The water passes through steel trash racks composed of two designs. The original trash racks are composed of 3/8-in thick by 4-indeep bars on 3-in centers, giving an opening of 2 5/8-in. These are being replaced overtime with trash racks made of bars set on edge to allow a 3 3/1 6-in clear space betweenbars (bars are 3 9/16-in. on center and the bar material is 3/8-in thick). From the trash racks, the water flows to optionally installed supplemental trash rack removable inserts placed in the traveling screen stop log slots directly in front of the traveling screens.These inserts are made of 3/16-in thick by 2-in deep horizontal bars spaced. on 1 3/16-in 8 B&TMýWE!A CHAR7 BUNTON HASO COOK SilT2 a...4 Figure 4.9 7 Drivecn mrsh panel Songle Mix elem~ent Lha.in Non-dnvme Im:4* panel Figure 5. Geiger Water Screens 10 TRAVELING SCREENS , FENCE, WATER PUMP\BEACH, HIGH 36 TO'A mic3190i7 2_.INTAKE-16'DIA.INTAKE PIPE SCREEN HOUSE Figure 6.11 0 UN IT N 0. 1 UNIT ND,?...c...... ..... ------ -------

-.-iI -l LL~ T "D 10 F i .] 7~ i *LA~L Lr q J -V'J 'Figure 7.12 centers and vertical 3/16-in rods on 4-in centers leaving an effective rectangular clear space between the bars and rods of 1-in x 3 1 3/16-in. From there the water flows through the traveling water screens. The original screens were chain belt with 3/8-in mesh screens. The original screens have been replaced with single entry single exit screens (with 3/8-in mesh and.5/1 6-in. mesh screen material) manufactured by Geiger International, Inc. (Figure 5). The general layout of the intakes and the* intake forebay are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The intake cribs are located at 410 58' 37.7" N latitude and 860 34'29.8" W longitude and the intake screen house is located at 410 58' 33.1" N latitude and 86' 33' 59.6" W longitude (U.S.GS 7.5' topographic map; Bridgman, MI quadrangle).

Cooling Water System Data (40 CFR 122.21(r)(5))

The cooling water system is composed of the intakes, the screen house and associated equipment, water tunnels to the steam condensers, discharge tunnels carrying the water tothe discharge vault, the discharge tunnels (about 1,100 ft out into the lake), and discharge nozzles for each unit. The cooling water system is operated all year round unless both units are shut down. Even with both units out of service the plant still requires service water; however, service water flow is a small fraction of the design intake flows. The traveling water screens are operated once each shift and are operated automatically if the pressure differential across the screen exceeds certain limits. Up to three circulating water pumps on Unit 1 and up to four pumps on Unit 2 pump cooling water from the intake forebay. The essential and nonessential service water systems also pump water from the intake forebay. Water pumped by the seven circulating water pumps flows through the main steam condensers and back out to Lake Michigan through the discharge nozzles for each unit. Winter operation also includes circulating part of the warm discharge water back to the lake through the center intake tunnel for deicing of the north and south intakes. Deice mode is initiated in the fall or winter when intake water temperatures reach 350 F and is discontinued when the intake temperatures begin to exceed 350 F in the spring.Data Collection Description Proposed implementation technology(ies)

(40 CFR 125.95(b)(1)(i))

The Cook Nuclear Plant has an offshore intake that draws water from about 24 ft of water. Studies conducted during the 1970s and 1980s by the University of Michigan showed the ichthyoplankton densities at the 6 and 9 m depths were much lower than the densities at the 0.5 m depth (Great Lakes Research Division, 1986). Using the historic data and data collected within the last few years including the data to be collected under this PIC, the baseline case will be calculated for the hypothetical onshore intake defined in the Phase II rule and the existing intake entrainment rates. Comparisons will be made of impingement rates and the abundance of juvenile and adult fish collected in the field sampling stations near CNP. These calculations will be used to define how much further CNP must reduce impingement mortality rates and entrainment rates to comply with the performance criteria.13 The CNP will evaluate the feasibility of the following technologies for reducing impingement mortality and entrainment rates: 1. Fish Collection and Return System

-- CNP will evaluate using a fish return system in conjunction with the new Geiger traveling water screens. The evaluation will include the use of fine-mesh screen material if entrainment protection is required beyond the protection provided by the existing intake location.2. Intake Location -- CNP will evaluate the efficacy of relocating the intake cribs even farther off shore to draw water from less productive fish spawning grounds.3. Addition of Fine-mesh screen to the Existing Offshore Intake -- CNP will evaluate the U.S. EPA assumed solution, adding a fine-mesh screen to the existing intake cribs, used for the plant's cost-of-compliance calculations in..the 316(b), Phase II rule change.4. The 0.5 ft/s Intake Velocity Criteria -- CNP will evaluate the cost and efficacy of increasing the size of the intake cribs and thus the screen surface area so as to reduce the through screen velocity to 0.5 ft/s. This option will be evaluated only if it is first established that the existing location of the intakes allows for compliance with the entrainment rate reduction performance criteria.

5. Behavioral Deterrents

-- CNP will evaluate the efficacy of the high-frequency sound system that was installed in 2003 to deter alewives from entering the intake structures.

6. Restoration

-- CNP will evaluate the availability, appropriateness and the cost effectiveness of using restoration to comply with the rule.Historical impingement, entrainment and water body biological studies (40 CFR 125.95(b)(1)(ii))

The current location of the CNP was evaluated as a potential power plant site beginning in 1967 with some general limnological studies conducted by researchers from the University of Michigan. An extensive limnological study was developed and initiated in 1973, which was also developed and conducted by the Great Lakes Research Division of the University of Michigan.

Site meteorology, lake currents, water temperature, lake bathymetry, shore ice accretion and deterioration, sediments, psammolittoral community,phytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, and fish were all studied from 1970 through 1982.Entrainment and impingement sampling was conducted from late 1973 through 1982 forphytoplankton, zooplankton, benthos, and fish. Appendix A is a list of the technical reports produced by the University of Michigan for Indiana & Michigan Power Company.The studies conducted in the 1970s and 1980s were done to help determine how the operation of CNP affected the limnological conditions in Lake Michigan.

Since 1982 when the University of Michigan collected their last samples for the aquatic ecological studies of Lake Michigan near CNP, several exotic species have entered the lake and caused extensive changes. Zebra mussels have altered the energy flow through the 14 ecosystem and round gobies have become a significant component of the fish community.

Therefore, the baseline case for impingement mortality and entrainment rates must be established from new sampling and data analysis.

The condition of the fish at the time of impingement was not determined in the 1970s and 1980s. Whether the juvenile and adult fish were alive or dead at the time of impingement is an important component of the baseline case calculation.

Agency consultations (40 CFR 125.95(b)(1)(iii))

CNP submitted a combined 316(a) and 316(b) demonstration to the Michigan WaterResources Commission (MWRC) in 1977. Several supplements to the 316(b) portion of the demonstration were subsequently prepared and submitted to the MWRC. U.S. EPA, Region 5, reviewed a draft of the permit containing the MWRC decision and did not veto.the decision.

In November 1987, the Michigan Water Resources Commission approvedthe intake structures at the CNP as best technology available.

The CNP is currently not involved in any on-going consultations with any Federal, State or Tribal fish and wildlife agencies.Sampling plan for new studies (40 CFR 125.95(b)(1)(iv))

Field Studies -- Juvenile and Adult FishField sampling for juvenile and adult fish is part of the baseline case data gathering.

Sampling is being conductedto characterize the fish community in Lake Michigan near CNP. Methods to be used in the proposed studies are similar to the methods used by the University of Michigan to facilitate data comparisons between studies.Three sampling stations (shoreline, 1 to 6 feet deep; intake depth, 22 to 26-foot deep; and experimental depth, 40-foot depth) will be established in Lake Michigan near the CNPwhere adult and juvenile fish will be sampled. Fish at the shoreline station will besampled with a bag seine, or similar net, and if possible gill nets and a bottom trawl will also be used. Fish at the intake depth and experimental depth stations will be sampled with a bottom trawl and bottom gill nets consisting of panels with -sizes ranging from 0.5to 4.0 in bar-mesh netting. Fish will be sampled during the day and at night at least onceper month at each station. Sampling is scheduled to begin in June and continue into Fall and Winter as weather and lake conditions permit. Physical and limnological measurements will be taken when sampling.

Water temperature, water clarity, and lakecurrent velocity at a minimum will be recorded.

Weather conditions, air temperature,wind velocity, precipitation, and cloud cover, will be noted on the field sheets. Fish will be identified to species in the field whenever possible and returned to the lake if alive.Fish of uncertain identity will be preserved and returned to the laboratory for identification. Sub-sampling will be used when large numbers of one species are collected.

A representative sample of all species will be weighed and measured.

Notes on parasites and lamprey scars will be noted on the field sheets. Common and scientific names are according to Robins et al. (1991).15 Field Studies

-- IchthyoplanktonField sampling for ichthyoplankton is part of the baseline case data gathering.

This sampling is being conducted to characterize the ichthyoplankton community in the lakenear CNP. Methods used in the proposed study are similar to the University of Michigan methods to facilitate data comparisons.

Fish larvae will be collected with a conical, 0.5-m diameter, nylon plankton net with 363-micro mesh. A flowmeter attached to the center opening of the net will be used to measure volume of water sampled. Flowmeter readings will be converted to volume filtered and total numbers of larvae and eggs captured.

Numbers of eggs and larvae will be converted to densities, i.e., number/I,000 in 3 , for all analyses.

An attempt will be made to filter 50 m 3 of water in the tows. Duplicate shoreline tow samples will be collected at the same location as the juvenile and adult fish sampling.

Nets will be towed by hand, just below the water surface, against the current for a distance of about 100 m.Beach tows will be performed both day and night, at least once a month, April through November (June through November 2005). At the intake depth and experimental depth stations, horizontal tows from a powerboat at speeds of 3 mph at discrete depth strata parallel to shore will be taken. Open water tows will be performed both day and night, at least once per month, April through November (June through November 2005). The intake depth tows will be done at the surface, mid-depth and bottom strata. The 40-foot depth contour tows will be taken at the surface, 10 ft, 20 ft, 30 ft, and bottom depth strata.

Nets retrieved from a sampling tow will be carefully washed down and the contents of the cod end bucket washed into sample bottles. The surface, 10 ft and 20 ft depth strata samples will be composited.

The 30 ft and bottom strata will be composited.

The samples will be composited to characterize the ichthyoplankton densities in the water column above the submerged intake and at the level where the submerged intake withdraws water. The bottles will be labeled and preserved.

All ichthyoplankton analyses will be done in the laboratory.Field Studies

-- Physical and Chemical Data Collection All measuring devices used for physical and chemical data gathering will be certifiedaccurate and properly calibrated.

Scales, thermocouples, DO meters, flow meters, and other devices will be certified accurate and calibrated to 40 CFR Part 136 methods, ASTM standards, and instrument owners manuals instructions (in order of priority).

Records of the calibrations will be kept and will be used to verify the quality of the data presented in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study.Water temperature, dissolved oxygen (DO), and water clarity (i.e., Secchi disk depth)will be measured at all netting locations.

Temperature and DO will be measured at thedepth being sampled at the beginning of towed samples and at the beginning and the end of net sets. Secchi measurements will be made .once at each depth during each sampling trip.16 Temperature and DO will be measured using electronic meters. Secchi depth will be measured using a standard Secchi disk. The DO meter will be calibrated via a DO percent saturation method in moisture saturated air at the beginning of each samplingday. The temperature thermistor will be factory calibrated annually and will be cross-checked against a NIST traceable thermometer before each trip. All calibration or cross-check results will be documented.

Impingement Sampling Fish and debris will be collected from the traveling water screens every two weeks during a twelve-month sampling period for impinged juvenile and adult fish. One of the impingement samples will coincide with the monthly field sampling for juvenile and adult fish. At the beginning of the impingement sampling, all screens will be rotated andwashed clean of debris. Then samples will be collected at twelve-hour intervals or more frequently if debris loading is high. Debris and fish washed from the screens will be collected in the trash baskets at either end of the screen house, Unit 1 at the north end and Unit 2 at the south end. Fish will be sorted from the debris and the debris discarded in dumpsters.

All fish will be identified to species, measured for total length, and weighed.Large collections of fish will be subsampled by length grouping or life-stage, if that can be determined, and a subsample of each length group or life stage will be measured and weighed individually.

All remaining fish will be bulk weighed and counted by the same length or life-stage groupings as the subsample.

CNP impinges large amounts of debris, mostly zebra mussels and zebra mussel shells. During periods of high zebra mussel impingement, the zebra mussel debris will be sub-sampled.

Known volumes of unsorteddebris, zebra mussels and fish will be sorted to remove the fish. These fish will be processed for length, weight, and identification to species. The volume of the unsorted debris, zebra mussels, and fish will be measured and recorded.

The number, species, size and weight of the fish from the sorted volume can be used to estimate the number, species, size and weight of the fish in the unsorted debris. Fish of uncertain identificationand fish too difficult to identify at the plant on the weekly sampling date, will be returned to the laboratory for positive identification.

Scale, otoliths, or pectoral spine samples (as appropriate) will be collected from a representative subsample of the species collected in impingement samples and saved for possible analyses later.All fish collected from the traveling water screens will be categorized as live or dead at the time of impingement.

This determination will be made as soon as practical after the sorting process and before the fish are preserved. Fish that are moving and fish with red gill filaments will be classified as alive. Fish with light pink or white gill filaments and fish that exhibit any signs of decomposition will be categorized as dead prior to impingement.

17 Entrainment Sampling Entrainment sampling will be conducted at CNP to determine the number of eggs and larvae passing through the cooling water intakes. These data will be used to calculate the baseline case for the EPA-defined baseline case and the CNP entrainment rate.Entrainment sampling will be conducted by pumping water via a hose or drop pipe extending into the intake forebay (Figure 8). Entrainment sample water pumped from the intake forebay will be run through a 0.5-m diameter, 300-50Ojm mesh plankton net suspended in an energy dissipater tank.

A flow meter will be installed so that the volumesampled will be measured..Entrainment samples will be collected twice per month April through November (June through November 2005), except for June, July, and August, when sampling will be doneonce or twice per week to coincide with peak abundance of fish larvae.

At: least one sample a month will coincide with the field sampling for ichthyoplankton. Samples, will be collected over a 24-hour period. Each 24-hour period will be divided into four sampling divisions, which will vary in length depending on daylight length. The four divisions will be sunrise-noon, noon-sunset, sunset-midnight, and midnight-sunrise.

CIAPHRAGM PUMP NO 2 PLANKTON NET i/2m,)2O8 LITER BARREL"GRATE\ SAMPLE JAR RE!AINING RWNG FOREBAY Figure 8 (example set-up from U of M study)Annual Imningement Estimate Calculations Estimates of annual fish impingement will be developed based on the amount of circulating cooling water sampled in relation to the total amount of circulating cooling water passing through the facility during the sampling efforts.

The calculation of the 18 actual flow will be based on the number of circulating pumps operating at the time of sampling at a flow rate of 230,000 gpm per pump and be reported consistent with flows reported in the plant's discharge monitoring report.Annual impingement estimates will be made by summing estimating periods. Estimating periods will be developed around each 24-hour sampling effort and extended to one-half the total number of days between the preceding and following sampling efforts. For example, if an impingement sampling effort is conducted on Wednesday of one week, and the preceding sampling effort occurred on a previous Wednesday (13 days before), the following sampling effort occurred Wednesday of the following week, then the estimation period will extend from 6 1/22-days before to 6 1/22-days after the sampling date.The impingement rate will be assumed the same on each of the 14 days of the estimating period. Estimating the number of fish impinged during each estimation period will also be made based on actual circulating cooling water flow.Statistical analysis will be employed to segregate sources of variance owing to samplingdates, season, and physical and water chemistry conditions.

The coefficient of variation will be calculated as a percentage, and this percentage will be used to estimate the variance about the estimated total number of impinged fish. Confidence intervals for the annual impingement estimates will be calculated. Confidence intervals may be calculatedfor individual species. These statistics will be geared toward establishing confidence intervals around the entrainment estimates.

The baseline case will be an estimate that includes the range of values established by the confidence intervals.

Depending upon the need for the adjustment, which would most likely be driven by the decision to conduct a cost-benefit analysis, the impingement data may be normalized to Age I equivalents.

The procedures may follow the method used in the EPA support documents for the Phase II rule or another scientifically acceptable procedure.

Annual Entrainment Estimate Calculations Entrainment sample egg and larvae densities, will be calculated by dividing the sample counts by the volume of water pumped to get the number per cubic meter. Depending on the organism abundance, these may be converted to numbers per hundred or thousandcubic meters for convenience.

The sample densities will be multiplied by the volume of water pumped through the plant during each approximately 6-hour sampling period. The four sample counts will be summed to get the entrainment estimate for the 24-hour sample day. Annual entrainment estimates will be calculated much the way impingement estimates will be calculated. Each 24-hour entrainment estimate will be used to calculate the entrainment rate for the days half way to the preceding and the following sampling days. The entrainment rates will be based on actual flow rates.Statistical analyses will be used to estimate the variance due to sampling date, season, time of day, physical and chemical condition of the water, and plant operation.

These statistics will be geared toward establishing confidence intervals around the entrainment 19 estimates.

The baseline case will be an estimate that includes the range of values established by the confidence intervals.

Data Records and Documentation and Quality Assurance and Quality Control The Phase II rule makes reference to data records and documentation, and to data quality.Data gathering and data analyses for the Impingement and Entrainment Characterization Studies and all the data gathering and data analyses for the Comprehensive Demonstration Study will follow the guidelines for data handling presented in Appendix B. In general, the data records and management section of Appendix B ensures that samples collected are properly labeled and the samples analyses and results records can be tracked throughout the process. Quality control and quality assurance procedures presented in Appendix B ensure the samples were collected and analyzed in a scientifically correct and acceptable manner.

The Appendix B is from the Scope of Work document used for the bidding impingement and entrainment sampling at CNP.Baseline Case Calculation The baseline case for the Cook Nuclear Plant will require making an estimate of the number of fish eggs and larvae entrained and the number of juvenile and adult fish impinged at a hypothetical intake structure located on the shoreline at the plant. Two methods will be used to make these estimates.

One method will be to index the rate of entrainment and impingement for the current plant intake and use the index to estimate the entrainment rate based on the near-shore fish population densities.

An example of how this would be done for a species would be as follows: the catch per unit effort for agiven species would be calculated for the intake and for the sampling gear type that is generally considered most efficient at collecting that species and a catch per unit effort would be calculated for the plant. The catch per unit effort for the intake would be presumed the same for the current offshore intake as for the hypothetical shoreline intake.The estimate of the impingement rate for the hypothetical shoreline intake~would be adjusted up or down based upon the offshore vs. near-shore fish density ratio.The second method for estimating the impingement and entrainment rates at CookNuclear Plant is to use impingement and entrainment rates at a shoreline intake on Lake Michigan and adjust the rates at the surrogate intake to match the conditions at Cook Nuclear Plant.The biological data collected by the University of Michigan in the 1970s and 1980s, thedata gathered as described in this PIC, fish impingement and entrainment data gathered by other utilities on Lake Michigan, and data gathered by state and Federal natural resource agencies will be analyzed to determine the baseline case for CNP.20 Intake Technology Assessments

-Selection of compliance alternative Intake technology(ies) to be evaluated The five intake technologies that will be evaluated at CNP are a fish collection and return system, moving the intake structure farther off shore, adding fine mesh screen to the existing intake structures (the EPA evaluation), reducing the intake velocity to 0.5 ft/s, and behavioral deterrents.

Feasibility and cost analyses Feasibility and cost analyses will be conducted by engineers at the CNP, the support engineering groups in Buchanan, MI, and architect engineering companies with special knowledge of intake structures.

Cost Tests The need for cost-cost and cost-benefit analyses have not been established.

At some point in the development of intake structure modifications and data analyses, a decision will be made regarding the need for cost tests. At that time, a plan will be written and the PIC modified to include a detailed description of the data collection and analyses methods and procedures.

Restoration Plan Restoration plans have not been developed for the CNP PIC. As the analysis of the intake structures and costs are developed, an evaluation of the need for and appropriateness of a restoration plan will be decided. A plan will then be developed and submitted to Michigan Department of Environmental Quality for comment prior to submitting the restoration Plan in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study..21 qo References MDNR (Michigan Department of Natural Resources).

2001. Parks and Recreation, http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/.

Accessed November 15, 2004.Berrien County. 2003. Berrien County, Michigan Development Plan 2003 -2008.County of Berrien Department of Planning and Public Works. St. Joseph, Michigan.USCB (U.S. Census Bureau).' 2002.

State and County Quickfacts.

Available online at http://quickfacts.census.gov/.

Accessed February 8, 2002.Hough, J. L. 1958. Geology of the Great Lakes. University of Illinois Press.

Urbana, IL.EPRI. 2004. Using Computational Fluid Dynamics Techniques to Define the Hydraulic Zone of Influence of Cooling Water Intake Structures.

Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA. Tech. Rpt. 1005528.U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.

1973. Final Environmental Statement Relative to Operation of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. U.S. AEC, Directorate of Licensing, Washington, DC. Docket Nos. 50-315 and 50-316.U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

2005. Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 20, Regarding Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units No. 1 and 2, Final Report. NUREG -1437, Supplement 20.U.S. NRC, Washington, DC.

Robbins, C. R., Chairman.

1991. A list of common and scientific names of fishes fromthe United States and Canada. 5'th edition. Special Publ. No. 20, Amer. Fish.

Soc.Washington, D. C. 183 pp.Jude, D. J. 1976. Entrainment of fish larvae and eggs on the Great Lakes, with special reference to the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, southeastern Lake Michigan.

In Third National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement, Section 316(b) -Research* and Compliance, ed. L. D. Jensen, pp177-199.

Ecological Analysts, Inc. Melville, NY.Bimber, D. L, M. Perrone, Jr., i. Noguchi, and D. J. Jude. 1984. Field distribution and entrainment offish larvae and eggs at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, southeastern Lake Michigan, 1973-1979.

Special Report 105. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 320 pp.22 Appendix A An unabridged list of the study reports published by the University of Michigan of the Aquatic Ecological Impacts of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant' conducted from 1967 through 1982 Ayers, J. c., and J. C. K. Huang.

1967. General studies. Part I, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 31 pp.Ayers, J. C., A. E. Strong, C. F. Powers, and R. Rossmann.

1967. Studies of local winds and alongshore currents.

Part H, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 45 pp.Ayers, J. C., R. F. Anderson, N. W. O'Hara, and C. Kidd. 1970. Cook Plant preoperational studies 1969.Part IV, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 92 pp.Ayers, J. C., D. E. Arnold, R. F. Anderson, and H. K. Soo. 1971. Cook Plant preoperational studies 1970.Part VII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report.44.

Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 85 pp. Ayers, J. C., N. W. O'Hara, and W. L.Yocum. 1971. Winter operations 1970-1971.

Part VIII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 41 pp.Ayers, J. C., W. L. Yocum, H.

K. Soo, T. W. Bottrell, S. C. Mozley, and L. C. Garcia. 1971. The biological survey of 10 July 1970. Part IX, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 72 pp.Ayers, J. C., H. K. Soo, and W. L. Yocum. 1972. Cook Plant preoperational studies 1971. Part X, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 152 pp.Ayers, J. c., and W. L. Yocum. 1972. Winter operations 1971-1972.

Part XI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 26 pp.Ayers, J. c., and E. Seibel (eds.). 1973. Cook Plant preoperational studies 1972. Part XIII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 281 pp.Ayers, J. C., W. L. Yocum, and E. Seibel. 1973. Winter operations 1972-1973.

Part XIV, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research.

Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 22 pp.Ayers, J. C., S. C. Mozley, and J. C. Roth. 1973. The biological survey of 12 November 1970. Part XV, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 69 pp.Ayers, J. C., and E. Seibel (eds.).

1973. Program of aquatic studies related to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XVII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 57 pp.Ayers, J. c., S. C. Mozley, and J. A. Stewart. 1974. The seasonal biological surveys of 1971. Part XIX, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report

44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 181 pp.Ayers, J. C. 1975. Bacteria andphytoplankton of the seasonaLsurveys of 1972 and 1973. Part XXI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 153 pp.Ayers, J. C. 1975. The phytoplankton of the Cook Plant monthly minimal surveys during the preoperational years 1972, 1973 and 1974. Special Report 59, Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 51 pp.Ayers, J. c., N. V. Southwick, and D. G. Robinson.

1977. Phytoplankton of the seasonal surveys of 1974 23 and 1975 and initial pre- vs. post-operational comparisons at Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XXIII, BentonHarbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

279 pp.Ayers, J. C. 1978. Phytoplankton of the seasonal surveys of 1976, of September 1970, and pre- vs. post-.operational comparison at Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XXV, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological

Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 258 pp.Ayers, J. C., and S. J. Wiley. 1979. Phytoplankton of the seasonal surveys of 1977, and further pre- vs.post-operational comparisons at Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XXVII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 92 pp., plus Appendix of 3 microfiche cards (122 pp.).Ayers, J. c., and L. E. Feldt. 1982. Phytoplankton of the seasonal surveys of 1978 and 1979, and further pre- vs. post-operational comparisons at Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XXIX, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 70 pp., plus Appendices of 9 microfiche cards (256 pp.).Ayers, J. c., and L. E. Feldt. 1983. Phytoplankton of the seasonal surveys of 1980, 1981, and April 1982 and further pre- vs. postoperational comparisons at Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XXXI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 91 pp., plus Appendices of 5 microfiche cards (268 pp.).Barres, J., L Feldt, W. Chang, and R. Rossmann.

1984. Entrainment of phytoplankton at the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant-1980-1982.

Part XXXII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

92 pp., plus Appendices of 7 microfiche cards (486 pp.).Bimber, D. L, M. Perrone, Jr., I. Noguchi, and D. J. Jude. 1984. Field distribution and entrainment offish larvae and eggs at'the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, southeastern Lake Michigan, 1973-1979.

Special Report 105. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.320 pp.Chang, W., R. Rossmann, J. Pappas, and W. L.

Yocum. 1981. Entrainment ofphytoplankton at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant-1978.

Part XXVIII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 106 pp.,plus Appendix of 4 microfiche cards (180 pp.).Chang, W. Y. B., and M. S. Shahraray.

1986. Interactive data base .management system for ecological studies related to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. Special Report 119. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 158 pp.Dorr, J. A., HI, and T. J. Miller. 1975. Underwater operations in southeastern Lake Michigan near the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant during 1974. Part XXII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 32 pp.Dorr, J. A., HI, and D. J. Jude. 1986. Diver assessment of the inshore southeastern Lake Michigan environment near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant, 1973-82. Special Report 120. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.Evans, M. S. 1975. The 1975 preoperational zooplankton investigations relative to the Donald C. CookNuclear Power Plant. Special Report 58. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 187 pp.Evans, M. S., T. E. Wurster, and B. E. Hawkins. 1978. The 1975 and 1976 operational zooplankton investigations relative to the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, with tests for plant effects (1971-1976). Special Report 64. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 166 pp., plus Appendix of 4 microfiche cards (236 pp.).Evans, M. S., D. W. Sell, and D. I. Page. 1982. Zooplankton studies in 1977 and 1978 at the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Power Plant; comparisons of preoperational (1971-1974) and operational (1975-1978) population characteristics.

Special Report 89. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 235 pp., plus Appendix of 5 microfiche cards (222 pp.).Evans, G. J. Warren, D. I. Page, and L. F. Flath. 1986. Zooplankton studies at the Donald C. CookNuclear Power Plant: 1979-1982 investigations including preoperational (1971-1974) and operational (1975-1982) comparisons.

Special Report 111. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.24 Johnston, E. M. 1973. Effect of a thermal discharge on benthos populations:

Statistical methods for assessing the impact of the Cook Nuclear Plant. Part XVIII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 20 pp.Johnston, E. M. 1974. Statistical power of a proposed method for detecting the effect of waste heat on benthos populations.

Part XX, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 29 pp.Jude, D. J., T. W. Bottrell, J. A. Dorr III, and T. J. Miller. 1973. Studies of the fish population near the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, 1972. Part XII, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 115 pp.Jude, D. J., F. J. Tesar, J. A. Dorr III, T. J. Miller, P. J. Rago, and D. J. Stewart. 1975. Inshore Lake Michigan fish populations near the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, 1973. Special Report 52.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 267 pp.Jude, D. J., F. J. Tesar, J. C. Tomlinson, T. J. Miller, N. J. Thurber, G. G. Godun, and J. A. Dorr III. 1979.Inshore Lake Michigan fish populations near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant during preoperational years-1973, 1974. Special Report 71. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 529 pp.Kidd, C. C. 1970. Pontoporeia affinis (Crustacea, Amphipoda) as a monitor of radio nuclides released to Lake Michigan.

Part VI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 71 pp.Krezoski, J.. R. 1969. Some effects of power plant waste heat on the ecology of Lake Michigan.

Part III, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 78 pp.LaDronka, R. M. 1984. Oligochaeta.

Part 3: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeastern Lake Michigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. Special Report 103. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 290 pp.Lauritsen, D. D., and D. S. White. 1981. Comparative studies of the zoobenthos of a natural and a man-made rocky habitat on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan.

Special Report 74. Great Lakes Research'Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 65 pp.Mozley, S. C. 1975. Preoperational investigations of zoo benthos in southeastern Lake Michigan near the Cook Nuclear Plant. Special Report 56. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 132 pp.Noguchi, L. S., D. L. Bimber, H. T. Tin, P. J. Mansfield, and D. J. Jude. 1985. Field distribution and entrainment offish larvae and eggs at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant,, southeastern Lake* Michigan, 1980-1982.

Special Report 116. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 251 pp.O'Hara, N. W., R. F. Anderson, W. L. Yocum, and J. C. Ayers. 1970. Winter operations, March 1970. Part V, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

17 pp.Rossmann, R. 1975. Chemistry of nearshore surficial sediments from southeastern Lake Michigan.

Special Report 57. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 62 pp.Rossmann, R., N. M. Miller, and D. G. Robinson.

1977. Entrainment ofphytoplankton at the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant-1975.

Part XXIV, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 265 pp.Rossmann, R., L. D. Damaske, and N. M. Miller. 1979. Entrainment ofphytoplankton at the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant-1976.

Part XXVI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 88 pp., plus Appendix of 3 microfiche cards (154 pp.).Rossmann, R., W. Chang, L. D. Damaske, and W. L. Yocum. 1980. Entrainment ofphyto plankton at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant-1977.

Special Report 67. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 180 pp., plus Appendix of 2 microfiche cards (118 pp.).Rossmann, R., W. Chang, and J. Barres. 1982. Entrainment ofphytoplankton at the Donald C. CookNuclear Plant-1979.

Part XXX, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

98 pp., plus Appendix of 4 microfiche cards (156 pp.).25 Seibel, E., J. C. Roth, J. A. Stewart, S. L. Williams.

1973. Psammolittoral investigation 1972. Part XVI, Benton Harbor Power Plant Limnological Studies, Special Report 44. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 63 pp.Seibel, E., and J. C. Ayers (eds.). 1974. The biological, chemical, and physical character of Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. Special Report 51. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

475 pp.Seibel, E., C. T. Carlson, and J. W. Maresca, Jr. 1975. Lake and shore ice conditions on southeastern Lake Michigan in the vicinity of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant:

winter 1973-74. Special Report 55.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 62 pp.Tesar, F. J., and D. J. Jude. 1985. Adult and juvenile fish populations of inshore southeastern Lake Michigan near the Cook Nuclear Power Plant during 1973-82. Special Report 106. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 94 pp., plus Appendices of 5 microfiche cards (301 pp.).Tesar, F. J., D. Einhouse, H.

T. Tin, D. L. Bimber, and D. J. Jude. 1985. Adult andjuvenile fish populations near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant southeastern Lake Michigan during preoperational (1973-74) and operational (1975-79) years. Special Report 109. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 341 pp.Thurber, N., and D. J. Jude. 1984. Impingement losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant during 1975-1979 with a discussion offactors responsible and relationships to field catches. Special Report 104. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

24 pp., plus Appendix (75 pp.).Thurber, N., and D. J. Jude. 1985. Impingement losses at the D. C. Cook Nuclear Plant during 1975-1982 with a discussion offactors responsible and possible impact on local populations.

Special Report 115.Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

70 pp., plus Appendix (88 pp.).White, D. S., and M. H. Winnell. 1986. Introduction.

Part I: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeasternLake Michigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.

Special Report 122. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan,.Ann Arbor, Mich.Winnell, M. H. 1984. Malacostraca (Amphipoda, Mysidacea, Isopoda, and Decapoda).

Part 5: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeastern Lake Michigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. Special Report 99. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 94 pp.Winnell, M. H. 1984. Chironomidae (and other Diptera).

Part 6: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeastern Lake Michigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.

Special Report 100. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 177 pp.Zawacki, C. M. 1985. Minor taxa (Hydrozoa, Turbellaria, Hirudinea, Arachnoidea, nonDipteran insects, Gastropoda, and zoobenthic meiofauna).

Part 2: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeastern LakeMichigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant. Special Report 112. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 201 pp.Zdeba, T. W., and D. S. White. 1985. Pisidiidae.

Part 4: Ecology of the zoobenthos of southeastern LakeMichigan near the D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.

Special Report lB. Great Lakes Research Division, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich.

85 pp.26 Appendix B Data Records and Documentation All samples will be assigned a sample number and a label or tag will be permanently affixed to the container. The label or tag will have at a minimum either a sample number keyed to a field and if appropriate lab sheet, or will have the sampling location, date, time, type of sample, name of collector, and room for names and dates of the change of custody of the sample.All identifications both the field and laboratory will be under the direct (i.e., in person)supervision of an experienced fisheries biologist.

The laboratory procedure to befollowed will require a technician to sort the sample and make preliminary identifications.

A senior biologist will then examine the sample and upon confirming the identifications will instruct the technician to finish processing the sample.A voucher collection containing a representative of each species collected will be maintained.

Specimens of questionable identity and those of special significance (e.g., rarities, new distributional records, etc.) will be sent to experts for confirmation.

Field data sheets and field notebooks will be used to record all field sampling events and findings at the time of occurrence.

All documentation factors described below will serve as the basis for quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC) measures that will verifytaxonomic accuracy, sampling integrity, data accuracy, and sample management.

All recording and measurement equipment will be certified accurate and properly calibrated.

Scales, thermocouples, DO meters, flow meters, and all other measurement devices shall be calibrated to 40 CFR Part 136 methods, ASTM standards, and instrumentowners manual specifications (in order of priority).

Records of the calibrations will be kept, be provided in the final report to the company, and be summarized in the Comprehensive Demonstration Study.One or more field data sheets will be developed to include space to record all field teaminformation, fish capture data, sample management data, water quality information, and sub-sample information.

All other pertinent information that may not be subject to field data sheets (e.g.

photographs records of threatened or endangered specimens) shall be recorded in a field notebook. Field data sheets should be prepared to record, at a minimum, the following for each fish or ichthyoplankton sample location and sample type: 1. Study site or project name;2. Date;3. Time;4. Field crew leader full name; 27

5. Field crew member initials or name;6. Study reach identification or code (to indicate upstream or downstream and deep water or shallow water samples);7. Field sheet identification code;8. Sampling method;9. Sampling equipment;

10. Electroshock equipment settings (electrofishing only);11. Electroshock sampling start and stop times for each sampling run (electrofishing only);12. Flow meter settings at start and stop (ichthyoplankton only);13. Sample area length (meters) and mid-transect GPS reading;14. Volume of water sampled (ichthyoplankton only);15. Water quality parameters to include location, time,depth, and value of each measurement;

16. Field listing of fish species identified (electrofishing and seine only);17. Field enumeration data by species (electrofishing and seine only);

18. Field weight and length determinations by species (electrofishing and seine only);

19. Indication of sub-samples taken by species and sample identification code;20. Laboratory sample identification code;21. Field sketch of sample location depicting important landmarks or physical barriers;22. Signature line for field crew leader approva! and date; and

23. Signature line for QA/QC Officer and date.Laboratory data sheets should be prepared to record, at a minimum, the following for each field fish and ichthyoplankton sample location and sample type:1. Study site or project name;2. Date and time of field collection;

3. Field crew leader full name;4. Laboratory technician initial or name;5. Study reach identification or code;6. Laboratory sheet identification number;7. Sample type (special, 30-organism, batch sub-sample, ichthyoplankton, etc.);8. Sample identification code;9. Indication of sample condition;

10. Listing of fish species identified;

11. Enumeration of fish species identified;

12. Enumeration of live fish larvae or eggs by species identified to extent possible (ichthyoplankton only);13. Enumeration of dead fish larvae or eggs by species identified to extent possible (ichthyoplankton only);14. Lengths and weight of individual fish species identified (electrofishing and seine only);15. Batch weight and number of fish species weighed (electrofishing and seine only);16. Sample code for specimens that require expert verification;

17. Initials for taxonomic validation; and 28 9-7

18. Signature line for lab supervisor and QA/QC Officer approval and date.All samples will be assigned a sample number. A label or tag will be permanently affixed to the container.

The label or tag will have at a minimum either a sample number keyed to a field sheet and as necessary a laboratory sheet. The label or tag will indicate the following:

1. Study site or project name;2. Sample identification or code;3. Field sheet identification code;4. Laboratory sheet identification code;5. Sample location;

6. Sampling date and time;7. Sample type; and 8. Name of collector or field crew leader.If any material is removed from a sample container and is not returned to the original container, the new container or the location and method of specimen disposal must be noted on the original container.

If a new container is used to store sorted larvae, the new container will be labeled with all the above information to establish a connection with the original container.

A daily sampling record sheet will be prepared at the end of each day of sampling that will list for each sample, sub-sample, or laboratory sample the following:

1. Study site or project name;2. Sample date;3. Sample reach location;4. Sample type and time;5. Sample identification or code;6. Sample storage location code; and 7. Signature line for QA/QC Officer signature and date.The daily sampling record sheets will be maintained by the crew leader or project lead to track all sample collections and can form the basis for transport chain-of-custody records.A field notebook will include all other observations, a record of any deviations from the sampling plan, record of accidents, equipment problems, etc., or duplicate record of field data sheet information.

The field notebook shall be bound and entries shall be made in permanent ink. All corrections or changes will be indicated by a single line strike-through and the initials of the person making the correction or change.Impingement studies Impingement data sheets will be prepared to record fish impingement data for each sampling period. A field notebook will be used to record the date, time, personnel, and 29 study activities including a brief description of non-fish debris contained in the sample, any additional observations, problems and solutions, or comments.

The impingement data sheet for each impingement sampling period will include the following:

I. Study site or project name;-2. Date;3. Time;4. Field crew leader full name;5. Field crew member initials or name;

6. Impingement sampling period identification or code;7. Number of traveling screens Washed;8. Number of screen baskets needed to capture washed material;9. Intake flowat start and stop of sampling period;10. Listing of fish species identified by specimen weight and length, and whether returned (live) or retained (dead);11. Listing of unidentifiable fish by specimen;12. All specimens or batch samples of unidentifiable fish will be labeled with the sampling period identification code, batch number or code, and number of fish;13. Sub-samples for large numbers of fish will include the number,of fish byspecies and given a label to indicate sampling period and sub-sample number or identificationcode; and 14. Signature line for field crew leader and QA/QC Officer approval and date.All fish specimens and sub-samples retained for laboratory analysis and enumeration will follow laboratory protocols and documentation consistent with field fish sampling procedures.

Entrainment studies A project field notebook will be used to record the date, time, personnel, and sampling activities.

An entrainment data sheet will be prepared to record the following:

I. Study site or project name;2. Date;3. Time;4. Crew leader full name;5. Crew member initials or name;6. Entrainment sample period identification or code;7. Flow of intake water at sample point;8. Overflow meter settings at start and stop of sampling run;9. Time of start and stop of sampling run;10. Total volume of water filtered for sample;11. Indication of any sub-samples taken by type and sample identification code;12. Laboratory sample identification code; and 13. Signature line for crew leader and QA/QC Officer approval of sample collection and date.30 99 -

All entrainment samples will be preserved and transported to the laboratory for analysis accompanied by appropriate chain-of-custody forms and documentation.Quality Assurance and Quality Control A QA/QC Officer, or equivalent, will be designated for the Facility project. The QA/QCOfficer will be responsible for project QA oversight to insure methods are being implemented properly and that project personnel have adequate training. The QA/QC Officer will also be responsible for project QC oversight by inspecting and verifying completion and completeness of documentation requirements, sample management, and.collection of all field and laboratory data. Thus, two areas of focus that the QA/QC Officer duties will include are sample collection and oversight, and data validation and usability.

Sample Collection and Oversight The QA/QC Officer will be involved with project development and conduct audits during the work to evaluate the capability and performance of the entire system of measurement and reporting, i.e., sampling design, data collection, analysis, and attendant quality control activities.

Project Development The QA/QC Officer will be involved in project development or project review prior to initiation of field sampling.

The QA/QC Officer will conduct an assessment of theproject with respect to the following:

1. Qualifications and training of field personnel in methods of sample collection identified for project completion;

2. Acceptability, condition, and maintenance of all field equipment;

3. Qualifications and performance standards and protocols of any analytical laboratory facility or subcontractor entity; and 4. Critical project review for data acquisition requirements to include: a. Representativeness

-do the samples and results represent the conditions to be assessed;b. Bias -will the samples be collected in such a manner that gross overestimates or underestimates will not occur;c. Precision

-is there consistency in sampling and analysis so that results are anticipated to be reproducible;

d. Completeness

-does the project allow for a sufficient number of samples to be collected, and meet projected data quality objectives; and e. Report -- write a report to the Project Manager describingany discrepancies or concerns, and recommended solutions consistent with data quality objectives.

31 Management System Review Following initiation of project sampling and data collection the QA/QC Officer will conduct periodic reviews to verify that the system developed meets the criteria listed above in the Project Development section. In addition, the QA/QC Officer will review project performance with respect to data flow to confirm that verification and validation is functioning in an efficient manner and at a level such that data quality objectives are being maintained. These actions may include both field and laboratory surveillance and audits.Field Surveillance and Audits For each field effort, the crew leader will send a copy of the signed field data sheet and the daily sampling record sheet to the QA/QC Officer. The QA/QC Officer will: 1. Review and validate by signature and date, the field data sheet and daily sampling record for completeness and signature of the crew leader;2. Contact the crew leader for any data not present on the field sheets or daily sampling record;3. Verify by inspection of daily sampling sheets, sample labels, transport chain-of-custody logs, and sample receipt log-in forms that all samples collected are accounted for at the appropriate site for analysis;4. Maintain custody of the field data sheet and daily sampling record and sample receipt log in forms (copies) to facilitate subsequent validation for completeness of data analysis and data reporting;

5. Perform occasional (twice per year minimum) on-site. field audits to evaluate project efficiency and QA/QC procedures; and 6. Prepare a QA memorandum to the Project Manager on the quality-related status of the field effort. These reports will contain details of any deviations that occurred and their corresponding justifications.

Other information may relate to corrective actions taken in response to problems encountered in the field, and whether the data collected appeared adequate to meet data quality objectives.

Laboratory Surveillance and Audit The QA/QC Officer will conduct an audit of the in-house or sub-contract laboratory to evaluate the degree of adherence to established sample management systems. Specificitems the QA/QC Officer will review include the following:

1. Adherence to internal QA/QC measures specified in the laboratory standard operating procedures (SOP) or General Quality Assurance Manual (QAM);2. Assessment of sample labeling, sub-sample handling, and sample tracking performance and procedures, 3. Assessment of acceptability, performance, and procedures associated with consistency of taxonomic identification, data management, and expert verification; 32

4. Assessment of data management performance; and 5. Preparation of a memorandum to the Project Manager on the status of the laboratory performance effort to include QA/QC acceptability, any discrepancies or concerns, and recommended solutions consistent with data quality objectives.

Data Collection Review Following each sampling event and at the termination of the data collection period, the QA/QC Officer will review key components of the project sample collection activities to include the following:

1. Sampling design -ensure the appropriate type, number and location for each sample as specified in the project plan have been collected;

2. Sampling procedures

-review of all field and laboratory documentation to check adherence to methods described in project plan and documentation of deviations;

3. Sample handling -check of sample labeling conventions and consistency, sample tracking, and chain-of-custody records to match sample location;4. Analytical procedures

-review and inclusion of laboratory audit results;5. Calibration

-review of equipment performance, maintenance, and field meter calibration documentation; and 6. Prepare a Data Collection memorandum to the Project Manager regarding acceptability of the data collection and sample handling to specifically include samples that could be rejected as invalid or used only in a qualitative manner, deviations from the project plan, the need and purpose for additional sample collection activities.

Data Validation Upon completion of the final field collection activities and sample analyses the QA/QC Officer will conduct a final Data Collection Review and subsequent Data Validation Review. The Data Validation Review will include the following:

1. Comparison of the final Data Collection Review to the reporting level requirements designated for the project;2. Comparison of daily sampling logs, sampling dates, sub-samples, laboratory sample records, and sample analysis dates to check that all samples were analyzed;3. Review of analytical or evaluation and taxonomic validation methods with sample analysis bench sheets or summary data reports to verify data entry and transfer;4. Review of all auxiliary data entries (calibration, water quality etc.) with data entry and transfer to verify date and sample associations; and 5. Coordinate a preliminary Data Analysis Review among project managers to verify data application with statistical test selection. The preliminary Data Analysis Reviewwill focus on the following:

f. Review of data quality objectives;

g. Review of data format;

h. Determination of descriptive statistical parameters; 33

i. Identification of key statistical test assumptions;

j. Selection of valid parametric or non-parametric tests that are supported by the data; and k. Prepare a Data Validation memo to the Project Manager that identifies all non-valid samples, protocol and procedural discrepancies, and verifies the QA/QC status and acceptability of the data to meet project data quality objectives.

This Quality Assurance and Quality Control section provides a detailed framework from which a project-specific QA/QC program can be designed.

In general, acceptable QA/QC programs and procedures will be used to verify sample collection adequacy and accuracy, and facilitate sample management, identifications, and data analysis.

34 Appendix 2 Section 316 (b), Phase II Fish Impingement Mortality andEntrainment Characterization Study at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant.\cA-SECTION 316(b), PHASE II FISH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY AND ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AT THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT 2005-2007 OCTOBER 2007 SECTION 316(b), PHASE II FISH IMPINGEMENT MORTALITY AND ENTRAINMENT CHARACTERIZATION STUDY AT THE DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT 2005-2007 Prepared for AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 Prepared by NORMANDEAU ASSOCIATES, INC.25 Nashua Road Bedford, NHI 03110 R-20452.000 October 2007 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table of Contents Page

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1 2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS

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

2 2.1 IMPINGEMENT FIELD PROCEDURES

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

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

2 2.2 ENTRAINMENT METHODS............................................................................................

2 2.2.1 Ichthyoplankton (Entrainment and Nearfield Sampling)

Laboratory Processing Procedures

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

3 2.3 NEARFIELD SAMPLING ..... .........................................................................................

3 2.3.1 Ichthyoplankton Sampling ............................................................................

42.3.2 Gill Net Sampling ..........................................................................................

5 2.3.3 Otter Trawl Sampling

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

52.3.4 Seine Sam pling ..............................................................................................

5 2.4 ANALYTIC METHODS ............................................................................

..........

6 2.4.1 Entrainment Analytic Methods

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

6 2.4.2 Impingement Analytic Methods

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

6 2.4.3 Nearfield Sampling Analytic Methods

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

6 2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL (QA/QC) METHODS AND SAMPLE CHAIN OF C U STO D Y ..........................................................................................................................

7 2.5.1 Tasks Subject to Quality Control ....................................................................

7 2.5.2 Inspection Plans ............................................................................................

7 2.5.3 Acceptance/Rejection Criteria ..........

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

.. 82.5.4 Quality Control Records ............................ ...........9

2.5.5 Reference

Collection

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

9 3.0 RESULTS ...............................................................................................................................

10 3.1 EN TRA IN M EN T .........................................................................

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

10 3.2 IM PIN GEM EN T ............................................................................... ..................................

17 3 .2 .1 U n it I ................................................. ...............................................................

17 3.2.2 U nit 2 .........................................................

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

22 3.3 NEARFIELD SAMPLING .............................................................................................

29 3.3.1 Ichthyoplankton Sampling ...........................................................................

29 3.3.2 Gill Net Sampling .........................................................................................

36 3.3.3 Otter Trawl Sampling

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

37 3.3.4 Seine Sampling .............................................................................................

.45 3.4 WATER QUALITY ..... ....................

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

47 3.4.1 Ichthyoplankton Water Quality Sampling

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

473.4.2 Gill Net Water Quality Sampling .................................................................

47 3.4.3 Otter Trawl Water Quality Sampling ...........................................................

473.4.4 Seine Water Quality Sampling ......................................................................

48 3.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) RESULTS ...................

48 4.0 DISCUSSION

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

49 5.0 LITERATURE CITED ..........................................................................................................

52 APPENDIX 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 ii. Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY List of Figures Page Figure 2-1. Location of sampling stations in the nearfield area in the vicinity of Cook N uclear P lant .........................................................................................................................

4 Figure 3-1. Estimated total entrainment (in millions) of fish eggs, larvae, and young-of-the-year and older fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007

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

11 Figure 3-2. Estimated species composition of fish eggs entrained (in millions) by month atCook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 ....................................................................................................

12 Figure 3-3. Estimated species composition of fish larvae entrained (in millions) by month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007. ...........................................

13 Figure 3-4. Estimated species composition of young-of-the-year and older fish larvae entrained (in millions) by month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 .....................................

14 Figure 3-5. Estimated total number of fish impinged and species composition by month at Unit 1 of Cook Nuclear Power Place February 2006 through January 2007 ........ 20 Figure 3-6. Estimated biomass (kg) of fish impinged and biomass composition by month at Unit 1 of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007

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

23 Figure 3-7. Estimated total number of fish impinged and species composition by month at Unit 2 of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007 ..............

,..............

24 Figure 3-8. Estimated biomass (kg) of fish impinged and biomass composition by month at Unit 2 of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007 ...........................

31 Figure 3-9. Mean Ichthyoplankton Density (No./100 M 3) at the Ichthyoplankton Sampling Stations in the Nearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off C ook N uclear Plant ........................................................................................................

31 Figure 3-10. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/hour) at the Gill Net Sampling Stations in the Nearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off Cook Nuclear P lant ....... ............................................................................................................................

.3 7 Figure 3-11. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/trawl) at the Trawl Sampling Stations in the Nearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off Cook Nuclear P lan t .....................................................................................................................................

4 3 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 iii :. Normandeau Associates, Inc.ocs 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY List of Tables Page Table 3-1. Estimated number (in millions) of fish eggs, larvae, and young-of-year and older fish Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 .............

1.1........................................................

I I Table 3-2. Estimated number (in millions) of Fish Eggs Entrained by Month at CookNuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 ........................................................................................................................

12 Table 3-3. Estimated number (in millions) of Fish Larvae Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 ........................................................................................................................

13 Table 3-4. Estimated number (in millions) of Young-of-the-Year and Older Fish Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Power Plan Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 ...........................................................................

14 Table 3-5. Comparison of fish entrainment estimates (in millions) between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear P lant .....................................................................................................................................

15Table 3-6.

Entrainment estimates (in millions) for each lifestage among the four diel periods sam pled at the Cook Nuclear Plant ...............................................................................

16 Table 3-7. Results of Analysis of Variance of Entrained Ichthyoplankton Lifestages at Cook Nuclear Plant. Data are Log10 (x+l) transformed

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

16 Table 3-8. Results of Least Squares Mean Multiple Comparisons Tests among'Months forMonthly Egg Entrainment Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

17 Table 3-9. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged, at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 .............. 18 Table 3-10. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1.D ata are Log 1 o (x+l) transform ed .....................................................................

I ..........

20 Table 3-11. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for TotalImpingement Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

20 Table 3-12. Results of Analysis of Variance of Yellow Perch Impingement at Cook NuclearPlant Unit 1. Data are Log10 (x+l) transformed

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

21 Table 3-13. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit

1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

21 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 iv Normandeau Associates, Inc.-

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-14. Results of Analysis of Variance of Alewife Impingement at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Data are Logio (x+1) transformed

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

21 Table 3-15. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit

1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different..............................

21 Table 3-16. Results of Analysis of Variance of Spottail Shiner Impingement at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Data are Log10 (x+l) transform ed ..............................................................

21 Table 3-17. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

22 Table 3-18. Comparison of fish impingement estimates between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 ..........

23 Table 3-19. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged, at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2, AssumingDesign Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007 ............................

25 Table 3-20. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2.Data are Log10 (x+l) transformed

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

27 Table 3-21. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for TotalImpingement Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

27 Table 3-22. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Data are Log 1 o (x+1) transformed

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

27 Table 3-23. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit

2. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

27 Table 3-24. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Data are Log 1 o (x+ 1) transformed

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

28 Table 3-25. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit

2. Months marked with an x in the sam e row are not significantly different

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

I ...............

I ...............................

28 Table 3-26. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Data are Log10 (x+l) transform ed ...........................................................................

28 Table 3-27. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

29 Table 3-28. Comparison of fish impingement estimates between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2 ...................

29 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 v Normandeau Associates, Inc.t10 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-29. Mean Density (No./100 m 3) of lchthyoplankton Collected at the Shoreline Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant July through November 2005, and April through November 2006 ......................................

30 Table 3-30. Mean Density (No./100 M 3) of Ichthyoplankton Collected at the Surface, Mid-depth (11 ft) and Bottom (22 ft) of the Intake Station in the Vicinity of CookNuclear Plant June through November 2005, and April through November 2006 ...........

33 Table 3-3 1. Mean Density (No./100 in 3) of Ichthyoplankton Collected at the Surface to Mid-depth (0-20 ft) and Bottom (30-40 ft) of the Experimental Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant June through November 2005, and April through N ovem ber 2006 ..................................................................................................................

35 Table 3-32. Results of Analysis of Variance of Ichthyoplankton Densities in the Nearfield Area at Cook N uclear Plant ........ .... ...........................................................................

36 Table 3-33. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/hour) for Fish Captured in the Gill Net at the Intake Station (22 ft) and Experimental Station (40 ft) in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006 ...........

38 Table 3-34. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/trawl) for Fish Captured in the Otter Trawl atthe Shoreline Station (5 ft) Intake Station (22 ft) and Experimental Station (40 ft)in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through N ovem ber 2006 ..............................................................................................

40 Table 3-35. Results of Analysis of Variation of Trawl CPUE in the Nearfield Area of CookNuclear Plant. Data are Log 1 o (x+l) transformed

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

44 Table 3-36. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Otter Trawl CPUE (catch per trawl) in the Nearfield Area of Cook Nuclear Plant. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

45 Table 3-37. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Sampling Stations for Otter Trawl. CPUE (catch per trawl) in the Nearfield Area of Cook Nuclear Plant.Stations marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different

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

45 Table 3-38. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/haul) for Fish Captured in the Seine at .the Shore Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006 ............................................................................

46 Table 4-1. Average number of fish eggs entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant between 1978 and 1982, and in the present study .......................................................................................

49 Table 4-2. Annual Average number of fish larvae entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant between 1975 and 1982 and in the present study .............................................................................

50 Table 4-3. Annual Average number of fish Impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant (Units I and 2)between 1975 and 1982 and in the present study ...............................................................

50 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 118/Oa vi Normandeau Associates; lInc.

316(b) PHASE I1 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 4-4. Mean Monthly Total Ichthyoplankton Density at Sampling Stations in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant June through November 2005 and April through N ovem ber 2006

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

52 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 vii Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE IBASELINE FISH E & I STUDY

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Impingement and entrainment studies were conducted at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (Cook Nuclear Plant) between June 2005 and January 2007 as part of the compliance effort associated with the Section 316(b), Phase II rule published by U.S. EPA in the Federal Register July 9, 2004. As part of the impingement mortality and entrainment studies, fish and ichthyoplankton sampling was conducted in Lake Michigan near the Cook Nuclear Plant from June 2005 through January 2007.The Phase II rule established the procedures for complying with Section 316(b) at steam electric plants generating electricity for sale and distribution. Performance criteria were established in the rule for the protection of impinged and entrained aquatic and marine life. These criteria were measured against the calculation baseline, which was to be determined for each facility subject to the rule. The calculation baseline was defined in 40 CFR Section 125.93 as the estimated or actualimpingement mortality and entrainment (IM&E) that would occur assuming that the cooling water system conforms with a standard configuration called the baseline case in the rule, which including a bulkhead intake and there are no structural and operational controls that would reduce impingement mortality and entrainment, and the traveling water screens were 3/8th-in, mesh. The rule intended the calculation baseline to be the estimated impingement mortality and entrainment rate for a facility that had no controls to reduce IM&E and used the most common location for intake structures on thewater body.Cook Nuclear Plant does not have a baseline case cooling water intake structure as defined inthe rule.

Details on the cooling water intake structure and cooling water flows are found in AEPSC (2005). Cooling water at Cook Nuclear Plant is withdrawn through three intake tunnels equipped with velocity caps located about 2,250 ft offshore.

The location of these tunnels and velocity caps mayserve to reduce IM&E from that which may occur at a baseline case intake structure. Ichthyoplankton and fish sampling in the vicinity of the intakes (nearfield area) was conducted to provide the data that may be used to estimate the reduction in IM&E due to the location and configuration of the intakes.This report presents the results of the impingement and entrainment monitoring program and nearfield sampling program. Impingement mortality and entrainment estimates are made for the study period assuming the impingement mortality and entrainment rates were proportional to intake flow and the plant used the design intake flow 100% of the year. Results from the nearfield sampling are also presented and discussed to characterize the fish community in the vicinity of the intakes.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 2 o1- Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I1 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 2.0 METHODS AND MATERIALS Detailed field and laboratory methods are presented in the project Standard Operating Procedures (NAI 2007).

The following is a summary of the methods used in the project.2.1 IMPINGEMENT FIELD PROCEDURES Impingement samples were collected in the last week of June 2005, every other week fromJuly 2005 through January 2006, and then twice per week February 2006 through January 2007.

A total of 244 samples were scheduled for the period of June 2005 through January 2007, all of which were collected.

The sample consisted of all screenwash material (debris and fish) trapped on the traveling screens during the 12 hour1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months diel collection period. Screenwash material was washed from the screens and into metal mesh baskets (29.25 x 35 x 35 inches). The screenwash material from Units 1 and 2 were kept separate. Samples consisted of two 12-hour collection periods (0400-1600and 1600-0400 hours). A typical sample day started with the washing of the traveling screens at 0330 for 30 minutes to clear the traveling screens of material prior to the start of the 0400-1600 hrs sample.The termination of the daytime sample (0400-1600 hrs) initiated the beginning of the night sample which ran from approximately 1600 until 0400 the next day. During events where the debris baskets filled before the preset sample termination, the baskets were emptied and all screenwash material sorted and fish enumerated. These fish were considered part of the overall diel sample and included in the final 12 hour1.388889e-4 days 0.00333 hours 1.984127e-5 weeks 4.566e-6 months sampling event.Whenever possible, all fish were separated from the screenwash material and identified to species. Additionally, species were separated by length class (those estimated.

to be young of year (YOY) and those considered to be yearling or older). The first 50 of each species and length class were measured (total length to the nearest mm), weighed (nearest g), and designated as live (moving,red gill filaments) or dead (decaying, light pink/white gill filaments).

The remaining fish in a species and lifestage were counted and weighed as an aggregate.

If an extremely large number of fish orlifestage were present, the number and weight of the remaining fish were estimated throughgravimetric subsampling.

In addition to the fish counts, the amount of debris collected in eachsample was estimated and recorded.Subsampling of the entire screenwash material occurred when there were large amounts ofdebris or fish. Subsampling consisted of taking a manageable section of the debris from the entire sample (rarely less than 1/10 of the total screenwash mdterial).

The fish from these subsamples were enumerated per unit volume and scaled up to the total volume of screenwash material impinged in the sample.2.2 ENTRAINMENT METHODS Entrainment samples were collected from June-November 2005, and February 2006-January 2007. During 2005, entrainment samples were taken once per week from June 23, 2005 through August 31, 2005 and twice per month from September 1, 2005 through November 30, 2005. During 2006-2007, one monthly entrainment sample was collected during February, October, November, and December of 2006 and in January 2007. Sampling was conducted weekly between 20 March 2006and 29 May 2006 as well as 4 September 2006 and 29 September 2006. Between 5 June and 28 August 2006, sampling was conducted twice weekly.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08: 2 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE/I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Entrainment samples were collected using an electric trash pump with three inch intake and discharge openings.

Water was drawn up through flexible three-in diameter hose suspended near the surface in the forebay and then pumped into a 0.300-mm mesh plankton net placed within a plastic tank. This was considered to be a well-mixed sample because water had already been withdrawn through the offshore intake and traveled through the 16-ft diameter intake tunnels located 2,250 ft offshore in 24 ft of water before reaching the forebay.

Each sampling period consisted of four samples of 6-hour duration during a 24-hour period (0300-0900, 0900-1500, 1500-2100, 2100-0300).

Water was pumped from a grate located near the center point of intake forebay from a depth approximately 8-10 ft below the water surface. Sample water was discharged into the entrainment sampling tank at a rate of 80-110 gpm until the flow meter registered that over 27000 gallons, or 100 in 3 , of water had been sampled (approximately 5-6 hours). Previous entrainment sampling conducted in the Cook Nuclear Plant intake forebay indicated the water entering the intake bay was well mixed both horizontally and vertically and there was no potential for stratification of organisms (Bimber et.al. 1984). Therefore the sample location ensured a uniform and representative sample. A total of 252 entrainment samples were scheduled and collected for the program.

The sampling pump was periodically calibrated to the known 110-gallon volume of the sample tank in order to ensure that the amount of error between the calculated gallons/minute and that registered by the flow meter was less than 5 %.At the termination of an entrainment sample, the pump was stopped and the net removed from the tank.

The sample was washed down into the cod-end of the plankton net and then placedinto a one quart sample jar. The net was then replaced and the pump restarted to begin the next sample. The jar was removed from the screenhouse and brought back to the on-site trailer where the sample was preserved in 5 % formalin.2.2.1 Ichthyoplankton (Entrainment and Nearfield Sampling)

Laboratory Processing Procedures Entrainment and nearfield ichthyoplankton samples were sorted to remove fish eggs and larvae. Samples with high abundances were sub-sampled with a Motoda plankton splitter to provide a minimum of 200 eggs and larvae combined. Specimens were identified (usually to species level) and.enumerated by life stage (eggs, yolk-sac larvae, post yolk-sac larvae, young-of-the-year, and yearling or older). The descriptions of the larval stages are as follows: Yolk-sac larva: the transition stage from hatching through the development of a complete, functional digestive system.Postyolk-sac larva: the transitional stage from the development of a complete functional digestive system to transformation to the juvenile form.Young-of-the-year:

the stage from complete transformation to Age 1 (ie. 12 months after hatching).

A young-of-the-year has a full complement of fin rays identical to that of an adult.Yearling or older: a fish at least one year old.2.3 NEARFIELD SAMPLING The fisheries resources in the vicinity of the intakes were sampled to characterize theresources and to evaluate alternative intake locations (Figure 2-1). The ichthyoplankton community 20452 Cook 31WBaseline Final.doc 1/8/08 3 Normandeau Associatesi-Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Figure 2-1. Location of sampling stations in the nearfield area in the vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant.was sampled at six depth-station combinations using an ichthyoplankton net. The shoreline fish community was sampled with a beach seine. The demersal fish community was sampled with an otter trawl at three stations and the pelagic fish community was sampled with gill nets at two stations.Water quality measurements were also taken at each station and depth when possible.Dissolved oxygen (mg/i) and temperature

(°C) were taken at each station while current (ft/sec) was measured at two gillnet stations.Air temperature

('C), wind speed (mph), water clarity by Secchi disk depth (m), weather, and wave height (ft) and direction were also recorded for each sample when possible.2.3.1 Ichthyoplankton Sampling Ichthyoplankton samples were collected at six stations.

A day and night sample was collected once per month from June-November 2005 and April-November 2006 with a target volume of 50 M 3.The night sampling on 2 June 2005 was not conducted due to weather resulting in 189 of the 196 possible samples collected.

A 0.5 m conical ichthyoplankton net and calibrated flow meter was used for the collection of samples at the following stations:

shoreline station, between 1-6 ft deep (two samples), 22-ft intake 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Finaldoc 1/8/08 4 Nortnandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDYstation (samples taken at surface, 10 ft, and 22 ft), and the 40-ft experimental station (one sample combining surface, 10-ft, and 20-ft depth trawls, and one sample combining 30-ft and 40-ft depth trawls).Surface tows were conducted by attaching a float to the top of the ichthyoplankton net ensuring the entire sample was from the surface. At depth tows were conducted by attaching a weightto the net and towing it by a line of predetermined length at a 450 angle to the water's surface to ensure that the sample was collected at the specified depths.Samples collected were washed down into the cod end from the outside of the net and then transferred to sample jars. Sample were preserved in 5% formalin and labeled. Shoreline and intakestation samples were individually preserved.

At the experimental station, surface, I 0-ft, and 20-ft tows were combined into one sample as will the 30-ft and 40-ft plankton tows.2.3.2 Gill Net Sampling Experimental gill nets were used to sample pelagic fish communities at the 22-ft intake depth and the 40-ft experimental depth. Gill net samples were conducted during day and night once permonth from June-November 2005 and April-November 2006. All 56 possible samples were collected during the study.Sampling was conducted with 100-ft, four-panel experimental gill nets. Each 25-ft panel had a different mesh size (1/2-in, 1-in, 2-in, and 3-in bar mesh size). Gill nets were set at depth perpendicular to the eastern shoreline south of the no boating zone. Nets were fished for four hours and then retrieved.

All fish were removed from the net and identified to species, measured (mm), weighed (g) and released.2.3.3 Otter Trawl Sampling An otter trawl was used to sample demersal fish communities at the shoreline station (6 ft), intake depth (22 ft), and experimental depth (40 ft). Sampling'was conducted June-November 2005 and April-November 2006. In 2005, no shoreline sampling occurred June-September (8 samples total) resulting in 76 samples collected of the 84 possible.

The otter trawl was 18 ft long with 1/2-inbar mesh and a cod end with 1/8-in bar mesh.Otter trawls were set from the boat at the specified depth and towed south (parallel to the shoreline) at a similar depth for approximately 400 m. The net was then retrieved and all fish werecollected, identified to species, measured (mm), weighed (g) and released.2.3.4 Seine Sampling Seine surveys were used to sample shoreline fish communities. Sampling occurred at two sites along the shoreline August-November 2005 and April-November 2006. No sampling occurred in June or July of 2005 resulting in 48 of 56 possible samples being collected.

A 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh, 1/16-in bar mesh bag) was anchored to the shoreline while the other end was pulled out and then around back to the beach by the boat. The seine was then pulled in and the bag examined for fish. All fish were identified, measured (mm), weighed (g) and released.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Finaldoc 118108 5 Normandeau Associates, Inc.\ N-7 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 2.4 ANALYTIC METHODS 2.4.1 Entrainment Analytic Methods.

Entrainment estimates were determined from sample counts and estimates of the actual volume of water pumped by the entrainment sampler during the sampling time frame.

Specifically, sample volume was determined in the field based on flowmeter readings.

Counts of entrained organisms determined in the lab were weighted by the sample split factor, and divided by the sample volume to calculate sample density for each diel sample:Density= (count*split factor) /sample volumeThese estimates of density were then multiplied by the design cooling Water intake flow for the diel period (specific to Unit I or 2) to estimate entrainment by the plant during the diel period.Entrainment estimates were derived for each day during the study period. Non-sample day estimates were calculated from sample day densities and weighted in proportion to their temporal proximity to sample days. Assignment of month was based on the Sunday date for each week, regardless of when actual samples were taken. Daily estimates were summed to obtain monthly estimates, and monthly estimates summed to obtain annual estimates. When appropriate, calculations were performed by taxon and life stage.

2.4.2 Impingement

Analytic Methods Densities of impinged organisms (No./unit of cooling water flow) were estimated for each diel sampling period based on the number of organisms impinged in the sample and the actual cooling water flow during the sample period. Impingement estimates for design cooling water flow were then estimated by multiplying these densities by the design cooling water flow for the diel period (specific to Unit 1 or 2).Mean weekly diel estimates of impingement at Unit I or Unit 2 were determined from one ortwo samples per week, and then the weekly impingement estimate was determined by multiplying ,these mean estimates by 7. Monthly estimates were calculated by summing the weekly estimates, andannual estimates were determined based on the sum of the monthly estimates.

Assignment of weeks to months was based on the month in which the Sunday of the sample week fell.Estimates for outage periods were calculated using actual sample data from the two sampled weeks preceding the outage, as well as the two sampled weeks following the outage.

Weekly estimates during the outage periods were apportioned from the four actual samples according to the temporal distance the estimated sample was from the actual sample.2.4.3 Nearfield Sampling Analytic MethodsCatch per unit effort (CPUE) was calculated for each type of sampling effort in the nearfield area. For ichthyoplankton sampling, CPUE was calculated as number of organisms per 100 m 3 sampled. Gill net CPUE was expressed as number of fish per hour of soak time. Trawl and seine CPUE were expressed as number of fish per trawl or seine haul.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 6 2iNormandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 2.5 QUALITY ASSURANCE AND CONTROL (QA/QC) METHODS AND SAMPLE CHAIN OF CUSTODY Impingement and nearfield fisheries samples were analyzed at Normandeau's on-site fieldoffice at the Cook Nuclear Plant or in the field and were subject to quality control inspections.During the two year study at Cook Nuclear Plant AEP and.Normandeau staff conducted two on-sitequality assurance audits. The first audit was conducted-by AEP in September 2005 and the second was conducted by Normandeau in January 2007. The AEP audit included impingement, entrainment and nearfield sampling.

Otter trawl sampling at the shore station was added as a result of this audit.

No significant deficiencies were noted. The second quality assurance audit was conducted by Normandeau in January 2006 and evaluated impingement field collection and laboratory processing at the Cook Nuclear Plant facility.

There were no deficiencies recorded in field collection process and laboratory processing of impingement samples in this audit.After each impingement sample the identification of a subsample of the fish were verified by the field supervisor and the technician. Any species that were not readily identifiable were brought from the site of collection to the field office where they were identified using taxonomic keys. Thesefish were then sent to the biological lab in Bedford, NH where the identification was verified and they were added to the voucher collection.

Entrainment samples were shipped to Normandeau's Bedford New Hampshire Laboratory with a chain of custody documentation with the following information: Sample collection date, sample collection time, sample identification number and number of jars per sample. Upon receipt of the samples, a Bedford Laboratory representative verified that all jars of all samples were present and signed and dated the chain of custody document.

In the laboratory samples were tracked during all phases of analysis by means of sample control logs.2.5.1 Tasks Subject to Quality Control The following tasks were subjected to quality control checks consisting of reanalysis of randomly selected samples or measurements:

2.5.2 Inspection

Plans Items are inspected using a quality control (QC) procedure derived from MIL-STD (military-standard) 1235B (single and multiple level continuous sampling procedures and tables for inspection by attributes) to achieve a 10 percent or better AOQL (Average Outgoing Quality Limit).

The QC procedure used is the CSP-1 continuous sampling plan, which is conducted in two modes as follows: Mode 1. One hundred percent of the samples were reinspected until "i" consecutive samples passed.Mode 2. After "'T consecutive samples passed QC reinspection, a random numbers table was used to select the fraction "fV of the samples for reinspection.

If any QC samples failedthen that individual's quality control inspection returned t6Mode 1.For this application of CSP-1, i=8 and f=-I/7, because the total number of samples analyzed by an individual were less than 500. Items for reanalysis according to the plan were selected using a random number table. The original analyzer did not know whether a sample would be checked before the analysis of that sample had been completed.

All quality control checks were performed "blindly" 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 7 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I1 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY (i.e., the individual performing the QC inspection did not have knowledge of the original analyst's results).The QC plan was applied on an individual processor basis, so that each person's work was subjected to the QC plan independently of others, starting at 100% inspection.

A resolution (third person) value may be determined for any sample found defective.

Allerrors found during the QC check, whether the sample was found to be defective or not, were corrected on the data sheets. (A difference between original and QC counts that is within acceptable limits is not considered to be an error).

2.5.3 Acceptance/Rejection Criteria 2.5.3.1 Sorting A sample was considered defective if the sorter failed to remove 10 percent of the total organisms in the sample (or subsample). Percent error was calculated as follows (where "QC count" denotes the number missed by the sorter): 2.5.3.2 Identification A sample was considered defective if an error of 10 percent or more is made in identifying, assigning a life stage, or counting any species. In determining whether a sample is defective, analyzer and QC results were compared within each taxon/life stage combination.

For each taxon (or for a life stage within a taxon) the percent error was calculated as follows (except where the QC count is 20, the percent error is considered to be zero if analyzer and QC counts differ by no more than two organisms):

% error = 100% x I analyzer count -QC count I/QC countA sample with a percent error of greater than or equal to 10% for any life stage for any taxon wasconsidered defective.

For each defective sample, a resolution was determined in which a third person reanalyzed the sample (resolution value). The error for each species and life stage was then be calculated using the resolution counts as the divisor. This was done for both identification and QC counts:% error = 100% x ]identifier count -resolution count I/resolution count% error = 100% x I QC count -resolution count / resolution count If the resolution vs. identifier error was <10 percent, the sample passed. If they were not, thesample failed and identifier counts were replaced by QC counts for all cases, provided the QC vs.resolution error was <10 percent. If the resolution vs. identifier and the resolution vs. QC errors were both 10 percent or more, the sample was thoroughly reviewed by all three people and the identifier's sample processing did not continue until agreement was reached on the identification of the sample.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08-.8 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE H BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 2.5.4 Quality Control Records Quality control logs were carefully maintained,;

documenting the samples analyzed, thesamples selected for reanalysis according to the QC plan, the results of the QC analysis, and anycorrective action performed.

2.5.5 Reference

Collection Each taxon and life stage identified in the Cook Nuclear Plant entrainment program wasrepresented in the general ichthyoplankton reference collection at Normandeau's biology laboratory.

In addition, type specimens were retained for all taxa identified in the impingement and nearfield fisheries program.2.5.6 Data Processing 2.5.6.1 Data Entry Verification and Data Sheet Chain of Custody A submittal form with each batch of data sheets was submitted to the Technical Data Processing (TDP) department for data entry.' Information on the submittal form included names of sender and recipient, date sent, and dates of impingement collections included in the batch. All data entries were keypunched twice, and discrepancies between the two versions were resolved as they were flagged by the data verification program.2.5.6.2 Systematic Error Checks Keyed data were subjected to a series of systematic error checking programs developed specifically for the Cook Nuclear plant Project. These checks consisted of uinivariate, bivariate, and multivariate checks. Univariate range checks identified records for which one or more variables had values outside their valid or expected ranges. Bivariate and multivariate checks compared values of related variables.

Additional checks scanned the data for duplicate or missing observations.

Allrecords flagged by these programs were resolved, and corrections to both the data files and the data sheets were made as necessary.

2.5.6.4 Quality Control of Data Files After the systematic error checking process data files underwent a QC inspection to assure a 1% AOQL (Average Outgoing Quality Limit) according to a lot sampling plan (American Society for Quality Control 1993). This procedure insured that -a99% of the observations in a data file agreedwith the original data sheets..:...20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 9 Normandeau-Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 3.0 RESULTS Impingement and entrainment sampling took place at Cook Nuclear Plant for 20 consecutive months from June 2005 through January 2007. This results section will focus on the 12 month periodfrom February 2006 through January 2007 (primary study period) to provide annual estimates of the number of organisms entrained and impinged at the plant. The remaining eight months of June 2005 through January 2006 will be compared with the corresponding months of June through January 2006 to provide an estimate of the variability in entrainment and impingement between years. Appendix Tables A through G present monthly estimates of entrainment of each lifestage for each month of the study.Nearfield sampling took place from June through November 2005 and April through November 2006. The entire data set will be used to characterize the ichthyoplankton and fish community in the vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant.3.1 ENTRAINMENTAn estimated 105.72 million fish eggs, larvae and older fish were entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant from February 2006 through January 2007 (Table 3-1; Appendix Table A). Larvae were the predominant lifestage entrained (Figure 3-1). The greatest amount of entrainment occurred in July (41.90 million) and June 2006 (36.47 million), accounting for 74% of the annual total.

Cyprinids (10.51 million in June) and round goby (27.68 million in July) were the most common taxa entrainedin June and July 2006. For the entire 12-month period, round goby, cyprinids, and alewife were the most common taxa entrained, accounting for 82% of the annul total.An estimated 16.86 million fish eggs were entrained during the 12-month primary study period (Table 3-2; Figure 3-2; Appendix Table B). Most (87%) of the egg entrainment occurred in June 2006 (14.74 million) and this was primarily alewife eggs (7.01 million). Alewife (7.08 million).cyprinid (4.42 million) and unidentified eggs (3.78 million) were the most common egg taxa entrained during the primary study period, accounting for 91% of the annual total.An estimated 83.82 million fish larvae were entrained during the primary study period (Table 3-3; Figure 3-3; Appendix Tables C, D, E,). Most of this entrainment occurred in June (21.59 million) and July (41.52 million) 2006 accounting for 75% of the annual total.

In June and July, round goby (9.73 million in June; July: 27.68 million in July) and cyprinids (7.63 million in June;7.39 million in July) were the dominant fish larvae entrained.

For the 12-month primary study period, round goby (44.04 million) and cyprinids (16.87 million) were the most common larval taxa entrained, accounting for 87% of the annual total.An estimated 5.04 million YOY and older fish were entrained during the primary study period (Table 3-4; Figure 374;. Appendix Tables F and G). Highest entrainment of YOY and older fish occurred in August when 1.09 million fish were entrained.

The majority (54%) of the August entrainment were alewife (0.59 million).

For the 12-month primary study period, yellow perch (1.58 million), spottail shiner (1.13 million), and round goby (1.08 million) were the most commonfish entrained.Entrainment data collected from July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 provide an opportunity to assess variability in entrainment estimates among comparable 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-1. Estimated number (in millions) of fish eggs, larvae, and young-of-year and older fish Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep-I Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan-06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Total Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.57 6.23 1.48 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.19 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 Rainbow smelt 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 3.93 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.77 Round goby 0.04 0.41 0.49 0.64 9.73 27.68 4.23 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.11 Round 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 whitefish Slimy sculpin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.1 4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 1.13 Unidentified 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.24 3.50 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.21 Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 10.51 7.61 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.29 Cyparinidae

__ _ _ -__ ..~... --.... ... .....................

..____White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.000.00 0.13 Yellow perch 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.09 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00

{ 1.88 All species 0.59 0.86 0.95 4.11 36.47 41.90 10.20 9.16 0.00 0.15 0.75 10.58 105.72 45.00 40.00 35.00 30.00 E.S gl 25.00 0 20.00 E LU 15.00 OY-O-Yand Older 0 Larvae m Eggs 10.00 TI s5on 0-m I II rm --0.00 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-1. Estimated total entrainment (in millions) of fish eggs, larvae, and young-of-the-year and older fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8108I I Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-2. Estimated number (in millions) of Fish Eggs Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- j Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan-06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Total Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 Common carp -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy sculpin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Unidentified 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.24 3.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.78Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 2.88 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 cyprinidae White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellmyperch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 All species 0.00 0.08 0.19 1.56 14.74 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.86 16 14 12 10 E g E Uj U Minnows O3Unid.SCarp EAtewife Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-2. Estimated species composition of fish eggs entrained (in millions) by month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.20452 Cook 316b Raseline Final doc 1/13/08 12 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-3. Estimated number (in millions) of Fish Larvae Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan-06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Total Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.421 6.16 0.89 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.38 Common carpT_ 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 3.93 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.26 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 9.73 27.68 4.09 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.04Round whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Slimy sculpin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27shiner __j0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 7.63 7.39 T 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.87 cyprinidae_-

-White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 All species 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.41 21.59 41.52 9.11 9.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 83.82 45 401-35 -o 0E 30 E 25 W 20 15 E r=Uj TOther -OAlewife* Cyplnidae*Round Goby 10 5 0 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-3. Estimated species composition of fish larvae entrained (in millions) by month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.2041;2 rnnk IIAh RanalinA Final dnr 1/A/f)R I1I Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-4. Estimated number (in millions) of Young-of-the-Year and Older Fish Entrained by Month at Cook Nuclear Power Plan Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.Feb- Mar- Apr-May- Jun- Jul-Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Total06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Round goby 0.04 0.41 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.08 Round whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy sculpin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 1.13 Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unidentified 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 cyprinidae White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 1.58 All species 0.59 0.79 0.61 0.14 0.14 0.09 1.09 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.75 0.58 5.04 1.2 r.0 E.E 0.8 V w 0 S0.6 9 0.4 0 E 0.2 ILl Feb-06 Mar-06 Apt-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-4. Estimated species composition of young-of-the-year and older fish larvae entrained (in millions) by month at Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doe 1/8/08 14 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-5. Comparison of fish entrainment estimates (in millions) between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear Plant.Lifestage

[ Year 1 Jul. Aug. Sep. ] Oct. Nov. Dec. I Jan. Total Total 2006-2007 41.90 10.20 9.16 0.00 0.15 0.75 0.58 62.74 2005-2006 106.32 27.20 13.11 4.21 1.92 2.91 0.81 156.48% Difference 154 167 43 1180 288 40 149 Eggs 2006-2007 0.29 00 0 0 0 0 0 0.29 2005-2006 43.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 43.22% Difference 14803 0 0 0 0 0 0 14803 Larvae 2006-2007 41.52 9.11 9.05 0 0 0 0 59.68 2005-2006 62.67 26.42 12.07 3.95 0 0 0 105.11% Difference 51 190 33 0 0 0 76 YOY and Older 2006-2007 0.09 1.09 0.11 0 0.15 0.75 0.58 2.77 2005-2006 0.43 0.79 1.04 0.26 1.92 2.91 0.81 8.16 1_ % Difference 378 -28 845 1180 288 40 195 There were substantial differences in entrainment estimates among diel periods (Table 3-6).Entrainment for all life stages combined was highest in the 2100-0300 diel period, followed by the 0300-0900 diel period. Entrainment of eggs was relatively similar among diel periods, but larval entrainment was much higher in 2100-0300 period compared to the other periods. Entrainment of post yolk-sac round goby was much higher in the 2100-0300 diel period (36.84 million) compared to the other three diel periods (0.07- 6.97 million; Appendix Table E) and made the largest contribution to overall higher entrainment in this diel period.Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to quantify the influence of month and diel period on entrainment estimates of each lifestage.

Eggs were only entrained in March through July and there were significant differences in entrainment estimates among months (Table 3-7; Figure 3-2). Egg entrainment in June 2006 was significantly greater than all other months and egg entrainment in May2006 was significantly greater than February 2006, August through December 2006, and January 2007 (Table 3-8). High estimates of alewife egg entrainment in May and June 2006 made these months significantly different from the majority of the other months.Monthly entrainment estimates for larvae did not show a consistent pattern among dielperiods and months, resulting in a significant interaction term of these two main effects. In general, larval entrainment was highest in the 2100-0300 hrs and 0300-0900 hrs diel periods (Table 3-5) and in June and July 2006 (Table 3-3). However, the significant interaction term between these main effects in the ANOVA indicates that the relationship varied among diel periods and months.

Entrainment estimates in a few month-diel combinations such as July 2006, 2100-0300 hours, June 2006, 2100-0300 hours, and July 2006, 0300-0900 hours were significantly higher than the other 45 month-diel combinations.

Post yolk-sac round goby larvae were dominant in the entrainment estimates for these periods along with post yolk-sac alewife larvae in the July 2006 0300-0900 estimate (Appendix Table E).Entrainment patterns of YOY and older fish also were also not consistent among months and diel period combinations as indicated by the significant interaction term. Entrainment of these lifestages was generally highest in August and lower in the 0900-1500 hours diel periods. However, entrainment of these lifestages was significantly higher in March 2006 1500-2100 hours, August 2006 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 15 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 0300-0900 hours, and January 2007 0300-0900 hours month-diel combinations compared to most of the other 45 month-diel combinations.

Yearling and older yellow perch and round goby were Table 3-6.Entrainment estimates (in millions) for each lifestage among the four diel periods samnled at the Cook Nuclear Plant.Diel Period ] Eggs ] Larvae YOY and Older All Lifestages Alewife 0300-0900 1.24 5.5 0.45 7.33 0900-1500 1.87 1.48 0.22 3.57 1500-2100 0.29 2.21 0 2.51 2100-0300 3.68 3.04 0.07 6.79 Rainbow smelt 0300-0900 0 4.2 0.51 4.7 0900-1500 0 0.14 0 0.14 1500-2100 0 1 0 1 2100-0300 0 3.92 0 3.92 Spottail shiner 0300-0900 0 0 0 0 0900-1500 0 0 0 0 1500-2100 0 0 0.26 0.26 2100-0300 0 0 0.87 0.87 Yellow perch 0300-0900 0 0 0.28 0.28 0900-1500 0 0.3 0 0.3 1500-2100 0 0 1.09 1.09 2100-0300 0 0 0.21 0.21 All species combined 0300-0900 3.92 23.48 1.38 32.14 0900-1500 2.58 2.44 0.22 5.46 1500-2100 5.56 3.36 1.77 11.11 2100-0300 4.79 48.82 1.68 57.01 Table 3-7. Results of Analysis of Variance of Entrained Ichthyoplankton Nuclear Plant. Data are Loglo (x+l) transformed.

Lifestages at Cook Lifestage Source of Variation df [ MS [ Pr>F Eggs Month(Year) 11 0.083 <0.001 Diel 3 0.002 0.517 Month(Year)

X Diel 33 0.001 0.994 Error 160 0.003 Larvae Month(Year) 11 0.304 <0.001 Diel 3 0.306 <0.001 Month(Year)

X Diel 33 0.059 <0.001 Error 160 0.007 YOY and Older Month(Year) 11 0.001 <0.001 Diel 3 0.002 <0.001 Month(Year)

X Diel 33 0.001 <0.001 Error 160 <0.001 I 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 16 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I1 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-8. Results of Least Squares Mean Multiple Comparisons Tests among Months for Monthly Egg Entrainment Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.Month and Year Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Aug- Feb- Jan- Mar- Apr- Jul- May- Jun-06 06 06 06 06 06 07 06 06 06 06 06 x x x x x x x x x x[IX X X X dominant in March 2006, 1500-2 100 hours0.00116 days 0.0278 hours 1.653439e-4 weeks 3.805e-5 months , YOY alewife were dominant in August 2006, 0300-0900 hours, and YOY spottail shiner were dominant in January, 2007 2100-0300 hours (Appendix Tables F and G).3.2 IMPINGEMENTImpingement estimates are presented and discussed for Units 1 and 2 of Cook Nuclear Plant.3.2.1 Unit 1 An estimated 561,211 fish were impinged at Unit I between February 2006 and January 2007, with the greatest amount of impingement occurring in February 2006 (237,285 fish)(Figure 3-5; Table 3-9). The majority of the fish impinged in the 12 month period were yellow perch (442,580; 79%), alewife (41,812; 7%) and spottail shiner (38,350; 7%). Impingement of yellow perch occurred in every month, but was highest in February, December, and March. Alewife were impinged every month except October and counts were highest in June. Spottail shiner were impinged every month and impingement was highest in December. These three fishes accounted for 93% of the fish impinged at Unit 1.There were significant differences in total impingement estimates among months, but no significant differences among diel periods (Table 3-10). Impingement was lower in the summer and early fall months compared to most other months (Table 3-11; Figure 3-5).Yellow perch were the most common fish impinged at Unit I and there were significant differences among months, but not diel periods (Tables 3-12, 3-13). Impingement of yellow perch was highest in February and December 2006 and lowest in the summer and fall (Figure 3-5). Fish from the 2005 year class were dominant in February 2006 and fish from the 2006 year class were dominant in December 2006.There were significant differences in alewife impingement among months at Unit 1 but not between diel periods (Tables 3-14, 3-15). In general, impingement of alewife was lowest in February through March and in September through October.

Impingement of alewife was highest in June and November 2006 (Figure 3-4) and these were predominantly from the 2005 year class in June and the 2006 year class in November.Impingement of spottail shiner at Unit I was significantly difference among months but not between diel periods (Tables 3-16, 3-17). Impingement was lowest in the summer months and highest in December, February and March. These were predominantly yearling and older fish (Figure 3-5).20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 17 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

0 0 0 0, U-a C, 0 0 il 0 0 0 Table 3-9. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged, at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.SMarch Ju2006 2007 Species February April May June July August September October November December Total Iota Alewife 193 29 63 1,015 34,170 592 698 18 0 3,351 1,492 192 41,812 Bloater 14 44 60 0 0 0 0 15 0 14 219 11 375 Bluegill 7 218 25 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 67 21 347 Bluntnose minnow 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Brook silverside 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Brown bullhead 0 11 4 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Brown trout 0 20 4 4 3 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 Burbot 21 98 7 18 7 0 0 0 0 17 22 31 222 Central mudminnow 0 48 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Channel catfish 469 315 64 14 11 0 18 1 10 15 31 101 1,048 Chestnut lamprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0 98 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 Coho 0 20 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Common carp 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 21 Deepwater sculpin 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 38 Eastern banded killifish 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Flathead catfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freshwater drum 0 0 0 11 0 0 4 6 4 0 8 0 33 Gizzard shad 381 1,085 21 0 0 0 0 5 68 481 5,056 1,130 8,227 Golden redhorse 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 40 Golden shiner 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater redhorse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Lake chub 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 Lake trout 0 4 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 3 29 0 53 Lake whitefish 713 137 56 7 0 14 0 0 0 28 2,715 765 4,436 Largemouth bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longnose dace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ý0 0 0 Longnose sucker 18 216 74 35 21 7 4 0 0 0 56 61 492 Mottled sculpin 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 11 Ninespine stickleback 14 0 42 91 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 Northern pike 0 20 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 (continued)

CO)rn r-n 20 CO)I--

0 Pa 0 0 0 W 0)0~oD CD CD Table 3-9. (Continued)

__2006 2007 Species ] February jMarch j April May [June July [August ] September October November December January Total Pumpkinseed 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Rainbow smelt 1,450 827 210 301 it 21 4 0 7 49 415 704 3,997 Rock bass 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 Round goby 983 928 1,282 6,648 1,491 956 517 205 64 788 1,559 508 15,929 Sea lamprey 200 78 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 376 Shorthead redhorse 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Silver redhorse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slimy sculpin 119 168 229 67 88 14 0 0 0 4 0 14 702 Smallmouth bass 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Spottail shiner 7,425 3,442 2,686 655 129 98 165 73 15 652 20,675 2,336 38,350 Steelhead 7 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Threespine stickleback 475 150 56 60 38 0 0 0 0 0 26 60 866 Trout-perch 0 49 0 17 10 0 0 0 0 14 150 24 265 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White perch 35 28 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 14 28 108 White sucker 4 71 4 28 32 3 0 4 0 0 28 488 221 Yellow perch 224,751 62,419 26,670 11,821 2,410 675 4,912 311 46 16,586 71,524 20,454 442,580 Total 237,285 170,631 31,635 20,808 38,455 2,473 6,321 638 225 22,026 104,128 26,586 561,211 (.0 ZZ Ti CO-T rnj N,-a z 0 Co 0 n.

3 16(b) PHASE!!/ BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 250000 200000 1 l Ul Other o Sp.ttail Shiner 0hAlewife

/*Yellow Perch r 150000 E CL E S10(0000 50000 0 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-5. Estimated total number of fish impinged and species composition by month at Unit I of Cook Nuclear Power Place February 2006 through January 2007.Table 3-10. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1.Data are Loglo (x+l) transformed.

Table 3-11. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Total Impingement Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Month and Year Feb-06 Dec- Mar- Jan-May- Apr- Jun-Nov- Aug- Jul-06 Sep- Oct-06 06 07 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 20 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I/ BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-12. Results of Analysis of Variance of Yellow Perch Impingement at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Data are Logto (x+l) transformed.

Species I Source of Variation df MS Pr>F Yellow Perch Month(Year) 11 9.47 <0.001 Diel 1 0.30 0.452 Month(Year)

X Diel 11 0.07 0.100 Error 84 0.53 Table 3-13. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Month and Year Feb-06 Dec- Mar- Jan- Apr- May- Nov- Aug- Jun- Jul-06 Sep- Oct-06 06 07 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 X X X X X X __ X x x x x x x x x x x x x xX X X X X _Table 3-14. Results of Analysis of Variance of Alewife Impingement at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Data are Logio (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation df MS Pr>FAlewife Month(Year) 11 5.71 <0.001 Diel 1 0.01 0.919 Month(Year)

X Diel 11 0.05 1.000 Error 84 0.78 Table 3-15. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingemeni of Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.Month and Year Jun-06 Nov- Dec- May- Aug- Jul-06 Jan- Feb- Apr- Mar- Sep- Oct-06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 x x x x x xx X X X X X X X X X x x X X X X x Table 3-16. Results of Analysis of Variance of Spottail Shiner Impingement at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Data are Loglo (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation df MS Pr>F Spottail Shiner Month (Year) 11 7.13 <0.001 Diel 1 0.06 0.746 Month (Year) X Diel 11 0.27 0.800 Error 84 0.44 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 21 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-17. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Month and Year Dec-06 Mar- Feb-06 Jan- Apr- Nov- May- Jun- Aug- Jul-06 Sep- Oct-06 07 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 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 Impingement data collected from July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 provide an opportunity to assess variability in impingement estimates amongcomparable months (Appendix Table H). Total impingement was about 63% greater for the same months in 2005-2006 compared to 2006-2007 (Table 3-18). The greatest variation between the two years occurred in September and October. Greater numbers of yellow perch, gizzard shad, andspottail shiner were impinged in September and October of 2005 compared to 2006.Impingement of fish biomass showed a similar seasonal pattern to numerical impingement, but the relative contribution among species was slightly different (Figure 3-6). An estimated 5,366 kg of fish were impinged at Unit 1 between February 2006 and January 2007 with the greatest amount of biomass impingement (1,395 kg) occurring in December 2006 (Appendix Table J). Similar to fish impingement, yellow perch were the largest component (2,452 kg) of the total biomass impingement making up 46% of the total. In contrast to fish impingement, lake whitefish (675 kg; 13%) andspottail shiner (337 kg; 6%) ranked second and third in impingement biomass (Appendix Table I).Biomass impingement of yellow perch was greatest in February of 2006 when 822 kg were impinged.

Lake whitefish and spottail shiner biomass impingement was greatest in December 2006 when 361 kg and 190 kg were impinged.3.2.2 Unit 2 An estimated 824,812 fish were impinged at Unit 2 between February 2006 and January 2007 (Figure 3-7; Table 3-19). The majority of these fish were yellow perch (673,720; 82%), spottail shiner (48,970; 6%)

and alewife (40,893; 5%). Impingement of yellow perch occurred every month, but was highest in February (352,834).

Similarly, impingement of spottail shiner and alewife occurred in every month. Spottail shiner impingement was greatest in December (27,121) and impingement of alewife was greatest in June (30,897).

These three fish composed 93% of the total impingement.There were significant differences in total impingement estimates among months, but no significant differences among diel periods (Table 3-20).

Impingement was lower in the summer and early fall months compared to most other months (Table 3-2 1, Figure 3-7). Impingement was highest in February, December and March primarily due to impingement of yellow perch and spottail shiner.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 22 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-18. Comparison of fish impingement estimates between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1.Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Total 2006-2007 2,473 6,321 638 225 22,026 104,128 26,586 162,397 2005-2006 853 7,706 62,923 8,034 122,765 20,461 42,656 398% Difference

-65 22 9,762 3,470 457

-80 60 63 1600 1400-.1200 1000 C E I800 E-9 600 400 200 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-6. Estimated biomass (kg) of fish impinged and biomass composition by month at Unit I of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 23 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 400000 350000250000 C E V a' 150000*MOther o1 Spottail ShinerI NAJewife*IYellow PerchID 100000 50000 Jan-07 Feb-06 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Month Figure 3-7. Estimated total number of fish impinged and species composition by month at Unit 2 of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007.

20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 24 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

Table 3-19. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged, at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, February 2006 through January 2007.2006 2007 Species February March April ] May ] June July I August [ September

] October [ November J December January TOTAL Alewife 152 31 20 1,286 30,897 793 538 140 569 5,281 1,040 146 40,893 Bloater 32 13 8 0 0 0 4 25 270 84 194 11 640 Bluegill 32 274 183 18 0 0 0 0 4 60 67 24 661 Bluntnose minnow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0Brook silverside 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Brown bullhead 0 27 19 4 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 53 Brown trout 0 13 8 18 7 42 0 0 0 0 0 19 106 Burbot 7 40 27 35 7 7 0 0 18 52 3 56 253 Central 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mudminnow Channel catfish 308 280 174 39 0- 0 27 0 0 25 167 34 1,054 Chestnut lamprey 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 21 Chinook 18 39 17 4 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 0 94 Coho 0 22 12 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 Common carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 13 Deepwater sculpin 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Eastern banded 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 killifish Flathead catfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 14 17 Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 35 Gizzard shad 560 1,252 780 0 0 0 0 47 15,682 3,984 3,273 570 26,147 Golden redhorse 0 1 20 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 0 38 Golden shiner 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Greater redhorse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake chub 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 7 Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake trout 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 4 10 9 4 41 Lake whitefish 489 63 9 25 0 0 11 0 0 78 3,556 750 4,980 Largemouth bass 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 14 Longnose dace 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 13Longnose sucker 70 106 39 81 95 13 0 0 7 0 52 4 466 Mottled sculpin 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Ninespine 32 19 22 70 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 171 stickleback

_ _Northern pike 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumpkinseed 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4Rainbow smelt 780 828 721 355 35 0 24 0 35 81 469 1,666 4,993 (continued)

C,)CO)qi 1'3 0 cu (D 0_k.Table 3-19. (Continued) 2006 2007 Species February [ March April May [ June [ July August September jOctober November [ December January TOTALRock bass 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 14Round goby 432 643 916 7,249 2,180 1,939 827 265 956 1,370 1,945 530 19,251 Sea lamprey 74 14 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 147 Shorthead 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 redhorse Silver redhorse 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 7Slimy sculpin 70 37 51 84 42 20 0 0 0 4 0 0 308 Smallmouth bass 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 11 Spottail shiner 11,169 2,576 1,284 945 152 105 66 133 1,088 1,031 27,121 3,300 48,970 Steelhead 25 14 19 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 99 Threespine 385 97 38 75 28 0 0 0 0 14 24 94 755 stickleback Trout-perch 46 30 18 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 150 0 271 Unidentified 0 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White perch 0 44 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 77 White sucker 11 44 18 77 49 7 0 4 14 0 43 94 360 Yellow perch 352,834 53,174 21,753 12,878 2,041 581 3,850 739 2,274 26,375 163,495 33,727 673,720 TOTAL 367,548 59,701 26,194 23,281 35,604 3,526 5,371 1,352 20,955 38,454 201,669 41,155 824,812 cn co qr 0 0.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-20. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Fish at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2.Data are Log 1 o (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation Df MS Pr>F All Species Month(Year) 11 3.47 <0.001 Diel 1 0.09 0.524 Month(Year)

X Diel 11 0.07 0.971 Error 84 0.21 Table 3-21. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for TotalImpingement Estimates at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.Month and Year Dec- 1 Mar- Jan- Nov- Apr- May- Jun- Oct- Aug- Sep-Feb-06 06 06 07 06 06 06 06 06 06 Jul-06 06 x x X X X XX X X X X X X_ X_X_ _ x x__ _ __ _ __ _ __ _ __

_x x X X There were significant differences in impingement of yellow perch among months but not between periods (Table 3-22). Impingement of yellow perch was relatively low during the summer months and highest in February and December (Figure 3-7; Table 3-23). These fish were predominantly from the 2005 year class in February and the 2006 year class in December.Table 3-22. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Data are Logio (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation Df MS Pr>F All Species Month(Year) 11 6.49 <0.001 Diel 1 0.05 0.716 Month(Year)

X Die] 11 0.15 0.942 Error 84 0.36 Table 3-23. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Yellow Perch at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in thesame row are not significantly different.

Month and Year Dec- Mar- Apr- Nov- May- Aug- Jun- Oct- Sep-Feb-06 06 06 Jan-07 1 06 06 06 06 07 06 06 Jul-06 x x x X X x x x x x_x___x x x ____ x x _ __ _ ____ ______ ___ x __ III __ _ Ix _20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 27 Normandeau Associates, Inc.k391 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY There were significant differences in impingement of spottail shiner among months at Unit 2 but not between diel periods (Table 3-24). Impingement was relatively low from June through September and highest in February and December (Figure 3-7; Table 3-25). Yearling and older fish were dominant in these months.Table 3-24. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Data are Logio (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation df MS Pr>F All Species Month(Year 11 7.00 <0.001 Diel 1 0.03 0.753 Month(Year X Diel 11 0.27 0.586 Error 84 0.31 Table 3-25. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Spottail Shiner at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in thesame row are not significantly different.Month and Year Dec-06 Feb- Jan- Mar- Apr-Nov- Oct- May-Jun- Sep- Jul-06 Aug-06 07 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x X x x X Similar to yellow perch and spottail shiner, there were significant differences in alewife impingement among months but not between diel periods (Table 3-26).

Impingement of alewife was relatively low during January through March, and increased dramatically in May and June, and again in November and December (Figure 3-7; Table 3-27). The alewife impinged in May and June 2006 were primarily members of the 2005 year class and the alewife impinged in November and December were members of the 2006 year class.Table 3-26. Results of Analysis of Variance of Impinged Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2.Data are Loglo (x+l) transformed.

Species Source of Variation df MS Pr>F All Species Month(Year) 11 4.58 <0.001 Diet 1 1.03 0.207 Month(Year)

X Diel 11 0.21 0.978 Error 84 0.63 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8108 28 Normandeau Associates, Inc.tL~o 316(b) PHASE I/ BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-27. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Impingement of Alewife at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Month and Year Jun-06 Nov- Oct- May- Aug- Jul-06 Dec- Sep- Jan- Feb- Apr- Mar-06 06 06 06 06 06 07 06 06 06 X X X X X X X X I x X x x x x x xX X X X X X X X X X Impingement data collected from July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 provide an opportunity to assess variability in impingement estimates among comparable months. Total impingement for the pooled seven-month periods was only 1% different between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 (Table 3-28). However, there were large differences in individual monthly impingement estimates between 2005-2006 and 2006-2007.

The greatest variation occurred in September and November due to greater numbers of alewife and yellow perch being impinged in September and November of 2005 compared to the same months in 2006.Table 3-28. Comparison of fish impingement estimates between July 2005 through January 2006 and July 2006 through January 2007 at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2.Year Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dee Jan Total 2005-2006 3,526 5,371 1,352 20,955 38,454 201,669 41,155 312,482 2006-2007 1,056 16,561 21,325 6,357 166,050 28,644 69,159 309,152% Difference

-70 208 1,477 -70 331 -86 68 -1 An estimated 7,091 kg of fish were impinged at Unit 2 from February 2006 through January 2007 (Figure 3-8; Appendix Table K). Impingement of biomass was greatest in December 2006when 2,140 kg were impinged. Yellow perch (3,532 kg; 50%), lake whitefish (966 kg; 14%) and longnose sucker (499 kg; 7%) contributed most to the total biomass impingement.

3.3 NEARFIELD

SAMPLING Sampling of the ichthyoplankton, pelagic fish and demersal fish communities was conducted from June through November in 2005 and April through November in 2006 in the nearfield area of the Cook Nuclear Plant intakes to characterize these communities at various depths and locations.

3.3.1 Ichthyoplankton

Sampling Ichthyoplankton sampling in 2005 was conducted June-November and in 2006 from April through November.

In June 2005, daytime sampling only was done at the intake and experimental stations and the shoreline station was not sampled. All stations were sampled starting in July 2005.In general, ichthyoplankton densities were higher at the shoreline station each sampling year (Figure 3-9).3.3.1.1 Shoreline Station The shoreline station was characterized by higher densities of post yolk-sac larvae compared to other life stages (Table 3-29), and the majority of these were alewife and Cyprinidae (Appendix 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 29 Nonnandeau Associates, Inc.

0 0.0)0 Table 3-29. Mean Density (No./100 mi 3) of Ichthyoplankton Collected at the Shoreline Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant July through November 2005, and April through November 2006.Shoreline April May June July August September October November Average Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 ml Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m3 Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m 3 Density/100 ml 2005 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0.995 0 0 0 0 0.199 Post-yolk-sac larvae 15.913 0 0 0 0 3.183 Total 16.908 0 0 0 0 3.382 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 6.881 0 0 0 0 0 0.86 Yolk-sac larvae 2.219 0 25.147 2.363 0 0 0 0 3.716 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0.685 18.547 32.303 0.631 0 0 0 6.521 Total 2.219 0.685 50.575 34.666 0.631 0 0 0 11.097 (In hi CO)I-.)0 0 Q.C,, 0 C.,

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 2500 T 2000 E CL E E0 ij 1500 1000 --16 Yellow Perch 1U Other 500 ý--6 Mar-06 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 0--L Feb-C Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 Jan-07 Month Figure 3-8. Estimated biomass (kg) of fish impinged and biomass composition by month at Unit 2 of Cook Nuclear Plant February 2006 through January 2007.12 10-8 C" 6-.4-u 2-[1120705 102006]0-Shoreline Intake, surface Intake. 11 ft Intake, 22 ft Experimental.

0-20 ft Experimental.

30-40 ft Statton Figure 3-9. Mean Ichthyoplankton Density (No./100 M 3) at the Ichthyoplankton Sampling Stations in the Nearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off Cook Nuclear Plant.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.cloc 1/8/08 31 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I/ BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table L). The shoreline station was the only location where fish eggs were captured and these wereexclusively alewife.

In 2005 at the shoreline station, ichthyoplankton was only captured in July (Table 3-29). Themean density was 16.9/1OOm 3 , most of which was composed of post-yolk-sac larvae (15.9/100 in 3).The most commonly captured species were alewives (80%) with Cyprinidae and common carp making up the remainder (Appendix Table L).In 2006, at the shoreline station highest catches occurred in June and July (Table 3-29). The mean density in June was 50.6/100 M 3 , made up of yolk-sac larvae (25.1/100 M 3), post-yolk-saclarvae (18.5/100 M 3), and eggs (6.9/100 MS 3). The larvae were almost entirely Cyprinidae (99%),while alewife made up the entire egg component (Appendix Table L). In July the mean density was 34.7/100 M 3 , and consisted of mainly of post-yolk-sac larvae (32.3/100 m3), of which 90% were alewife (Appendix Table L). Yolk-sac larvae (2.4/100 M3) made up smaller component of the totaland 64% of these were Cyprinidae (Appendix Table L).3.3.1.2 Intake StationThe intake station was characterized by relatively equal densities of yolk-sac and post yolk-sac larvae.

Ichthyoplankton densities were lower than the shoreline station and were relativelysimilar among sampling depths (Figure 3-9). Alewife larvae were the dominant species.Sampling was conducted in 22 ft of water at the intake station during the day in June 2005and day and night from July through November 2005 and April through November 2006. During each sampling event samples were collected at the surface, at mid-depth (11 ft) and near the bottom(22 ft).Among the surface samples ichthyoplankton density was highest in June 2005 (9.2/100 M 3)and these were entirely of post-yolk-sac alewife larvae (Table 3-30; Appendix Table L). July was the only other month in 2005 were ichthyoplankton was captured (2.0/100 M 3) and these were post yolk-sac alewife larvae (Appendix Table L).In 2006, the highest density of ichthyoplankton among the surface samples occurred in June (7.3/100 M 3; Table 3-30). Yolk-sac larvae were dominant, and these were alewife (45%)

and yellowperch (37%)

of the total density (Appendix Table L). Post yolk-sac Cyprinidae and yellow perch larvae were also present. Ichthyoplankton also occurred in July (6.9/100 M 3) and April (0.9/100 in 3).In July, post yolk-sac alewife larvae were dominant (66%) and in April post yolk-sac round whitefish (100%) were dominant (Appendix Table L).Ichthyoplankton were present in the mid-depth samples at the intake station in July 2005, and June and July 2006.

In July 2005, mean density was 2.0/100 m 3 (Table 3-30) and these were post yolk-sac larvae alewife (50%) and yolk-sac larvae Cyprinidae (50%) (Appendix Table L).In 2006, ichthyoplankton density among the mid-depth samples was highest in July at 24.3/100 m 3 (Table 3-30). Post yolk-sac alewife larvae alewife (53%) and post yolk-sac round goby larvae were dominant (22%) (Appendix Table L). In June 2006, mean density was 3.2/100 M 3.Yolk-sac alewife larvae (72%)

and post yolk-sac Cyprinidae larvae (28%) occurred (Appendix Table L).20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 32 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

0 0.bL 0 0 C?0*0, a OD_0.0 O 0 0 0o Table 3-30. Mean Density (No./100 mi 3) of Ichthyoplankton Collected at the Surface, Mid-depth (11 ft) and Bottom (22 ft) of the Intake Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant June through November 2005, and April through November 2006.Intake, surface April May June July August September October November Total Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m3 Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 m3 2005 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Post-yolk-sac larvae 9.214 1.995 0 0 0 0 1.868 Total 9.214 1.995 0 0 0 0 1.868 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 5.94 2.307 0 0 0 0 1.031 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0.935 0 1.32 4.615 0 0 0 0 0.859 L Total 0.935 0 7.26 6.922 0 0 0 0 1.89 Intake, 11 ft April May June July August September October November Total Density/____m'ensity/1 y00 m Density/100 mj Density/100 m' Density/100 ml Density/100 m' Density/100 m3 Density/100 m3 Density/100 mW 2005 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0.541 0 0 0 0 0.09 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0.541 0 0 0 0 0.09 Total 0 1.081 0 0 0 0 0.18 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 2.284 5.098 0 0 0 0 0.923 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0.901 19.172 0 0 0 0 2.509_Total 0 0 3.185 24.27 0 0 0 0 3.432 Intake, 22 ft April May June July August September October November Total Density/100 ml Density/100 m' Density/100 m3 Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 ml Density/100 ml Density/100 mW Density/100 mi 2005 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0.953 0 0 0 0 0.159 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 7.654 0 0 0 0 1.276 Total 0 8.607 0 0 0 0 1.434 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 1.642 2.008 0 0 0 0 0.456 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0 8.944 0 0 0 0 1.118 Total 0 0 1.642 10.952 0 0 0 0 1.574::2 rnl Do rn CO)0 0.0 tO (4 0 0 0 (4 0 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY In 2006, ichthyoplankton were present in the bottom samples of the intake station in June (1.6/100 M 3) and July (11.0/100 M 3). In June, the catch was made up entirely of yolk-sac alewife larvae. In July, post yolk-sac round goby larvae (64%) were dominant (Appendix Table L).3.3.1.3 Experimental Station Density of all ichthyoplankton was lower at the experimental station compared to the other stations (Figure 3-9) and post yolk-sac larvae was the dominant lifestage at this station. Alewife and yellow perch larvae were the dominant species at the experimental station.

Sampling was conducted in 40 ft of water at the experimental station from June through November 2005 and April through November 2006. This station was sampled during the day in June 2005 and day and night starting in July 2005. Two composite samples were collected:

one containing ichthyoplankton collected from the surface, 10 ft, and 20 ft of depth; and the second from 30 and 40 ft of depth.Ichthyoplankton were present from the surface to 20 ft in June and July of 2005 and 2006 (Table 3-31). Mean density in June 2005 was (5.7/100 M 3) and post yolk-sac yellow perch (44%) andalewife (33%)

were dominant (Appendix Table L). In July of 2005 mean density was 4.5/100 m 3 postyolk-sac alewife (92%) were dominant.In 2006, mean density at the surface to 20 ft was highest in July (5.9/100 M 3) and ichthyoplankton were also present in June with a mean density of 0.2/100 M 3.Post yolk-sac alewife larvae were dominant in July (56%) and yolk-sac alewife larvae and post yolk-sac round goby larvae were also present (Appendix Table L). In June, only post yolk-sac yellow perch larvae were present.At the 40 ft depth of the experimental station, ichthyoplankton occurred in June (7.3/100 M 3)and July (5.4/100 M 3) of 2005 and July of 2006 (2.8/100 M 3) (Table 3-30). The June 2005 samples consisted primarily (56%) of post yolk-sac yellow perch larvae (Appendix Table L). The Julysamples were exclusively post-yolk-sac yellow perch larvae. In July 2006, there were equal densities of yolk sac and post yolk-sac alewife larvae and post yolk-sac round goby larvae (Appendix L).3.3.1.4 Quantitative Comparisons among Ichthyoplankton Stations Analysis of variance on ichthyoplankton densities was performed to determine if there were significant differences in density among the shoreline, intake, and experimental stations.

Sources of variation were sampling station, month and the interaction of these main effects (Table 3-32). The interaction term was significant indicating that the relationship in ichthyoplankton density between station and month was not consistent.

Among the 24 station and month combinations, ichthyoplankton density was significantly higher at the shoreline station in June, followed by the shoreline station in July, and the intake station in July of 2006. Ichthyoplankton density at these three station-month combinations was significantly different from each other, and higher than the remaining 21 station-month combinations.

There were no significant differences among the remaining 21 station-month combination.

This analysis indicates that during the months of high ichthyoplankton abundance density is highest in the shallower waters.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8108 34 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

0 O No-0 0 0 Table 3-31. Mean Density (No./100 M 3) of Ichthyoplankton Collected at the Surface to Mid-depth (0-20 ft) and Bottom (30-40 ft) of the Experimental Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant June through November 2005, and April through November 2006.Experimental, 0-20 ft April JM une July August September October November TotalDensity/100 ml Dnensity/100 m Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m3 Density/100 m 3 Density/10 0 M3 Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m'2005 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 1.265 0.328 0 0 0 0 0.266 Post-yolk-sac larvae 4.427 4.221 0 0 0 0 1.441 Total 5.692 4.549 0 0 0 0 1.707 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0 2.375 0 0 0 0 0.297 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0.241 3.562 0 0 0 0 0.475 Total 0 0 0.241 5.937 0 0 0 0 0.772 Experimental, 30-40 ft April May June July August September October November Total Density/100 m' Density/100 m' Density/100 ml Density/100 m3 Density/100 in' Density/100 mi' Density/100 m 3 Density/100 m' Density/100 m'2005 Unidentified 1.622 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 1.622 0 0 0 0 0 0.27 Post-yolk-sac larvae 4.055 5.398 0 0 0 0 1.575 Total 7.298 5.398 0 0 0 0 2.116 2006 Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0 0.925 0 0 0 0 0.116 Post-yolk-sac larvae 0 0 0 1.85 0 0 0 0 0.231 Total 0 0 0 2.775 0 0 0 0 0.347-u bo (A rn go co z 0 W)0 316(b) PHASE U BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-32. Results of Analysis of Variance of Ichthyoplankton Densities in the Nearfield Area at Cook Nuclear Plant.Species Source of Variation Df MS Pr>F All S ecies Station 2 526.12 <0.001 Month 7 458.22 <0.001 Station X Month 14 232.52 <0.001 Error 32 10.57 3.3.2 Gill Net Sampling Gill net sampling was conducted June through November in 2005 and April through November in 2006. Sampling occurred only in the day in June 2005 and day and night after that.Sampling was conducted at the intake station in 22 ft of water and at the experimental station in 40 ft of water. Gill nets were set at mid-depth at each station. CPUE was higher at the intake station than the experimental station in both years (Figure 3-10).

Yellow perch and spottail shiner were thedominant fish at both stations each year (Appendix Table M).3.3.2.1 Intake Station In 2005 at the intake station, CPUE (fish /hour) was greatest during June (8.2 fish/hr), July (4.3 fish/hr), and September (3.7 fish/hr) (Table 3-32). In each June and September yellow perchwere the dominant fish (June: 57%; September: 63%).

In July, spottail shiner (50%) was thedominant fish. For all months sampled in 2005 yellow perch (43%) and spottail shiner (40%) made the greatest contribution to the overall CPUE. White sucker, rainbow smelt, lake trout, and freshwater drum each accounted for 3% of the total CPUE at the intake station in 2005.In 2006 at the intake station, the CPUE was greatest during the months of October (3.4fish/hour), July (1.1 fish/hour), and June (1.1 fish/hour) (Table 3-33).

The most common species in October and July were spottail shiner (October:

38%; July: 55%). In June, longnose sucker weremost common (55%). Two lake sturgeon, a state threatened species in Michigan, were captured during the month of August but did not make up a large percentage of the total CPUE in 2006.Spottail shiner (40%) and yellow perch (24%) were the dominant fish at the intake station in 2006.3.3.2.2 Experimental Station In 2005 at the experimental station, CPUE was highest in the months of July (4.4 fish/hr), October (1.2 fish/hr), and August (1.1 fish/hr) (Table 3-33). The majority of the catch in July were yellow perch (57%)

and spottail shiner (34%), while the largest component of the October catch were alewife (75%) and the August catch were mostly yellow perch (45%) and rainbow smelt (36%).Yellow perch (42%) and spottail shiner (25%) were the dominant fish at the intake station in 2005.In 2006 at the experimental station, CPUE was highest during the months of July (1.3 fish/hour), October (0.9 fish/hour), and August (0.8 fish/hour) (Table 3-33). Spottail shiner (53%), yellow perch (15%), and white sucker (15%) were major components of the July catch. In October, yellow perch (56%) and freshwater drum (33%) made up the majority of the catch while the mostcommon species in August were spottail shiner (56%) and yellow perch (44%). Spottail shiner (40%)and yellow perch (40%) were the dominant species at the experimental station in 2006.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 36 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 4 35 (3'C 25 uj 2a , 0.5 Intake Experimental Stallon Figure 3-10. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/hour) at the Gill Net Sampling Stations in the Nearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off Cook Nuclear Plant.3.3.2.3 Quantitative Comparisons among Gill Net Stations Analysis of variance on gill net CPUE was performed to determine if there were significant differences in CPUE between the intake and experimental stations.

Sources of variation were month and sampling station and the interaction of these main effects. The overall ANOVA model was not significant, but it did explain 43% of the variability in CPUE. Although the main effects were not significant, overall CPUE (pooled across stations) was highest in October (2.14 fish/hour) followed by July (1.20 fish/hour) and August (0.67 fish/hour).

Similarly overall CPUE (pooled across months)was higher at the intake station (0.99 fish/hour) compared to the experimental station 0.51 (fish/hour).

3.3.3 Otter

Trawl Sampling Otter trawl sampling was conducted at the intake station (22 ft of water) and experimental stations (40 ft of water) June through November in 2005 and April through November in 2006.Sampling at the intake and experimental stations occurred only in the day in June 2005 and day and night after that. Sampling at a shoreline station (5 ft of water) started in October 2005 and was conducted day and night each sampling month after that. CPUE was highest at the intake station followed by the experimental and shoreline station (Figure 3-1 1). Yellow perch and round goby were the most common fish captured (Appendix Table N).3.3.3.1 Shoreline Station During the two months of sampling at the shoreline station in 2005, fish were only captured during the month of October (Table 3-34). Mean CPUE was 12 fish/tow with the main catch 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 37 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-33. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/hour) for Fish Captured in the Gill Net at the Intake Station (22 ft) and Experimental Station (40 ft) in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.Intake Station 1 April May June July August September October November Total CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 2005 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 catfish Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.00 0.04 Freshwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.37 0.00 0.08 drum Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.04 Golden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 redhorseLake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 sucker Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.14 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.04 Spottail shiner 2.88 2.17 0.47 0.86 0.49 1.30 1.36 Walleye 0.00 0,12 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 White sucker 0.56 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 Yellow perch 4.67 2.05 0.24 2.33 0.00 0.00 1.55 Total 8.23 4.34 1.89 3.67 0.98 1.91 3.50 2006 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.03 Channel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.03 catfish Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.40 0.00 0.06 drum Gizzard shad 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.05 Golden 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 redhorseLake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 Longnose 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 sucker Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Spottail shiner 0.11 0.25 0.36 0.58 0.00 0.36 1.32 0.12 0.39 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.12 0.36 1.06 0.00 0.24 Total 0.23 0.25 1.09 1.10 0.50 0.84 3.42 0.50 0.99 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 38 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-33. (Continued)

Experimental Station April May June July August September October November TotalCPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE 2005 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.14 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.06Channel catfish 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.02 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.24 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Lake whitefish 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 Round goby 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 Spottail shiner 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.29 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 2.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 Total 0.37 4.38 1.11 0.00 1.24 0.37 1.24 2006 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.03 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.47 0.12 0.13 0.12 0.19 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.38 0.12 0.50 0.12 0.17 Total 0.11 0.00 0.00 1.30 0.84 0.24 0.88 0.72 0.51 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 39 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE H BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-34. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/trawl) for Fish Captured in the Otter Trawl at the Shoreline Station (5 ft) Intake Station (22 ft) and Experimental Station (40 ft)in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.5 ft depth April May [June i July August September

[October [November

[Total 2005 Alewife 0.5 0.0 0.3 Bloater 1.5 0.0 0.8 Gizzard shad 8.5 0.0 4.3 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow 0.0 0.0 0.0 smelt Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.5 0.0 0.3 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 1.0 0.0 0.5 Total 12.0 0.0 6.0 2006 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 Gizzard

shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 smelt Round goby 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.5 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.6 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.5 1.0 1.0 25.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 3.5 Total 1.0 4.0 1.0 25.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 4.1 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final dec 1/8/08 40 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

3 16(b) PHASE /I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-34. (Continued)

Intake April May June July August September October November I Total 2005 Alewife 2.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.7 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.3 Lake 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.2 whitefish Rainbow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 smelt Round goby 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 8.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 1.0 0.5 2.1 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 5.0 0.0 0.5 49.5 5.5 2.0 10.4 Total 18.0 0.5 4.0 50.0 10.0 2.5 14.2 2006 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 whitefish Rainbow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 smelt Round goby 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.4 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1Yellow perch 1.5 7.0 33.5 56.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 12.6 Total 1.5 8.0 35.5 59.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 13.4 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 41 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-34. (Continued) 40 ft April May June July August September October November Total depth _ 1 J I 2005 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.5 0.0 0.8 Gizzard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 shad Lake 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 whitefish Rainbow 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 smelt Round goby 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.8 Slimy 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sculpin Spottail 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 shiner White 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sucker Yellow 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 11.0 0.0 2.2 perch Total 1.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 16.0 0.0 3.7 2006 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 shad Lake 0.0 2.0 1.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 whitefish Rainbow 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 smelt Round goby 1.0 2.5 4.5 8.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.3 Slimy 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 sculpin Spottail 1.0 0.5 0.5 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 shiner White 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 sucker Yellow 2.5 5.0 0.5 2.0 0.5 1.0 0.5 2.5 1.8 perch Total 5.5 11 6.5 17 2 1.5 0.5 6.5 6.3 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 42 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE !! BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 16 _______

____12 -10 0 M2005 00 U 2 04-Shore Intake Experimental Station Figure 3-11. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/trawl) at the Trawl Sampling Stations in theNearfield Area, April through November 2005 and 2006, off Cook Nuclear Plant.Sampling in 2006 took place from April-November.

At the shoreline station the highest mean CPUE occurred during July (25 fish/trawl), made up entirely of yellow perch (Table 3-33). The next highest CPUE occurred in May (4 fish/trawl) with spottail shiner (63%), yellow perch (25%), and round goby (13%) the only species caught.Yellow perch were the dominant fish at this station accounting for 85% of the total CPUE. A smaller component of the catch was made up of spottail shiner and round goby.

3.3.3.2 Intake Station In 2005 at the intake station, the highest mean CPUE occurred during the months of September (50.0 fish/trawl), June (18.0 fish/trawl), and October (10 fish/trawl) (Table 3-34).

Yellowperch were dominant in September catch (98%) as well as the October catch (55%). The June catch contained mostly spottail shiners (47%) and yellow perch (28%). Yellow perch were the dominant fish at the intake station in 2005, making up 73% of the total CPUE. Spottail shiners were the second most common catch at 15% of the total. Other species contributing to the total CPUE were: alewives (5%), bloaters (2%), gizzard shad (2%), round goby (2%), and lake whitefish (1%).In 2006, mean CPUE at the intake station was highest during July (59.0 fish/trawl), June (35.5 fish/trawl), and May (8 fish/trawl) (Table 3-33). Yellow perch was the largest component of the catch in each month (July: 95%; June:

94%: May: 88%).Yellow perch were also the largest contributor to the overall mean CPUE in 2006, accounting for 94% of the total. Spottail shiner (3%), alewives (]%), round goby (1%), and white sucker (1%)also made up smaller components of the total catch.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 43 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 3.3.3.3 Experimental Station In 2005, CPUE at the experimental station was greatest during October (16 fish/trawl) with the majority of the catch consisting of yellow perch (69%) and bloaters (28%) thie only fish captured(Table 3-34).

The next highest catch rates occurred in August (2.0 fish/trawl) and September (2.0,fish/trawl) with round goby as the only component of each monthly mean CPUE. The species composition in 2005 at the experimental station was yellow perch (58%) round goby (22%) and boater (22%)In 2006, the highest CPUE at the experimental station was 17 fish/trawl in July, 11 fish/trawl in May, and 6.5 fish/trawl in both June and November (Table 3-33). In July, the dominant fish was round goby (47%)

followed by alewife (15%) and lake whitefish (15%). The May CPUE consisted primarily of yellow perch (45%), round goby (23%), and lake whitefish (18%) and the June CPUE consisted of round goby (69%) and lake whitefish (15%). In November the CPUE was dominated by spottail shiner (62%) and yellow perch (38%).Overall, all sampling months in 2006, round goby (37%), yellow perch (29%), and spottail shiners (16%) were the dominant species. A smaller component of the total CPUE at this site consisted of lake whitefish (11%), alewives (5%), and rainbow smelt.3.3.3.4 Quantitative Comparisons among Otter Trawl Stations Analysis of variance on otter trawl loglo (x+l) CPUE was performed to determine if there were significant differences in CPUE between the shoreline, intake, and experimental stations.Sources of variation were month and sampling station and the interaction of these main effects. There were significant differences among months and stations (Table 3-35). CPUE was highest in April through July and November and there were no significant differences among these months (Table 3-36). Similarly there were no significant differences in CPUE among April through June, and Augustthrough November.

When the data were log 1 o (x+l) transformed there were significant differences in CPUE among stations (Table 3-37). There were no significant differences between the experimental station and the intake station, and between the intake and shore stations.Table 3-35. Results of Analysis of Variation of Trawl CPUE in the Nearfield Area of Cook Nuclear Plant. Data are Logio (x+l) transformed.

Species ISource of Variation E Df MS I Pr>F All Species Station 2 0.69 0.0004 Month 7 0.91 0.0201 I..Station X Month Error 14 24 0.13 0.15 0.6050 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 44 Normandeau Associates, Inc.k ý2(eY 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-36. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Months for Otter Trawl CPUE (catch per trawl) in the Nearfield Area of Cook Nuclear Plant. Months marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Sampling Month Jul-06 May- Jun- Apr- Nov- Aug- Oct- Sep 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 X X X X X I__X_ X X X X X. I Xd Table 3-37. Results of Scheffe's Multiple Comparisons Test among Sampling Stations for Otter Trawl CPUE (catch per trawl) in the Nearfield Area of Cook Nuclear Plant.Stations marked with an x in the same row are not significantly different.

Sampling Station Experimental Intake Shoreline x x x x3.3.4 Seine Sampling Seine sampling in 2005 occurred from August-November (Table 3-38; Appendix Table 0).During that time, highest mean CPUE occurred during August (334.5 fish/haul) and October 45.8 fish/haul).

The August catch was composed mostly of yellow perch (306.8 fish/haul) and spottail shiner (15.5 fish/haul) and the October catch was composed primarily of gizzard shad (30.3 fish/haul) and bloater (8.8 fish/haul).

Yellow perch were the most common fish captured species in 2005 accounting for 78% of the total CPUE (Table 3-38) with the majority being captured in August. Gizzard shad were the secondmost commonly captured species accounting for 10% of the total CPUE, and the majority of these were captured in October. Species making up a smaller component of the 2005 total CPUE werespottail shiner (5%), alewife (3%) and bloater (3%).In 2006, seine sampling took place from April-November and mean CPUE was greatest during the months of June (57.5 fish/haul) and October (39.5 fish/haul) (Table 3-37; Appendix Table 0). The June catch was composed mostly of spottail shiners (44.5 fish/haul) and to a lesser degree yellow perch (4.8 fish/haul).

The largest component of the October catch was bloater (20.3 fish/haul)and alewife (16.0 fish/haul).Spottail shiners made up the largest component of the seine sampling in 2006 contributing 54% to the total CPUE. Spottail shiners were captured during each month of sampling in 2006 andthe largest catches occurred in June (44.5 fish/haul) and May (16 fish/haul). Alewife contributed 15%to the total CPUE catch with the largest catches in October (16.0 fish/haul) and July (3.3 fish/haul).Bloater contributed 14% to the total CPUE with the largest catches occurring in October (20.3 fish/haul).

20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 45 --t-Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 3-38. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish/haul) for Fish Captured in the Seine at the Shore Station in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.Year Species [April May [June. July AugustlSeptemberloctobrlsovemberl Total 2005 Alewife 9.80 0.00 3.80 0.30 3.40 Bloater 1.50 0.30 8.80 0.00 2.60 Bluegill 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.10 Brook silverside 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Chinook 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coho 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.10 Eastern banded killifish

> 0.50 0.30 0.30 0.00 0.30 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.30 30.30 7.800, 9.60 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.10 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.10 Muskellunge 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.10 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Shorthead redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 15.50 0.30 2.00 2.30 5.00 Steelhead 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 306.80 0.00 0.30 0.00 76.80 TOTAL 334.50 1.00 45.80 11.00 98.10 2006 Alewife 0.00 0.00 2.50 3.30 0.30 0.00 16.00 0.00 2.80 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.30 0.30 2.60 Bluegill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Brook silverside 0.80 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Chinook 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coho 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.10 Eastern banded killifish 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Gizzard shad 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.10 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Muskellunge 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.50 Round goby 3.50 1.30 0.00 0.50 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 Shorthead redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.10 Spottail shiner 2.50 16.00 44.50 12.30 0.30 1.30 2.00 0.80 9.90 Steelhead 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00White sucker 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Yellow perch 0.80 0.00 4.80 2.00 1.00 0.80 0.00 0.30 1.20_ TOTAL 8.30 17.50 57.50 18.80 1.80 2.30 39.50 1.30 18.30 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 46 Normandeau Associates, Inc.I 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 3.4 WATER QUALITY Water quality data (surface and bottom temperature and dissolved oxygen, and were collected with each nearshore fisheries sample. None of the water quality parameters were within ranges that would affect fish distribution, and there was not obvious association between water quality and impingement and entrainment rates.3.4.1 Ichthyoplankton Water Quality Sampling Water quality data was collected in association with ichthyoplankton sampling at the threesampling stations.

Surface water quality was collected at the shoreline station, and also at each sampling depth at the intake (22 ft) and experimental (40 ft) stations (Appendix table P). Water temperatures were generally highest at the surface stations declining with depth, except in April 2006 where water temperatures at the intake and experimental depth were uniform throughout.

The highest water temperature recorded was 27.1 PC at the surface of the intake station in July 2005. The lowesttemperature recorded was 6.1 C at the experimental station in April, 2006.Dissolved Oxygen levels (mg/1) were generally greater early in the sampling seasonand tended to increase with depth and declining water temperatures.

The highest measured levels of dissolved Oxygen occurred at the 30-40 ft depth of the experimental station (13.5 mg/1) in June, 2006.The lowest occurred at the surface-20 ft depth at the experimental station (8.0 mg/1) in July 2005.Neither water temperature nor dissolved oxygen levels were limiting to fish distribution.

3.4.2 Gill Net Water Quality Sampling.Water quality data collected in association with the gill net sampling at the intake (22 ft) and experimental (40 ft) stations (appendix Table Q). Water temperatures at both the intake and experimental stations were lowest in the April of 2006 (6.0°C) and increased to the annual high in August (22.9°C). The seasonal pattern in dissolved oxygen levels was opposite to that oftemperatures. with the highest dissolved oxygen levels occurring in April (12.7 mg/I) and the lowest in September (8.4 mg/l) when water temperatures were still relatively high.

Neither water temperature nor dissolved oxygen levels were limiting to fish distribution.

3.4.3 Otter

Trawl Water Quality SamplingWater quality data were collected in association with the otter trawl sampling at the three stations.

Surface water quality data were collected at the 5 ft station, and surface and bottom data were collected at the Intake (22 ft) and Experimental (40 ft) stations (Appendix Table Q). In general, water temperatures were most extreme at the surface. The warmest water temperature recorded was 27.1 'C at the surface at the intake station and the coldest temperature of 6.1 °C occurred at the experimental station at the surface. The lowest levels of dissolved oxygen (8.6 mg/I) occurred in September at the surface of the intake station and at the surface and bottom of the experimental station in September.

The highest level of dissolved oxygen occurred at the surface of the experimental station in April when water temperatures were relatively cool. Neither watertemperature nor dissolved oxygen levels were limiting to fish distribution.20452 Cook-316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 47 Normandeau Associates, Inc.(5c9 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY3.4.4 Seine Water Quality Sampling Water Quality data was collected in association with the seine sampling at the surface (Appendix Table Q). Water temperatures ranged from 25.0 'C in September 2005 to 8.5 'C in April 2006.Dissolved oxygen ranged form 8.8 mg/I in September 2005 to 12.5 mg/i in April 2006.

Both water temperature and dissolved oxygen were within limits that would not affect fish distribution.

3.5 QUALITY

ASSURANCE AND QUALITY CONTROL (QA/QC) RESULTS A comprehensive Quality Assurance and Quality Control (QA/QC) program (see Section 2.5)was instituted during this study. Audits of field procedures were conducted twice during the program.

The first audit was conducted in September 2005 by AEP personnel and resulted in the start of otter trawl sampling at the shoreline station in October 2005. The second audit occurred in January 2007 and confirmed that all field sampling procedures were in conformance with the SOP.The laboratory analysis of entrainment and ichthyoplankton samples was subject to a MIL-STD 1235B single and multiple level continuous sampling procedures and tables for inspection by attributes for the tasks of sorting and identification that resulted in an AOQL of 10% or better. In thisplan, eight samples in a row for each analyst were reinspected and if all eight samples passed QC, then I out 7 samples would be randomly selected for reinspection. Any samples that failed QC were reanalyzed.

A total of 72 samples were reinspected for sorting with one failure, and 27 samples werereinspected for identification with no failures.All data files were also subject QC reinspection that resulted in data sets with an AOQL of 1% or better. Lot sampling plans based on the number of records in the data file (American Society for Quality Control 1993) were used to determine the number of data records for reinspection, and the number of incorrect data records that would result in a failed data file. Each randomly selected data record was then verified against original field or lab data sheets. If a data file failed QC it was either subject to 100% inspection if the failure was due to random error, or recreated if the failure was due to a systematic error. All data files passed QC on the first audit.20452 Cook 316b Baseline FinaL.doc 1/8/08 48 Normandeau Associates, Inc.I Qo (

316(b) PHASE I1 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY 4.0 DISCUSSION

The University of Michigan conducted extensive investigations into the impact of the operation of Cook Nuclear Plant on southeastern nearshore Lake Michigan (UM 1986). The impingement and entrainment studies conducted by UM from 1978 to 1982 when both units wereoperational provide the best available data for comparison with the present study. However, there were important differences in the methodology and taxonomy between the two studies. The UM study did not attempt to identify fish eggs to the species level, although it is likely that the majoritywere alewife.

Similarly, in the present study we did not make major effort to distinguish among minnow (Cyprinidae) larvae, although the majority were probably spottail shiner. Furthermore, the UM entrainment study did not identify any specimens as either YOY or older lifestages although they probably were present. In the UM study entrainment estimates were based on the annual number offish eggs and larvae entrained and actual cooling water flow, which ranged from 1,138 million m 3 in 1977 to 2,830 m 3 in 1980. The present study assumedthat cooling water system was in full operation all year and annual cooling water flow was 3,322 m 3 per year. Despite these differences between thestudies, valid comparisons between the time periods can be made.Fish eggs were much more abundant in 1978 through 1982 than in the present study (Table 4-1). Alewife are one of the few species that have pelagic eggs in Lake Michigan and with theincreased abundance of alewife in the 1970s and 1980s, it is likely that the majority of the eggs entrained in 1978 through 1982 were alewife. Alewife were the most abundant eggs entrained in this study, although density was much lower than the UM study probably due to the current decreased stock size of alewife.Table 4-1. Average number of fish eggs entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant between 1978 and 1982, and in the present study.Annual Average Number of Eees Entrained (in millions)Species 1978-19822 Feb. 2006-Jan.

2007b Alewife 7.08 Cyprinidae 4.42 Unidentified 3,713.85 3.78 Common carp 1.58 TOTAL 3,713.85 16.86 Eggs/10 6 m 3-1.41 0.025 a Entrainment estimates are based on actual cooling water flow.b Entrainment estimates are based on design cooling water flow.The average annual number of larvae entrainedwas relatively similar between the two studies. An average of 115 million larvae were entrained annually between 1978 and 1982, while 83 million larvae were entrained in this study (Table 4-2). However, when standardized for cooling the entrainment rates of both fish eggs and larvae indicate that entrainment is not always proportional to cooling water flow. When standardized for cooling water flow, there were orders of magnitude differences in both fish egg and larval annual entrainment rates between 1978-1982 and the present.The differences in entrainment estimates between July 2005 through January 2006, and July 2006 through January 2007 also illustrate the effect of the abundance of fish eggs and larvaeln the;20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/01 49 Normandeau Associates, Inc.I co 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 4-2. Annual Average number of fish larvae entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant between 1975 and 1982 and in the present study.Annual Average Number of Larvae Entrained (in millions)Species 1978-1982" Feb. 2006-Jan.

200 7 b Alewife 82.01 12.38 Spottail shiner 12.01 0.00 Rainbow smelt 6.77 9.26 Yellow perch 2.36 0.30 Trout-perch 0.61 0.00Round goby 0.00 44.04 Cyprinidae 0.46 16.87 Others 11.16 0.97 TOTAL 115.38 83.82 Larvae/10 6 m 3 0.04 0.005 a Entrainment estimates are based on actual cooling water flow.b Entrainment estimates are based on design cooling water flow.withdrawal waters on entrainment (Table 3-5). These data indicate that the abundance of the fisheggs and larvae in the withdrawal waters is an important factor in fish egg and larvae entrainment.

The seasonality of larval entrainment was similar between the two studies. Entrainment typically began in April and peaked in June and July when alewife and Cyprinidae larvae (both studies) and round goby larvae (present study) were most abundant.

The UM study found a significant differences in larval entrainment between diel periods.Entrainment was greater in the dusk to midnight and midnight to dawn periods than during the day (UM 1986). The present study supports that finding to some degree, although it is not possible tofully evaluate the UM findings because the ANOVA results are not presented.

In the present study entrainment was greater at night, although there was a significant interaction between diel period andmonth which indicated that this relationship was not consistent in all months.Table 4-3. Annual Average number of fish Impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant (Units 1 and 2)between 1975 and 1982 and in the present study.Annual Average Number of Fish Impinged Species 1978-19828 Feb. 2006-Jan.

2007 b Alewife 926,241 82,705 Spottail shiner 91,376 87,320Yellow perch 134,439 1,116300 Trout-perch 32,093 536Rainbow smelt 72,439 8,990 Slimy sculpin 4,964 1,010 Round goby 0 35,180 Gizzard shad 1,444 34,374 Others 13,965 19,608 TOTAL 1,252,965 1,386,023 a Impingement estimates are based on actual cooling water flow.b Impingement estimates are based on design cooling water flow.

20452 Cook.316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08.Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE 1I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY The trends in annual impingement reflect the trends in annual abundance of fish in Lake Michigan.

The decrease in alewife impingement can be attributed to the decline in alewife abundance in Lake Michigan since 2002 (Bunnell et al. 2007), and the operation of the acoustic fish deterrence system at Cook Nuclear Plant. The reduction in rainbow smelt abundance in impingement samples can also be attributed to a decrease in stock size since its peak in 1981-1993 (Bunnell et al. 2007).The increased impingement of yellow perch in the present study can be attributed to the record 2005 year class. Round goby were not present in Lake Michigan in 1978-1982 and are presently increasing in abundance (Bunnell et al. 2007), which accounts for their presence in impingement in the present study. Gizzard shad was first reported from Lake Michigan in 1953 (Miller 1957) and it may be more abundant now than in 1978-1982, as indicated by the large increase in gizzard shad impingement.

The temporal variability in impingement is also indicated by a comparison of impingement estimates between July 2005 through January 2006, and July 2006 through January 2007. At Unit Ithere was 63% difference in the impingement estimates for the two time periods and at Unit 2 there was only a 1% difference between the time periods (Tables 3-18 and 3-27). However, at both units the monthly estimates varied widely, and in the case of Unit 2, positive and negative variations almostcancelled each other out. These results and the comparisons with the UM studies indicate that there is a large degree of temporal variation in impingement estimates, and impingement may not be proportional to cooling water flow.

Further indications of the temporal variability in impingement is indicated by a comparison of monthly impingement and species composition between 1978-1982 and the present study. In 1978-1982, impingement was highest in April through October and was attributed to an inshore movement of fish in the spring followed by an offshore movement in the fall (UM 1986). In the present study impingement was greatest in February 2006, and November 2006 through January 2007. Yellow perch were the primary fish impinged during this period and this species was much less abundant in 1978-1982.

Therefore the temporal variability in impingement is strongly influenced by the species composition in the nearfield area and the year-class strength of the dominant species.The nearfield sampling.of ichthyoplankton and fish provides a characterization of the fish community in the vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, and provides data for preliminary evaluation of alternate intake locations. There was general trend of decreasing density of ichthyoplankton with distance offshore, especially in 2006 when more months were sampled (Table 4-4). Alewife eggs, and post yolk-sac larvae alewife and Cyprinidae were the dominant lifestages and taxa at the nearshore station. With distance offshore, yellow perch and round goby larvae became moreabundant. These data indicate that shoreline bulkhead intake might result in substantially higher entrainment levels than the present intake location.The situation is less clear for adult fish. CPUE in the trawl was highest at the intake station (22 ft) followed by the experimental (40 ft) and shoreline (5 ft) stations (Figure 3-11).

CPUE in the gill net was also highest at the intake station (Figure 3-10). It is not clear if fish abundance is actually higher at the 22-ft contour of the intake station, or if the intake structure is acting as an artificial reef and attracting fish. This section of Lake Michigan is relatively featureless, and any structure may attract fish, and possibly fish larvae. If this is the case, than an intake structure in almost any depth will likely attract fish.20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc-1/8/08 51 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Table 4-4. Mean Monthly Total Ichthyoplankton Density at Sampling Stations in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant June through November 2005 and April through November 2006 Mean Monthly Total Ichthyoplankton Density (No./ 100 M 3)Station 2005 (June-November) 2006 (April through November)Shoreline 3.382 11.097 Intake -Surface 1.868 1.890 Intake- 11 ft 0.180 3.432 Intake -22 ft 1.434 1.574 Experimental 20 ft 1.707 0.772 Experimental 40 ft 2.116 0.347 The results from this study and the previous UM study illustrate the variability in impingement and entrainmentat Cook Nuclear Plant.

Impingement and entrainment estimates are driven by the composition of the ichthyoplankton and fish community in the withdrawal waters.Changes in the fish community of Lake Michigan such as the introduction of round goby, or the occurrence of a dominant year class of yellow perch, are reflected in the impingement and entrainment estimates.

5.0 LITERATURE

CITEDAEPS Co. (American Electric Power Service Corporation) 2005. Proposal for Information Collection Prepared for the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant to fulfill requirements of 40 CFR Part 125.959(b)(1).

Prepared by the Environmental Services Division, Water and EcologicalResources Section, 1 Riverside Plaza, Columbus OH 43215-2373.

American Society for Quality Control.

1993. Sampling procedures and tables for inspection by attributes.

ANSI/ASQC Z1.4-1993.

Bimber, D. L., M. Perrone, L.S. Noguchi and D.J. Jude. (1984) Field Distribution and Entrainment of Fish Larvae and Eggs at the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, Southeastern Lake Mighigan, 1973-1979.

Special Report No.

105 of the Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan.Bunnell, D.B., C.P. Madenjian, J.D. Holuszko, T.J. Desorcie, and J.V. Adams. 2007.

Status and Trends of Prey Fish Populations in Lake Michigan, 2006. U.S. Geological Survey, Great Lakes Science Center, 1251 Green Road, Ann Arbor Michigan.Miller, R.R. 1957. Origin and dispersal of the alewife, Alosapseudoharengus, and the gizzard shad, Dorosoma cepedianum, in the Great Lakes. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 86(1):97-111.

NAI (Normandeau Associates Inc.) 2007. Cook Nuclear Plant 2005-2006 Impingement and Entrainment Study Quality Assurance Plan. Prepared for American Electric Power ServiceCorporation, Environmental Services, Water and Ecological Resources Section, Columbus Ohio.UM (University of Michigan) 1986. Southeastern Nearshore Lake Michigan: Impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant. The University of Michigan, Great Lakes Research Division, Publication 22.20452ýCook 316bBaseline-Final.doc 1/8/08 52ý Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY APPENDIX 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

PI)0 a~)0)00 Appendix Table A. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of fish eggs, larvae, young-of-the-year and older fish Entrained, by Month at* Cook Nuclear Plant Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-05 05 05 05 [ 05 0 6 06 06 06 06 06 06 06[06 0 06 06 06 07 Jan.07Alewife 0300-0900 4.55 27.39 0.82 0.34 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.

2.85 2.49 1.08 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.33 0900-1500 4.39 15.97 0.39 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.34 0.93 0.14 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.57 1500-2100 1.40 11.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.31 1.15 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.51 2100-0300 5.12 23.95 0.55 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.07 1.66 0.21 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.79 Total 15.46 79.23 1.76 0.53 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.57 6.23 1.48 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.19 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 Cyprinidae 0300-0900 0.55 2.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.63 5.96 4.55 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.35 0900-1500 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.82 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.11 1500-2100 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.19 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 2100-0300 0.71 3.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 3.53 2.66 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.17 Total 1.26 8.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.96 10.51 7.61 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.29 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 2.03 1.20 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.70 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.141500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.26 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 16.45 8.28 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 2.05 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92 Total 0.00 0.00 19.01 9.74 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 3.93 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.77 Round goby 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.35 0.71 4.97 0.61 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.11 0900-1500 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.151500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.28 9.02 22.49 3.62 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.37 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.41 0.49 0.64 9.73 27.68 4.23 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.11 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Slimy 0300-0900 1.10 2.76 1.07 0.39 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 3.55 15.27 4.84 1.65 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total 4.65 18.35 5.91 2.05 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 U)*.O hI rn 90 Z<C tn (0 0 (continued) 0 U, 0 Co 00 Appendix Table A. (Continued)

Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 Total 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 1.13 Unidentified 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 1500-2100 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.38 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.68 2100-0300 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00' 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Total 0.00 0.56 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.24 3.50 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.21 White -0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.40 0.13 1.60 2.42 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.30 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 1.09 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.142 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 Total 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.59 0.20 1.92 2.91 0.16 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.09 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 1.88 Allspecies 0300M0900 6.20 32.91 4.18 2.46 2.27 1.60 2.42 0.78 0.51 0.08 0.20 1.99 9.69 12.08 3.79 3.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.14 0900-1500 4.39 17.62 0.39 0.06 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 3.57 1.33 0.28 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.46 1500-2100 1.40 12.79 0.53 0.26 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.75 0.12 0.60 6.32 1.51 0.12 1.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 11.11 2100-0300 9.38 43.00 22.10 10.32 1.22 0.32 0.49 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.62 1.39 16.90 26.98 6.02 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 57.01 Total 21.37 106.32, 27.20 13.11 4.21 1.92 2.91 0.81 0.59 0.86 0.95 4.11 36.47 41.90, 10.20 9.16 0.00 0.15 0.75 0.58 105.72 ,A)rn 0)rrl-u CO, m PC, CO, 0 0 (D-J Appendix Table B. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of fish eggs, Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by Month Assuming Design 0Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the 0 last week in June.w.DC_a.0 0 0 oCD Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diet 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 4.27 15.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 1.24.0900-1500 4.23 6.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.87 1500-2100 0.70 6.98 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.292100-0300 4.69 13.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.61 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.68 Total 13.89 42.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.08 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.442100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.1.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 Cyprinidae 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 1.57 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.400900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.12 0.07 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.502100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 2.88 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.42 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 co mo z 0 0 (continued)

Appendix Table B. (Continued) o Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-, Species Diel 05 05 0 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W 1.0" 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 n dt Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Ufndenti-0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0 fled 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 00 0.0 08 011 .0 000 .0 000 .0 000 .0 019--000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 3.1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.32 1500-2100 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 3.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.32 Total 0.00 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.19 0.24 3.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.73 W000-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 suter 0900-0500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15ite 0300-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T100-2l00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 T000-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1erch 0300-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o a1500-200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00- 0.00- 0.00 Allspecies 0300-0900 4.27 15.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.69 2.95 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92 0900-1500 4.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.58 1500-2100 0.70 7.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 5.02 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 2100-0300 4.69 13.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.28 4.31 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.79 Total 13.89 43.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.19 1.56 14.74 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.86 0 0 w 0 0 Appendix Table C. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of Undetermined Larval Lifestage Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by Month Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cypri- 0300-0900 0.00 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.26 1.66 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.13 nidae 0900-1500 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 2100-0300 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.74 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 Total 0.00 3.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.22 2.59 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.15 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy 0300-0900 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 , 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued)

CO)P)M-Z)mn Zo C (Il 0 w p I C)

C, 0 C.)-nl 0=.OD a ODAppendix Table C. (Continued)

Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dcc- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unidentif 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 ied 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 White 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00, 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 All 0300-0900 0.00 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.72 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.35species 0900-1500 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1500-2100 0.00 .0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 2100-0300 0.00 1.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.74 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.72 Total 0.00 3.81 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 2.60 2.79 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.73 X, rn C,, (0'rn co z 0 0)0 A)o (A (A-3 0-n.o 0 ,o 0 cp.0 Appendix Table D. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of Yolk-sac Larvae Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by Month Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate onlyfor the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- 1 Sep- Oct- Nov- 1 Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 0s 5 06 06 06106 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06' 07 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ý0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Uo 0.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00 o 0.00 0.00 U0 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cypri- 0300-0900 0.41 1.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 1.26 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 nidae 0900-1500 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1500-2100 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 2100-0300 0.43 1.10 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 1.16 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.49 Total 0.84 3.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 2.53 2.08 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.97 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100

'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Slimy 0300-0900 0.28 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.28 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued)-o Ii, rn CO) 0 0, 0 Cr 00 0 0 Q, 4.It 0 p Appendix Table D. (Continued)

Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unidentif 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ied 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 All 0300-0900 0.83 1.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.81 1.26 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.20 species 0900-1500 0.00 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44.1500-2100 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 2100-0300 0.43 1.24 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.56 1.16 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.63 Total 1.25 3.88 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.37 2.75 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.41 C,)M rn I.j N)0 0)0-h 0 o0 Appendix Table E. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of Post Yolk-Sac Larvae Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by Month Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep-Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dee- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 .06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 0.14 11.36 0.68 0.27 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.46 2.49 0.63 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 0900-1500 0.16 8.90 0.39 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.93 0.07 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.481500-2100 0.70 4.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 2.14 2100-0300 0.43 10.94 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 1.59 0.14 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.04 Total 1.43 36.13 1.37 0.33 1.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.27 6.09 0.89 1.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.16 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0m00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cyprinidae 0300-0900 0.14 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.87 1.61 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.62 0900-1500 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 1500-2100 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.28 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.94 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.98 Total 0.42 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 2.88 2.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 2.03 1.20 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74 2.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.141500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.53 0.26 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 16.45 8.28 0.78 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 2.05 1.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.92 Total 0.00 0.00 19.01 9.74 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 3.93 5.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.26 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.35 0.71 4.97 0.61 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.97goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.151500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 9.02 22.49 3.48 1.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.84 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 9.73 27.68 4.09 1.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.04 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Slimy 0300-0900 0.83 2.18 0.93 0.39 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 3.55 15.12 4.84 1.46 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 Total 4.38 17.62 5.77 1.86 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 (continued)

XA C,, co CO)0 0 91 C,, C,, 0 0.5,,

Appendix Table E. (Continued) 0 0 0)0*OD 25 CD Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep-Oct Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel [05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Unidenti-0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fled 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 ,0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Allspecies 0300-0900 1.10 13.96 3.91 2.00 2.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 4.04 9.07 2.98 3.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.28 0900-1500 0.16 9.35 0.39 0.06 0,49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48

-1.15 0.21 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.99 1500-2100 0.70 5.08 0.53 0.26 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.02 1.15 0.05 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.22 2100-0300 4.26 26.59 21.59 9.75 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 10.69 25.22 5.67 4.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 46.19 Total 6.23 54.98 26.42 12.07 3.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 16.23 36.59 8.91 9.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 71.68 rn zz r rn rr in-CO)It Z 0 0 (1)0 9)CP\

a)w O_~10 0 Appendix Table F.Estimated Total Number (in millions) of Young-of-the-Year Fish Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by Month Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct-Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- A0pr- May- Jun- Jul-Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05105105 05 05 05 06 06 06 106 06 06106106 06 06 06 06 107 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 0.00 0.13 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0900-1500 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 ,0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.13 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Total 0.00 0.28 0.39 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cyprinidae 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 -0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.53 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) 0o li: rri m Co-I 0 Q.0 3 N 0.5.0 C)0 Cr 0 0)0)-I,=;...0 C)Appendix Table F. (Continued)

Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 Total 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.58 0.87 Unidenti- 0300-0900. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 fled 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.20 0.07 1.60 2.42 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.28 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 0.00 0.68 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.19 0.06 0.32 0.49 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Total 0.00 0.15 0.13 0.39 0.13 1.92 2.91 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.36 0.11 0.00 0.15. 0.46 0.00 1.10 All species 0300-0900 0.00 0.28 0.27 0.27 0.07 1.60 2.42 0.13 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.60 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0900-1500 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.071500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.46 '0.00 0.68 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.57 0.13 0.32 0.49 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00.

0.29 0.58 1.61 1 Total 0.00 0.43 0.79 .0.84 0.19 1.92 2.91 0.16 0.00 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.09 0.11 0.00 0.15 0.75 0.58 3.23 CO)rn 90 (jt co 0 0~1-J..

to 0 0 0 0, 0*0 C?*0.Appendix Table G. Estimated Total Number (in millions) of Yearling and Older Fish Entrained at Cook Nuclear Plant by.Month Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through February 2007 (June 2005 represents the entrainment estimate only for the last week in June.Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec-Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- .,Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 05 05 05 051 06 06 0606 06 [06106 06 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Alewife 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 Common 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 carp 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Cyprini- 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 dae 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00. 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 smelt 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 goby 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

,0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 Round 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 whitefish 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Slimy 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sculpin 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) co hi z-Do 1h rn rn CO)Ie Z 0 0.

t"3 N 0 0 0o ca 0~0J OD Appendix Table G. (Continued)

Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul- Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb.06-Species Diel 05 05 05 .05 05 056 06 06 06 06 0606 06 06, 06 06 06 06 07 Jan.07 Spottail 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 shiner 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 Unidenti-0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 fled 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 '0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 sucker 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 perch 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0:00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.41 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Total- 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 All 0300-0900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 species 0900-1500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1500-2100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.75 0.12 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 2100-0300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.59 0.75 0.12 0.14 0.14 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.81 CD X C'n-i1 0 (I)0 (D 3 Ip Appendix Table H. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 0 2005 through January 2007 (June 2005 represents the impingement estimate only for the last week in June).0 0-11 a)*0o 0 M 0up 2005 .2006 2007T I1Feb.06-Species Diel Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan I Feb I Mar Apr May J Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan.07 Alewife 0600-1800 26 0 28 392 144 0 0 65 147 14 53 374 30,895 331 274 4 0 1,386 478 42 33,997 1800-0600 21 7 7 217 59 0 105 46 46 15 .11 641 3,275 261 424 14 0 1,965 1,014 150 7,815 Total 47 7 35 609 204 0 105 111 193 29 63 1,015 34,170 592 698 18 0 3,351 1,492 192 41,812 Bloater 0600-1800 0 0 28 3,031 143 0 175 56 14 44 56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 125 11 249 1800-0600 0 0 26 637 233 0 196 21 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 15 0 14 94 0 i26 Total 0 0 54 3,668 376 0 371 77 14 44 60 0 0 0 0 15 0 14 219 11 375 Bluegill 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 152 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 -0 179 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 66 25 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 39 21 168 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 7 218 25 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 67 21 347 Bluntnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 minnow 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .4 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 4 Brook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 silverside 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 14 Brown 0600-1800 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bullhead 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Total 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 7 0 11 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Brown trout 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 3 72 0 0 0 0 0 0 96 1800-0600 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 Total 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 4 4 3 93 0 0 0 0 0 0 124 Burbot 0600-1800 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 18 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 3 14 4 56 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 21 81 7 4 3 0 0 0 0 14 8 28 166 Total 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 28 21 98 7 18 7 0 0 0 0 17 22 31 222 Central 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 mud- 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 minnow Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 48 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 52 Channel 0600-1800 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 4 130 94 11 4 0 0 14 0 0 0 23 56 331 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 8 140 28 0 340 221 53 11 11 0 4 1 .10 15 8 45 717 Total ' 0 0 0 7 8 140 28 4 469 315 64 14 11 0 18 1 10 15 31 101 1,048 Chestnut 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 91 Total 0, 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 98 21 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 119 (continued)

C4)-o U)flb to rrn n.I co C'0<0 Appendix Table H. (Continued) 0 0 0)0, (-0 C)_0 0 0)0 a)0 (D 2005 2006 2007I Feb.06-Species Diel Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr I May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan.07 Coho 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Common 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 carp 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 18 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 21 Deepwater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 20 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 18 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 38 Eastern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 banded. 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 killifish Total 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 34 Flathead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 00 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Freshwater 0600-1800 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 7 drum 1800-0600 0 .0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 6 .4 0 8 0 26 Total 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 4 6 4 0 8 0 33 Gizzard 0600-1800 0 0 14 .0 138 910 840 175 206 510 0 0 0 0 0 4 58 229 2,186 378 3,571 shad 1800-0600 0 0 13 15,890 362 700 175 224 175 575 21 0 0 0 0 1 10 252 2,870 752 4,656 Total 0 0 27 15,890 500 1,610 1,015. 399 381 1,085 21 0 0 0 0 5 68 481 5,056 1,130 8,227 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 22 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 18 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 15 40 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 shiner 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Lakechub 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 sturgeon 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 14 Lake trout 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 3 3 0 17 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 3 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 36 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4 0 4 14 0 0 0 0 3 29 0 53 (continued)

-'b-o P, Zr M I-hi7:X Appendix Table H. (Continued) 0 0 0,_m w CD-n n, 0 0, co 2005 2006 2007[ ! I ! I I .*Feb.06-Species Diel Jun l Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan.07 Lake 0600-1800 0 7 0 0 0 0 315 51 156 105 14 0 0 14 0 0 0 24 1,560 180 2,053 whitefish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 140 168 168 557 33 42 7 0 0 0 0 0 4 1,155 585 2,383 Total 0 7 0 0 0 140 483 219 713 137 56 7 0 14 0 0 0 28 -2,715 765 4,436Largemouth 06004800 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bass 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dace 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 144 32 25 18 7 4 0 0 0 35 36 299 sucker 1800-0600 7 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 18 73 42 11 3 0 0 0 0 0 21 24 193 Total 7 0 0 70 0 0 0 28 18 216 '74 35 21 7 4 0 .0 0 56 61 492 Mottled 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 7 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 11 Ninespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 70 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 stickleback 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 7 21 7 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 49 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 42 91 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 158 Northern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 pike 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 Pumpkin- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 seed 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0

0. 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 Rainbow 0600-1800 0 0 182 28 0 0 0 88 819 221 189 193 4 7 0 0 0 21 271 275 2,001 smelt 1800-0600 0 14 33 0 0 0 56 39 631 606 21 107 7 14 4 0 7 28 143 428 1,996 Total 0 14 215 28 0 0 56 126 1,450 827 210 301 11 21 4 0 7 49 415 704 3,997 Rock bass 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 7 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 20 Round goby 0600-1800 164 241 330 21 135 0 315 305 589 371 553 3,614 971 620 314 127 8 475 775 319 8,736 1800-0600 478 198 110 630 21 1,815 91 287 394 556 729 3,034 520 336 ,203 78 56 313 784 189 7,193 Total 642 439 440 651 156 1,815 406 592 983 928 1,282 6,648 1,491 956 517 205 64 788 1,559 508 15,929 Sea lamprey 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 189 24 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 266 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 54 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 I0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 200 78 25 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 376 Shorthead 0600-1800 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 7 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Total 7 0 7 70 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 4 (continued) rrn rn Cl 90-i7 0 0D 0 CD 9~)

Appendix Table H. (Continued) 0 0 0o-n 0 co 8, Os 00 0 Q a)2005 2006 2007Species Diel , Jun Jul Aug Se Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Jan.07-Silver 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slimy 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 66 98 35 46 14 0 0 0 4 0 0 331 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 7 49 102 131 32 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 371 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 119 168 229 67 88 14 0 0 0 4 0 14 702 Smallmouth 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 4 bass 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Spottail 0600-1800 59 53 670 308 105 910 2,590 323 3,772 877 1,350 468 102 55 45 26 15 203 13,792 960 21,665 shiner 1800-0600 119 84 73 2,800 657 1,666 2,226 1,334 3,653 2,565 1,336 187 28 43 120 47 0 448 6,883 1,375 16,685 Total 179 137 743 3,108 762 2,576 4,816 1,657 7,425 3,442 2,686 655 129 98 165 73 15 652 20,675 2,336 38,350 Steeihead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 7 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 1800-0600 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 70 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 88 7 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 Threespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 394 57 32 14 11 0 0 0 0 0 13 31 551 sticklebackl180-0600 7 0 0 0 0 0 28 7 81 92 25 46 28 0 0 0 0 0 14 29 315 Total 7 0 '-0 0 0 0 28 11 475 150 56 60 38 0 0 0 0 0 26 60 866 Trout-perch 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 20 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 14 Ill 0 158 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 29 0 4 10 0 0 0 0 0 39 24 106 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 49. 0 .17 10 0 0 0 0 14 150 24 265 Unidentified 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 0 -0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White perch 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 28 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 74 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 21 35 Total 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 28 0 0 4 0 .0 0 0 0 14 28 108 White 0600-1800 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 35 0 25 11 3 0' 0 0 0 14 18 108 sucker 1800-0600 7 0 7 '0 0 0 0 7 0 37 4. 4 21 0 0 4 0 0 14 31 113 Total 14 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 4 71 4 28 32 3 0 *4 0 0 28 48 221 Yellow 0600-1800 72 87 5,431 17,681 2,742 67,270 10,080 20,366 69,780 28,188 1.1,910 5,126 1,235 322 2,110 131

42 10,044 51,292 8,956 189,136 perch 1800-0600 56 148 728 21,140 3,280 49,213 3,073 18,780 154,971 34,231 14,760 6,696 1,174 353 2,802 180 4 6,543 20,231 11,498 253,444 Total 128 235 6,159 38,821 6,022 116,483 13,153 39,146 224,751 62,419 26,670 11,821 2,410 675 4,912 311 46 16,586 71,524 20,454 442,580 Total 0600-1800 335 388 6,709 21,468 3,406 69,090 14,315 21,566 76,314 31,144 14,355 9,987 33,318 1,444 2,765 292 124 12,431 70,734 11,341 264,2501800-0600 710 465 997 41,455 4,628 53,675 6,146 21,091 160,970 39,486 17,279 10,821 5,137 1,028 3,556 346 101 9,595 33,394 15,245 296,961 Total 1,045 853 7,706 62,923 8,034 122,765 20,461 42,656 237,285 70,631 31,635 20,808 38,455 2,473 6,321 638 225 22,026 104,128 26,586 561,211:2)0rn I-)co 4.-0ij Appendix Table I. Estimated Biomass (g) impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through January 2007 (June 2005 represents the biomass impingement estimate only for the last week in June).0 0 a_-T.0.0 a CD 0 OC 2005 ,_2006 Species Diet Jun ,Jul Aug Sep Oct I Nov J Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr J May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Alewife 0600-1800 413 0 91 756 906 0 0 246 441 518 1,673 3,200 180,025 2,848 4,012 .4 0 2,765 1,479 1800-0600 682 203 139 232 163 0 770 102 172 59 179 5,164 21,998 1,968 6,150 32 0 6,124 2,588 Total 1,095 203 230 988 1,069 0 770 348 613 577 1,852 8,365 202,023 4,816 10,162 35 0 .8,889 4,068 Bloater 0600-1800 0 0 56 6,454 319 0 595 700 77 171 980 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 683 1800-0600 0 0 53 .1,547 519 0 3,801 133 0 0 15 0 0 0 0 58 0 70 401 Total 0 0 109 8,001 838 0 4,396 833 77 171 995 0 0 0 .58 0 70 1,085 Bluegill 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 140 0 318 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 28 306 50 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 306 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 28 624 50 0 0 0 0 1 20 0 389 Bluntnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 0 0, 0 14 0 0 0 .0 0 0 Brook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 silverside 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, Total 0 0 0 0 " 01 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown 0600-1800 0 0 9,588 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 bullhead 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,093 0 55 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 09,588 0 0 0 0 2,093 0 55 57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,149 0 0 20,367 60,420 0 0 0 0 0 trout 1800-0600 0 23,425 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 6,337 3,150 0 11,324 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 23,425 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,149 6,337 3,150 20,367 71,744 0 0 0 0 0 Burbot 0600-1800 459 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 0 105 0 116 133 0 0 0 0 27 4,270 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 175 0 0 0 93 391 137 60 132 0 0 0 0 140 146 Total 459 0 0 0 175 0 0 308 93 496 137 176 265 0 0 0 0 167 4,416 Central 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 137 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mud- 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 0 210 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 560 0 347 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel 0600-1800 0 0 0 322 0 0 0 8 256 326 .40 25 0 0 51,100 0 0 C 5,930 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 23 560 12,824 0 1,089 749 1,810 40 5,812 0 1,617 12 167 934 259 Total 0 0 0 322 23 560 12,824 8 1,344 1,075 1,850, 65 5,812 0 52,717 12 167 934 6,189 Chestnut 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 025,522 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,756 20,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 '0 0 00 0 0 0 55,278 20,102 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C,)In-*I, in-QQ M, M 0)C.)(continued)

Appendix Table L (Continued)(m 0 0, CU-n, 0 A 0 C>0 0 0 (1)0 wm t0 S2005 ""2006 Species Diel Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec J Feb Mar Apr may Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Coho 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 17,116 16,694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600

0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17,116 16,694 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Common 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,507 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,151 0 0 0 0 0 129 Total 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 10,507 0 0 5,151 0 0 0 0 0. 129Deep- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ý 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 0 water 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 252 194 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 sculpin Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252 194 0 0 0 0 0 0 383 0 Eastern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 banded 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 killifish Total. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flathead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 catfish. 1800-0600 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fresh- 0600-1800 0 0 5,229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,380 0 0 2,856 0 0 0 0 water 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,017 0 0 0 4,407 2,938 0 154 drum Total 0 0 5,229 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 5,397 0 0 2,856 4,407 2,938 0 154 Gizzard 0600-1800 0 0 91 0 808 5,180 5,460 1,376 1,272 18,379 0 0 0 0 0 16 222 1,476 20,907 shad 1800-0600 0 0 40 51,730 346 2,380 2,275 2,735 7,036 44,939 212 0 0 0 0 6 78 4,067 20,394 Total 0 0 131 51,730 1,154 7,560 7,735 4,111 8,308 63,318 212 0 01 0 0 21 301 5,543 41,301 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,614 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 "0 0 2,645 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 9,639 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,645 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 shiner 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 chub 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,212 sturgeon 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 -0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,212 Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 217 0 0 0 0 18,686 7,486 trout 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,573 0 9,855 0 7,175 59 0 0 0 0 0 48,713 Total 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 10,573 0 9,855 0 7,175 276, 0 0 0 0, 18,686 56,199 (continued)

C,)rri 03 ,n'n rn CO)

Appendix Table I. (Continued) 0 0 0 C,-n 0~0 0 00 2005 2006 Species Diel Jn Jul Aug I Sep I Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr ý May Jun Jul Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov Dec Lake 0600-1800 0 14 0 0 0 0 30,520 9,099 5,657 27,319 207 0 0 3,327 0 0 0 5,951 245,412 whitefish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 41,580 48,468 9,394 69,565 5,639 5,613 4,735 0 0 0 0 0 3,936 115,999 Total 0 14 0 0 0 41,580 78,988 18,493 75,222 32,958 5,821 4,735 0 3,327 0 0 0 9,887 361,411 Large- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mouth 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bass Total 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 dace 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,104 0 119,953 24,938 21,970 18,907 3,955 1,155 0 0 0 26,112 sucker 1800-0600 6,291 0 0 91,000 0 0 0 0 29,750 67,868 32,409 6,004 2,812 0 0 0 0 0 36,954 Total 6,291 0 0 91,000 0 0 0 20,104 29,750 187,821 57,348 27,974 21,719 3,955 1,155 0 0. 0 63,067 Mottled 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0¢ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 0 0 0 0 0 0 41 0 Ninespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 640 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 stickle- 1800-0600 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 18 60 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 back Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 95 700 24 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Northern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 363 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pike 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 363 0 0 0 0 .0 0 03 0 0 Pumpkin- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0seed 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130 652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 130 652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 Rainbow 0600-1800 0 0 1,022 336 0 0 0 98 3,948 505 483 .471 7 21 0 0 0 62 1,875 smelt 1800-0600 0 56 152 0 0 0 980 368 1,495 11,703 .21 111 7 14 4 0 7 .84 1,223 Total 0 56 1,174 336 0 0 980 466 5,443 12,209 504 582 14 35 4 0 7 146 3,098 Rock bass 0600-1800 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 159 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 159 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 Round 0600-1800 1,949 2,834 4,050 210 2,300 0 3,325 4,806 .4,239 3,655 8,036 58,693 8,836 6,523 3,925 1,700 424 9,802 18,303 goby 1800-0600 6,460 2,851 1,436 5,460 259 33,646 2,065 3,549 4,025 5,394 11,009 46,189 6,601 3,874 1,897 854 1,433 6,802 10,367 Total 8,409 5,685 5,486 5,670 2,559 33,646 5,390 8,355 8,264 9,049 19,044 104,882 15,437 10,398 5,821 2,554 1,857 16,604 28,670 Sea 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53,449 7,045 1,341 168 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,067 2,751 13,087 6,122 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0' 0 0 0 0 4,067 56,200, 20,132 7,462 168, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Short- 0600-1800 0 0 7,701 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 head 1800-0600 5,202 0 0 119,000 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 0 redhorse Total 5,202 0 7,701 119,000 0 0 0 0 0 777 0 0 ý 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued)

Cd),0 rn DO hri ZE:-rn z 0 0" 0 C Appendix Table I. (Continued) 0 0, 0 a)-n (5 11 0_)0 0?0, 0, 2005 2006Species Diel Jun 'Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan I Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Silver 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slimy 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,050 509 791 248 415 137 0 0 0 49 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 551 905 1,002 232 324 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 126 1,601 1,414 1,792 480 739 137 0 0, 0. 49 0 Small- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mouth 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 bass Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Spottail 0600-1800 282 327 4,817 2,576 375 4,060 27,475 2,732 31,760 7,958 9,655 4,403 995 584 345 152 144 1,074 109,271 shiner 1800-0600 1,083 994 456 15,050 1,365 10,936 21,364 10,247 28,400 23,971 11,682 2,176 293 411 1,228 488 0 2,109 81,697 Total 1,365 1,321 5,273 17,626 1,740 14,996 48,839 12,979 60,160, 31,928 21,337 6,578 1,288 995 1,572 640. 144 3,183 190,968 Steelhead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,383 7,000 497 4,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 5,679 0 0 0 0 0 9,590 0 4,650 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 5,679 0 0 0 0 0 10,973 7,000 5,147 4,841 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Three- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 471 78 49 17 14 0 0 0 0 0 16 spine 1800-0600 14 0 0 0 0 0 28 7 126 153 46 75 38 0 0 0 0 0 14 stickle- Total 14 0 0. 0 0 0 28, 11 597 230 95 92 52 0 0 0 0 0 30 back Trout- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 196 0 81 0 58 0 0 0 0 0 70 747 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 172 0 '11 49 0 0 0 0 422 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 253 0 69 49 0 0 0 0 70 1,169 Unidenti-0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fied 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ý 0 -0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 12,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 12,653 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 1,365 5,278 0 0 2,566 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .70 Total 0 0. 0 0 0 0 01 0 1,365 5,278 0 0 2,566 0 0 0 0 0 70 White 0600-1800 9,188 0 0 .0 0 0 0 1,050 14,527 0 16,103 8,376 2,876 0 0 0 0 4,018 sucker 1800-0600 7,908 0 4,164 0 0 0 0 6,426 0 13,111 3,192 2,625 17,675 0 0 3,233 0 0 11,494 Total 17,095 0 4,164 0 0 0 0 6,426 1,050 27,638 3,192 18,728 26,051 2,876 0 3,233 0 0 15,512 Yellow 0600-1800 361 2,360 14,373 59,375 9,564 289,450 44,170 98,894 258,226 108,895 41,509 30,591 20,831 9,609 22,077 2,991 189 84,470 322,907 perch 1800-0600 2,334 927 2,663 120,610 9,734 201,490 15,617 103,565 564,599 131,976 53,144 34,547 25,095 11,694 40,960 2,531 13 84,552 282,643 Total 2,695 3,287 17,037 179,985 19,298 490,940 59,787, 202,459 822,825 240,871 94,653 65,138 45,926 21,303 63,037 5,522 202 169,021 605,550 TOTAL 0600-1800 12,653 5,535 47,018 70,030 14,271 298,690 111,545 140,093 370,285 376,151 111,342 148,697 261,713 90,302 85,4691 4,863 980 124,856 778,712 1800-0600 42,626 34,135 9,102 404,629 12,584 290,592 108,192 163,570 709,843 366,644 153,419 115,395 86,060 29,284 51,854 11,623 4,656 108,817 616,618 Total 55,278 39,670 56,120 474,659 26,855 589,282 219,737 303,663 1,080,128 742,795 264,761 264,092 347,773 119,586 137,324 16,486 5,635, 233,673 1,395,330 C,, rn I-In 0 P.(continued)

C>O Appendix Table I. (Continued)

C)0 0 (P-n 0_I.0 0 OD 0 a, 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Alewife 0600-1800 172 197,137 1800-0600 550 44,983 Total 722 242,120 Bloater 0600-1800 53 1,964 1800-0600 0 544 Total 53 2,508 Bluegill 0600-1800 0 401 1800-0600 226 937 Total 226 1,338 Blunt-nose minnow 0600-1800 0 14 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 14 Brook silver-side 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 14 Total 0 14 Brown bullhead 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 112 Total 0 112 Brown trout 0600-1800

.0 86,936 1800-0600 0 20,810 Total 0 107,747 Burbot 0600-1800 21 4,673 1800-0600 146 1,243 Total 167 5,916 Central mudminnow 0600-1800 0 137 1800-0600 0 239 Total 0 376 Channel catfish 0600-1800 583 58,260 1800-0600 152 12,639 Total 735 70,899 Chestnut lamprey 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Chinook 0600-1800 0 25,522 1800-0600 0 49,858 Total 0 75,380 Coho 0600-1800 0 33,810 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 33,810 hri m CO-In Z 0 0 (continued) c~o N)0 0)0-CD 0 Appendix Table I. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06 Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Common carp 0600-1800 0 10,507 1800-0600 0 5,280 Total 0 15,787 Deepwater sculpin 0600-1800 0 383 1800-0600 0 446 Total 0 829 Eastern banded 0600-1800 0 82 killifish 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 82 Flathead catfish 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Freshwater drum 0600-1800 0 5,236 1800-0600 0 10,516 Total 0 15,752Gizzard shad 0600-1800 34,540 76,812 1800-0600 81,642 158,373 Total 116,182 235,185 Golden redhorse 0600-1800 2,528 12,142 1800-0600 0 2,670 Total 2,528 14,812 Golden shiner 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Greater redhorse 0600-1800 1,212 1,212 1800-0600 0 0 Total 1,212 1,212 Lake chub 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Lake sturgeon 0600-1800 0 9,212 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 9,212 Lake trout 0600-1800 0 26,389 1800-0600 0 65,802 Total 0 92,191 Lake whitefish 0600-1800 38,026 325,899 1800-0600 143,969 349,456 Total 181,994. 675,355-o Z,)rn CO)Z 0 Co 0 (continued)..9 0 U, 0 0 CD Co-.0 5)0 0.Appendix Table I. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Largemouth bass 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Longnose dace 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Longnose sucker 0600-1800 43,545 260,536 1800-0600 32,585 208,383 Total 76,130 468,918 Mottled sculpin 0600-1800 0 69 1800-0600 0 40 Total 0 109 Ninespine stickleback 0600-1800 0 728 1800-0600 0 127 Total 0 855 Northern pike 0600-1800 0 363 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 363 Pumpkinseed 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 782 Total 0 782 Rainbow smelt 0600-1800 910 8,283 1800-0600 1,085 15,754 Total 1,995 24,037Rock bass 0600-1800 0 159 1800-0600 7 7 Total 7 166 Round goby 06004800 7,874 132,0101800-0600 4,444 102,887 Total 12,317 234,897 Sea lamprey 0600-1800 16,059 78,061 1800-0600 7,547 29,508 Total 23,606 107,568 Shorthead redhorse 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 777 Total 0 .777 Silver redhorse 0600-1800

.0 0 1800-0600 0 .0 Total 0 0 C,, rnl rn C, z 0 (D (continued) 0 Appendix Table I. (Continued) 0 0 0 71 C,, 03 0o 0 00 25 co 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Slimy sculpin 0600-1800 0 3,199 1800-0600 70 3,084 Total 70 6,283 Smallmouth bass 0600-1800 0 25 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 25 Spottail shiner 0600-1800 7,703 174,044 1800-0600 10,879 163,333 Total 18,581 337,377 Steelhead 0600-1800 0 12,338 1800-0600 0 4,650 Total 0 16,988 Threespine 0600-1800 55 700 stickleback 1800-0600 29 480 Total 84 1,181 Trout-perch 0600-1800 0 9561800-0600 202 856 Total 202 1,812 Unidentified 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 White perch 0600-1800 747 9,9561800-0600 2,079 2,149 Total 2,827 12,105 White sucker 0600-1800 17,287 64,236 1800-0600 11,080 62,411 Total 28,367 126,647 Yellow perch 0600-1800 154,855 1,057,148 1800-0600 136,464 1,368,217 Total 291,318 2,425,366 TOTAL 0600-1800 326,169 2,679,538 1800-0600 433,155 2,687,369 Total 759,324 5,366,907 fli zz C,, C6-4 ,)0 0, 0A 0 a)-Q Appendix Table J. Estimated Number of Fish Impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 through January 2007 (June 2005 represents the impingement estimate only for the last week in June).0 0 tA co 0.M 0 0 5 0o-I--o C 0.Sk o u u2005 2006 Species Diel J Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul I Ot I Nov DecAlewife 0600-1800 13 0 7 273 87 70 0 54 84 0 0 730 28,243 430 160 80 370 1,251 531 1800-0600 0 56 0 2,940 43 413 70 35 68 31 20 556 2,654 362 378 60 200 4,030 509 Total 13 56 7 3,213 130 483 70 89 152 31 20 1,286 30,897 793 538 140 569 5,281 1,040 Bloater 0600-1800 0 0 126 931 81 140 315 0 14 13 8 0 0 0 4 11 49 0 126 1800-0600 0 0 40 420 285 138 392 147 18 .0 0 0 0 0 0 14 222 84 68 Total 0 0 166 1,351 365 278 707 147 32 13 8 0. 0 0 4 25 270 84 194 Bluegill 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 28 14 169 113 0 0 0 0 0 4 14 21 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 8 0 14 74 18 105 70 18 0 0 0 0 0 46 46 Total 0 0 0 0 8 0 14 102 32 274 183 18 0 0 0 0 4 60 67 Blunt-nose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow 1800-0600 0 0 0 -.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Brook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 silverside 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown bull- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 10 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 head 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 27 19 4 0 0 0 0 4 .0 0 Brown 0600-1800 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 7 7 14 0: 0 0 0 0 trout 1800-0600 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 28 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 8 18 7 42 0 0 0 0. 0 Burbot 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 14 .3 0 0 0 4 38 3 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 7 27 27 21 3 7 0 0 14 14 0 Total 0 0 0 0. 0 0 7 0 7 40 27 35 7 7 01 0.- 18 52 3 Central 0600-1800 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mud- 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow Total 0 .0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel 0600-1800 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 56 147 131 109 18 0 0 13 0 0 7 48 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 8 0 56 70 161 149 64 21 0 0 14 0 0 19 i19 Total 0 0 0 0. 8 0 56 126 308 280 174 39 0 0 27 0 0 25 167 Chestnut 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 Chinook 0600-1800 0 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 18 26 8 0 0 0 -0 0 .0 0 0 1800-0600 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 9 4 0 13 0 0 4 0 0 Total 0 14 0, 0 0 0 0 0 18 39 17 4 0, 13 0, 0, 4 0 01 co CA: CO)CO)rn QQ I(continued) 9j Appendix Table J. (Continued) 0 0 0-n co)0)0 50 oD CD o)CD t'Q 0 0 0.2005 2006 Species Diel

Jun Jul I Aug I Sep I Oct I Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr I May Jun I Jul Aug Sep I Oct Nov I Dec Coho 0600-1800 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Total 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 12 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 Common 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 carp. 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 0 0 Deepwater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 banded 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 killifish Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flathead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 .0 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 3 0 Freshwater 0600-1800 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 *0 0 35 drum 1800-0600 0 0 14 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 21 0 0 0 56 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 35 Gizzard 0600-1800 0 7 28 0 259 700 595 173 424 686 456 0 0 0 0 7 5,140 1,497 1,557 shad 1800-0600 0 0 20 .2,891 170 2,238 371 378 137 566 324 0 0 0 0 40 10,542 2,487 1,716 Total 0 7 48 2,891 430 2,938 966 551 560 1,252 780 0 0 0 0 47 15,682 3,984 3,273 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total -0 0 7. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 9 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 shiner 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0, 0 0 .0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 0 0 6 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakechub 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 Lake- .0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sturgeon 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Laketrout 0600-1800 0 0 7 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 07 0 0 4 7 9 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 4 0 Total 0 0 7 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 4 10 9 (continued)

CO)C,):Z DO-n, rn~5 Appendix Table J. (Continued)

C-)a 0 0o 0)U CD 0)0 00 w.0 (0 0 C, 2005 ' ..2006 Species Diel Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb I Mar Apr May Jun I Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 7 0 140 120 105 13 0 21 0 0 11 0 0 14 1,309 whitefish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 140 161 88 384 50 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 64 2,247 Total 0 0 0 0 7 140 301 207 489 63 9 25 0 0 11 0 0 78 3,556 Largemout 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 hbass 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 .0 7 0 0. 0 01 0 0 0 7 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 dace 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Longnose 0600-1800 20 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 32 75 39 34 43 13 0 0 7 0 19 sucker 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 8 0 7 77 39 32 0 47 53 0 0 0 0 0 32 Total 20 0 0 0 14 A0 7 77 .70 106 39 81 95 13 0 0 7 .0. 52 Mottled 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ninespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 19 22 35 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 stickleback 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 36 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 32 19 22 70 21 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Northern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 pike 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Pumpkinse 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ed 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow 0600-1800 0 0 392 42 14 0 105 119 438 466 441 283 25 0 13 0 4 67 210 smelt 1800-0600 0 14 81 0 8 280 84 305 343 362 280 72 10 0 11 0 32 14 259 Total 0 14 473 42 21 280 189 424 780 828 721 355 35 0 24 0 35 81 469 Rock bass 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600

'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 '0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 Round 0600-1800 256 218 568 63 172 420 140 270 203 276 497 3,960 1,210 1,187 591 136 366 533 1,209 goby 1800-0600 478 261 193 574 142 2,518 392 340 229 367 419 3,289 970 752 236 129 590 837 736 Total 734 480 761 637 314 '2,938 532 610 432 643 916 7,249 2,180 1,939 827 265 956 1,370 1,945 Sea 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 11 0 11 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 7 25 4 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 Total 0 .0 0 01 0 0 28 7 74 14, 0 11 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0 Shorthead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0.7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0'Total 0 0 01 0 7 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued) rrn I-ff rzl F'n CO)3 Appendix Table J. (Continued) 0 0 0'C-(CU 0)0~00 Q 0 2005 2006 Species Diel Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov I Dec I Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug SepI Oct Nov Dec Silver 0600-1800 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 Total 0 7 0 0 0 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 Slimy 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 70 19 22 42 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 29 42 7 20 0 0 0 4 0 Total 0 0 0 0 1 01 0 0, 4 70 37 51 84 42 20 0 0 0 4 0 Small- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 mouth bass 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 Spottail 0600-1800 125 47 1,980 175 153 1,050 1,435 830 7,056 788 677 646 96 17 56 73 257 332 13,176 shiner 1800-0600 0 133 223 470 655 4,000 4,235 1,653 4,114 1,788 607 299 56 87 11 60 831 699 13,945 Total 125 180 2,203 645 .808 5,050.. 5,670 2,482 11,169 2,576 1,284 945 152 105 66 133 1,088 1,031 27,121 Steelhead 0600-1800 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 *14 4 1 10 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 35 0 0 0 0 0 70 21 13 9 4 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 49 0 0 0 0 0 84 25 14 19 4 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 Threespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 200 73 29 24 4 0 0 0 0 14 17 stickleback 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 84 186 23 9 50 25 0 0 0 0 0 7 Total 0 0 0 0. 0 0 28 119 385 97 38 75 28 0 0 0 0 14 24 Trout- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 01 7. 4 0 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 85 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 140 70 7 39 26 18 7 0 0 0 0 7 0 65_ Total 0 0 0 0 0 140 70 7 46 30 18 14 0 0 0 0 14 0 150Unidenti- 0600-1800 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 fled 1800-0600 0 7 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 7 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 12 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0, 0 Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 20 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 13 9 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 Total 0 0 0i 0 0 0 0 0 0 44 29 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 3 White 0600-1800 7 7 0 7 0 0 0 63 11 11 0 42 39 0 0 4 4 0 0 sucker 1800-0600 0 0 -0 0 7 0 7 "0 0 33 18 36 10 7 0. 0 11 0 43 Total 7 7 0 7 7 0 7 63 11 44 18 77 49 7 0 4 14 0 43 Yellow 0600-1800 53 40 12,408 5,201 1,798 83,510 6,615 34,612 218,077 21,934 12,947 6,327 1,040 167 2,149 420 1,182 14,816 122,230 perch 1800-0600 49 154 440 7,337 2,428 70,294 13,286 29,416 134,757 31,240 8,806 6,552 1,001 414 1,701 318 1,092 11,558 41,265 Total 102 194 12,848 12,538 4,226 153,804 19,901 64,029 352,834 53,174 21,753 12,878 2,041 581 3,850 739 2,274 26,375 163,495 TOTAL 0600-1800 479 353 15,551 6,692 2,590 85,890 9,380 36,410 226,987 24,825 15,451 12,210 30,766 1,828 3,021 731 7,403 18,593 140,605 1800-0600 527 704 1,010 14,633 3,768 80,160 19,264 32,749 140,560, 34,876 10,743 11,071 4,839 1,698 2,350 621 13,553 19,862 61,065_ _ Total 1,006 1,056 16,561 21,325 6,357 166,050 28,644 69,159 367,548 59,701 26,194 23,281 35,604 3,526 5,371 1,352 20,955 38,454 201,669-(continued)

-o fli CO), ci C: 5 0, 0 Appendix Table J. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Alewife 0600-1800 40 31,921 1800-0600 105 8,972 Total 146 40,893 Bloater 0600-1800 11 235 1800-0600 0 406 Total 11 640 Bluegill 0600-1800 4 338 1800-0600 20 323 Total 24 661 Bluntnose minnow 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Brook silverside 0600-1800 0 4 1800-0600 0 3 Total 0 7 Brown bullhead 0600-1800 0 27 1800-0600 0 25 Total 0 53 Brown trout 0600-1800 19 67 1800-0600 0 39 Total 19 106 Burbot 0600-1800 35 111 1800-0600 21 142 Total 56 253 Central mudminnow 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Channel catfish 0600-1800 27 500 1800-0600 7 554 Total 34 1,054 Chestnut lamprey 0600-1800 21 21 1800-0600

.0 0 Total 21 21 Chinook 0600-1800 0 52 1800-0600 0 42 Total 0 94 Coho 0600-1800 0 34 1800-0600 0 7 Total 0, 41 W~C:)0 0 (continued)

N)*.0_)o o Appendix Table J. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Common carp 0600-1800 0 13 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 13 Deepwater sculpin 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 7 7 Total 7 7 Eastern banded 0600-1800 0 0 killifish 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Flathead catfish 0600-1800 14 17 1800-0600 0 0 Total 14 17 Freshwater drum 0600-1800 0 35 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 35 Gizzard shad 0600-1800 341 10,107 1800-0600 229 16,040 Total 570 26,147 Golden redhorse 0600-1800 0 27 1800-0600 0 11 Total 0 38 Golden shiner 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 4 Total 0 4 Greater redhorse 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Lake chub 0600-1800 0 7 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 7 Lake sturgeon 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Lake trout 0600-1800 4 30 1800-0600 0 11 Total 4 41 Lake whitefish 0600-1800 277 1,750 1800-0600 473 3,230 Total 750 4,980 rn 20~0 Y 0 (continued) 0 0D 0 0 DC CD WD Appendix Table'J. (Continued) 2007.Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Largemouth bass 0600- 0 14 1800 1800- 0 0 0600 Total 0 14 Longnose dace 0600- 0 6 1800 1800- 0 7 0600 Total 0 13 Longnose sucker 0600- 4 264 1800 1800- 0 202 0600 Total 4 466 Mottled sculpin 0600- 0 7 1800 1800- 0 7 0600 Total 0 14 Ninespine 0600- 7 104 stickleback 1800 1800- 0 67 0600 Total 7 171 Northern pike 0600- 0 0 1800 1800- 0 0 0600 Total 0 .0 Pumpkinseed 0600- 0 0 1800 -1800- 0 4 0600 Total 0 4 Rainbow smelt 0600- 354 2,299 1800 1800- 1,312 2,694 0600 Total 1,666 4,993 Rock bass 0600- 7 7 1800 1800- 0 7 0600 Total 7 14 CO)C/)In zz-ft 0 Q.0)(A (A 0 0 0)(continued)

N)0 C)0 00 Appendix Table J. (Continued) 2007*Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Round goby 0600- 342 10,510 1800 1800- 188 8,741 0600 Total 530 19,251 Sea lamprey 0600- 39 109 1800 1800-. 11 39 0600 Total 49 147 Shorthead 0600- 0 7 redhorse 1800 1800- 0 0 0600 Total 0 7 Silver redhorse 0600- 0 0 1800 1800- 0 7 0600 Total 0 7 Slimy sculpin 0600- 0 188 1800 1800- 0 120 0600 Total 0 308 Smallmouth bass 0600- 0 7 1800 1800- 0 4 0600 Total 0 11 Spottail shiner 0600- 1,139 24,313 1800 1800- 2,161 24,657 0600 Total 3,300 48,970 Steelhfead 0600- 14 31 1800 1800- 11 68 0600 Total 25 99 Threespine 0600- 35 396 stickleback 1800 1800- 59 359 0600 1 Total 94 755 Wu I'll rIz co 0 0 (continued)

~~0 03 0 0 00 0 Appendix Table J. (Continued) 2007 1Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Trout-perch 0600- 0 110 1800 1800- 0 161 0600 Total 0 271 Unidentified 0600- 0 30 1800 1800- 0 0 0600 Total 0 30 Walleye 0600- 0 0 1800 1800- 0 0 0600 Total 0 0 White perch 0600- 0 55 1800 1800- 0 22 0600 Total 0 77 White sucker 0600- 81 189 1800 1800- 13 171 0600 Total 94 360 Yellow perch 0600- 20,258 421,548 1800 1800- 13,469 252,172 0600 Total 33,727 673,720 TOTAL 0600- 23,069 505,489 1800 1800- 18,086 319,323 0600 Total 41,155 824,812 rnl C/)~Ki 0 0 Appendix Table K. Estimated Biomass (g) impinged at Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 2, Assuming Design Cooling Water Flow, June 2005 0through January 2007 (June 2005 represents the biomass impingement estimate only for the last week in June).0 CýG)"13 0, 0 C?6 00 2005 ' 2006 Species Diel JunI Jul IAug Sep Oct[Nov Dec[Jan Feb MarApr.May Jun Jul AugISep Oct Nov Dec Alewife 0600-1800 289 0 7 532 293 140 0 171 270 0 0 8,469 189,752 3,171 1,548 381 2,040 3,010 1,342 1800-0600 0 1,589 0 5,740 541 689 350 81 1,106 132 186 5,466 73,984 2,674 4,749 286 833 9,674 1,254 Total 289 1,589 7 6,272 834 829 350 252 1,376 132 186 13,936 263,736 5,845 6,297 667 2,874 12,684 2,596 Bloater 0600-1800 0 0 168 1,995 241 560 945 0 70 25 17 0 0 0 11 21 147 0 569 1800-0600 0 0 67 910 550 964 1,771 4,417 70 0 0 0 0 0 0 43 686 154 244 Total 0 0 235 2,905 792 1,524 2,716 4,417 140 25 17 0 0 0. 11 64 833 154 813Bluegill 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56 42 721 472 0 0 0 0 0, 4 28 93 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 23 0 56 217 18 1,157 771 402 0 0 0 0 0 277 134 Total 0 0 0 0 23 0 56 273 60 1,878 1,244 402 0 0 0 0 4 305 227 Bluntnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 minnow 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 silverside 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Brown 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 162 39 270 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 bullhead 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 39 26 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 20.1 65 270 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 Brown 0600-1800 0 21,943 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,751 1,168 10,971 3,637. 9,899 0 0 0 0 0 trout 1800-0600 0 48,625 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 64 0 15,014 0 01 0 0 0 Total 0 70,568 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,751 1,168 11,035 3,637 24,913 0 0 0 0 0 Burbot 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 40 0 90 83 0 0 0 18 601 31 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 0 37 134 117 128 41 416 0 0 .224 210 0 Total 0 0 0, 0 0, 0 42 0 37 173 117 218 124 416 0 0 242 811 31 Central 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 mud- 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0 minnow Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Channel 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 336 14,447 8,602 46 0 0 4,269 0 0 68 10,529 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 23 0 19,880 4,690 9,251 626 149 46 0 0 400 0 0 815 24,070 Total 0 0 0 _ 0 23 .0 19,880 4,802 9,587 15,073 8,750 92 0 0 4,670 0 0 883 34,599 Chestnut 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chinook 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,185 25,628 9,358 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 233 0 _ 0 .0 0 0 0 0 13,832 9,221 15 0 413' 0 0 202 0 0 Total 0 233 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,185 39,460 18,579 15, 0 413 0 0 202 0 0 CO CO rri In i7)rn CO cj 0 Z;(continued)

Appendix Table K. (Continued) 0-0 0)tr OD--.I (0 (I*2005 1 2006 Species Diel JuDueuce Ot N D .L 1 M ~ Ar My 20 Species Die[ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Jun Jul Aug Sep I Oct INo De IJa Fb Mr Ap My Ju Jl Ag Sp Oc Nov Dec Coho 0600-1800 3,747 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19,998 11,685 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,147 0 0 0 0 0 Total 3,747 0 0 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 19,998 11,685 0 0 7,147 0 0 0 0 0 Common 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,032 0 0 0 0 carp 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,032 0 0 0 0 Deepwater 0600-1800 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Eastern 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 banded 1800-0600 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 killifish Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 315 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Flathead 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,434 0 catfish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,434 0 Freshwater 0600-1800 0 0 4,599 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 *0 63,570 drum 1800-0600 0 0 27,852 _ 0 0 0 75,404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 32,451 _0 0 0 75,404 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 63,570 Gizzard 0600-1800 0 5,271 105 0 1,566 3,570 3,010 7,742 6,510 18,851 3,849 0 0 0 0 466 96,615 10,598 8,846 shad 1800-0600 0 0 40 11,306 736 9,222 2,296 4,631 1,306 29,132 3,506 0 0 0 0 240 74,793 27,896 11,251 Total 0 5,271 145 11,306 2,302 12,792 5,306 12,373 7,816 47,983 7,356 0 0 0 0 706171,409 38,494 20,097 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,064 14,896 5,163 0 0 8,221, 0 0 0 1,644 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 29 0 0 0 0 0

'0 0 0 Total 0 0 14 .0 0 0 0 0 0 1,066 14,925 5,163 0 0 8,221 0 0 0 1,644 Golden 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 shiner 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 123 _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Greater 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_ 0, 0 0 0 redhorse 1.800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lakechub 0600-1800 0 0 0 0, 0 ( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 196 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0_"0 196 0 0 0 0 Lake. 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sturgeon 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lake trout 0600-1800 0 0 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 161 0 0 0 12,285 30,307 29,768 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 112 0 0 0 0 8,291 0 Total 0 0 147 0 144 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 273 0 0 0 12,285 38,598 29,768 (continued)-n:Z rZl CO)rn Co hi Appendix Table K. (Continued) 0 0 0 o C,, o oo 0o ow 00 z 0 CD 0 0 I-2005 2006 Species Diel Jun-- J Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Lake 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 3,252 0 176,540 30,841 59,465 15,929 0 235 0 0 2,342 0 0 6,782 210,722 whitefish 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 66,360 94,500 16,104 126,178 15,206 1,078 5,478 0 0 0 0 0 6,258 339,964 Total 0 0 0 0 3,252 66,360 271,040 46,945 185,643 31,135 1,078 5,713 0 0 2,342 0 0 13,039 550,686 Largemout 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0- 28 0 0 h bass 1800-0600 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 01 0 .0 0 0 0 266 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 Longnose 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 24 dace 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0. 0. 0 0 0 0 0 01 14 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 308 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 Longnose 0600-1800 14,792 0 0 0 6,828 0 0 0 34,626 96,820, 42,565 27,582 38,655 8,941 0 0 6,393 0 24,136 sucker 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 7,200 0 1,498 114,436 45,497 36,069 0 46,542 51,075 0 0 0 .0 0 34,135 Total 14,792 0 0 0 14,028 0 1,498 114,436 80,122 132,889 42,565 74,124 89,729 8,941 0 0 6,393 0 58,270 Mottled 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 .0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 0 0 0 0 0 0Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42 112 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ninespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0C 0 35 38 54 98 18, 0 0 0 0 0 0 stickleback 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 0 0 103 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70 38 54 201 52 0 0 0 0 0 0 Northern 0600-1800 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.

0 0 0 0 0 pike 1800-0600 0 .0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Pumpkinse 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 ed 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Rainbow 0600-1800 0 0 1,771 637 82 0 420 347 753, 1,183 1,143 353 25 0 132 0 165 396 1,357 smelt 1800-0600 0 35 430 0 129 5,460 700 767 846 730 638 176 21 0 11 0 137 336 2,378 Total 0 35 2,201 637 211 5,460 1,120 1,114 1,598 1,913 1,781 528 46 0 142 0 301 732 3,735 Rock bass 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0, 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,904 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,904 0 0 0 0 0 0 Round 0600-1800 4,607 3,223 9,043 1,281 3,092 4,830 875 3,049 2,422 2,135 6,966 56,833 15,927 14,060 7,198 1,728 9,141 10,277 20,808 goby 1800-0600 6,460 3,328 2,559 6,974 2,978 47,997 4,676 6,973 3,512 2,874 5,717 53,533 12,040 8,254 2,969 2,944 12,937 21,046 10,496 Total 11,067 6,551 11,602 8,255 6,070, 52,827 5,551 10,023 5,934 5,009 12,683 110,365 27,967 22,314 10,167 4,672 22,078 31,323 31,304 Sea 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,981 3,700 0 210 0 0 0, 0, 0 0_ 0 lamprey 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,844 3,164 7,623 690 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Total 0.0 0 0 0 0 11,844 3,164 26,604 4,389 0 210 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 Shorthead 0600-1800 0 1 0 10,730 0 0 0 2,289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 01 0 __ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 Total 0 0 01 0 10,730 0 0 0 2,289 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued) co rn"Z (0 go CO)-I 0©l Appendix Table K. (Continued) 0 0 0)0*CD C)0~0 C, 0 0 0)0 0)2005 2006 Species Diel IJun Jul Aug Sep Oct I Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr I May Jn Jul 0Aug I Sep Oct Nov Dec Silver 0600-1800 0 16,471 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 28 0 0 Total 0 16,471 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ 0 28 0 0 Slimy 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 350 112 122 391 358 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin 1800-0600 0 0 0a 0 0 0 0 0 0 101 158 335 70 140 0 0 0 14 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 350 214 279 726 428 140 0 0 0 14 0 Smallmout 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 hbass 1800-0600 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 14 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,143 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 Spottail 0600-1800 1,247 266 13,330 1,323 735 4,970 15,330 5,331 53,738 6,584 5,298 7,120 1,127 210 489 314 1,077 2,279 76,905 shiner 1800-0600 0 1,338 1,404 3,157 1,918 38,046 39,137 9,345 31,309 14,721 4,512, 3,049 654 860 63 378 3,259 4,078 59,750 Total 1,247 1,604 14,734 4,480 2,654 43,016 54,467 14,676 85,047 21,305 9,810 10,169 1,781 1,070 552 692 4,336 6,356 136,655 Steelbead 0600-1800 0 14,421 0 0 0 0 0 3,430 5,607 694 9,722 0 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 41,314 0 0 0 0 01 52,640 3,318 2,761 1,841 4,260 147 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 55,734 0 0 0 0 0 56,070 8,925 3,455 11,562 4,260 193 0 0 0 0 0 0 Threespine 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 67 270 99 37 38 4 0 0 0 0 14 31 stickleback 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 91 238 27 9 79 42 -0 0 0 .0 0 11 Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 158 508 126 46 117 46 _ 0 0 0 0 14 42 Trout- 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 18 0 34 0 0 0_ 0 21 0 703 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 840 532 49 214 131 88 29 0 0 0 0 39 0 424 Total 0 0 0 0 0 840 532 49 263 149 _88 64 0 0 0 0 60 0 1,128 Unidenti-0600-1800 0 0 14. 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 181 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 flied 1800-0600 0 21 0 0 0 0 0 "0 0_ 0 0, 0 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 21 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 272 181 0 0 0 0 _ 0 0 0 0 Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 1,694 0 5,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 1,694 0 5,203 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 White 0600-1800 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,327 2,218 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 perch 1800-0600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01,288 859 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total 0 0 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 4,615 3,077 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 White 0600-1800 8,531 3,086 0 9,317 0 0 0 24,933 2,090 14,315 0 42,342 36,638 0, 0 2,891 3,196 0 0 sucker 1800-0600 0 _ 0 0 0 8,750 0 4,466 0 0 28,677 14,568 35,844 8,769 5,716 0 0 2,942 0 29,695 Total' 8,531 3,086 0 9,317 8,750 0 4,466 24,933 2,090 42,992 14,568 78,187 45,407 5,716 0 2,891 6,137 0 29,695 Yellow 0600-1800 827 523 27,426 30,639 8,313 377,020 24,780 157,472 706,140 94,705, 50,431 30,450 18,274 5,993 40,048 4,861 9,183 134,997 567,130 perch '1800-0600 2,256 9,696 2,869 30,222 7,296 343,512 57,106 137,566 525,951 125,882 32,977 52,970 35,808 12,419 18,127 1,819 15,457 113,493 608,752 Total 3,083 10,220 30,295 60,861 15,610 720,532 81,886 295,038 1,232,091 220,587 83,407 83,420 54,082 18,411 58,175 6,680 24,640 248,490 1,175,882 TOTAL 0600-1800 34,040 65,203 58,318 45,724 40,336 391,090 222,215 233,870 900,641 322,620 168,821 190,736 304,739 42,274 96,485 10,662 140,312 201,790 1,018,221 1800-0600 8,716 106,179 35,221 58,309 30,288 513,089 314,286 355,171 756,506 274,333 76,4491 208,551 184,795 53,051 26,320 5,710 111,547 192,556 1,122,573 Total 42,756 171,382 93,539 104,033 70,624 904,179 536,501 589,042 1,657,147 596,952 245,270 399,287 489,534 95,325 122,804 16,372 251,859 394,347 2,140,794-o rrn 0,-I, 0 CD 0)0, p (continued)

.5 N 0 0 0*OD 0 CsAppendix Table K. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Alewife 0600-1800 362 210,346 1800-0600 301 100,646 Total 664 310,991 Bloater 0600-1800 64 923 1800-0600 0 1,198 Total 64 2,121 Bluegill 0600-1800 4 1,364 1800-0600 20 2,778 Total 24 4,142 Bluntnose minnow 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Brook silverside 0600-1800 0 7 1800-0600 0 17 Total 0 24 Brown bullhead 0600-1800 0 471 1800-0600 0 76 Total 0 547 Brown trout 0600-1800 12,378 39,804 1800-0600 0 15,078 Total 12,378 54,882 Burbot 0600-1800 10,983 11,845 1800-0600 244 1,549 Total 11,227 13,394 Central 0600-1800 0 0 mudminnow 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Channel catfish 0600-1800 952 39,249 1800-0600 27 35,384 Total 979 74,633 Chestnut lamprey 0600-1800 924 924 1800-0600 0 0 Total 924 924 Chinook 0600-1800 0 38,171 1800-0600 0 23,682 Total 0 61,853 Coho 0600-1800 0 31,683 1800-0600 0 7,147 Total 0 38,830 CO)CO)rn (continued)

N)0 tN o (D-n S.0J ,"11 5" (5-n Appendix Table K. (Continued) 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Common carp 0600-1800 0 32,032 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 32,032 Deepwater sculpin 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600

-112 112 Total 112 112 Eastern banded 0600-1800 0 0 killifish 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Flathead catfish 0600-1800 17,278 19,713 1800-0600 0 0 Total 17,278 19,713 Freshwater drum 0600-1800 0 63,570 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 63,570 Gizzard shad 0600-1800 30,958 176,693 1800-0600 25,049 173,174 Total 56,006 349,866 Golden redhorse 0600-1800 0 30,988 1800-0600 0 32 Total 0 31,020 Golden shiner 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 123 Total 0 123 Greater redhorse 0600-1800 0 0-1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Lake chub 0600-1800 0 196 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 196 Lake sturgeon 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Lake trout 0600-1800 7,614 80,135 1800-0600 0 8,403 Total 7,614 88,537 Lake whitefish 0600-1800 58,543 354,017 1800-0600 117,880 612,042 Total 176,423 966,059 CAO (n M.<C,)m CO)4 C: 0 0 C, (continued) 0~

Appendix Table K. (Continued) 0 0)a, 0 CD-7!n a)-t-o 2007 Feb.06-Species Diel Jan Jan.07 Largemouth bass 0600-1800 0 294 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 294 Longnose dace 0600-1800 0 24 1800-0600 0 14 Total 0 38 Longnose sucker 0600-1800 5,962 285,679 1800-0600 0 213,317 Total 5,962 498,996 Mottled sculpin 0600-1800 0 77 1800-0600 0 77 Total 0 154 Ninespine 0600-1800 14 256 stickleback 1800-0600 0 173 Total 14 429 Northern pike 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 Pumpkinseed 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 32 Total 0 32 Rainbow smelt 0600-1800 451 5,954 1800-0600 1,841 7,114 Total 2,292 13,068 Rock bass 0600-1800 529 529 1800-0600 0 1,904 Total 529 2,433 Round goby 0600-1800 4,810 152,305 1800-0600 2,183 138,504 Total 6,993 290,809 Sea lamprey 0600-1800 14,006 36,896 1800-0600 3,744 12,057 Total 17,750 48,952 Shorthead 0600-1800 0 2,289 redhorse 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 2,289 Silver redhorse 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 28 Total 0 2 (A~N-C,, w (0 I-.ni C,, QQ C,,-.4 z 0 (0 (D (continued) 9-)

0 0 0 (.CD 0 0 0)0*0.Appendix Table K. (Continued) 2007 Jan Feb.06-Species Diel Jan.07 Slimy sculpin 0600-1800 0 1,333 1800-0600 0 819 Total 0 2,152 Smallmouth bass 0600-1800 0 3,143 1800-0600 0 14 Total 0 3,157 Spottail shiner 0600-1800 7,834 162,974 1800-0600 11,958 134,589 Total 19,792 297,563 Steelhead 0600-1800 2,416 18,485 1800-0600 149 12,477 Total .2,566 30,961 Threespine 0600-1800 35 528 stickleback 1800-0600 69 475 Total 104 1,003 Trout-perch 0600-1800 0 825 1800-0600 0 925 Total' 0 1,750 Unidentified 0600-1800 0 454 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 454 Walleye 0600-1800 0 0 1800-0600 0 0 Total 0 0 White perch 0600-1800 0 5,559 1800-0600 0 2,147 Total 0 7,706 White sucker 0600-1800 13,675 115,146 1800-0600 2,096 128,305 Total 15,770 243,451 Yellow perch 0600-1800 177,166 1,839,378 1800-0600 148,865 1,692,519 Total 326,031 3,531,897 TOTAL 0600-1800 366,956 3,764,256 1800-0600 314,538 3,326,929 Total 681,494 7,091,185.

Do CO)(In CO)qd 0 (A 0 0 Appendix Table L. Mean Density (No./100 i 3) of Ichthyoplankton collected at the Shoreline, Intake, and Experimental Stations in the o' vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.0 WD-n 0C.00 Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -

feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day T Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m' /100 mn /100 m 3 /100 m' /100 m, /100 m' /100 m3 /100 m, /100 m' /100 m 3 /100 m 3 /100 m, Jun- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0.6 0 0 *0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 1.9 0 0 9.2 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 1.6 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeRound Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvaeRound Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 1.6 0.6 0 0 0perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 4.1 2.5 0 0 0 larvae Total 7.3 5.7 0 0 9.2 z ti (0 co z 0 (D 0 0 (continued)

Appendix Table L. (Continued)

C')0 0 03 C?CO O0 Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 mne /100 H 13 /100 M3 I 1100 M, /100 Mn /100 mW /100 /lm' /100 mW /100 m 3 /100 mi /100 M, Jul- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0.9 9.9 2.5 5.9 2 11.4 0 1.1 0 4 1.9 25.1 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 .0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0.7 0 1.9 0 1.1 0 0 0.9 1 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.8 1 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0.9 9.9 2.5 6.6 2 15.3 0 2.2 0 4 6.6 27.2 (continued) to rn co 0 CD a"'A Appendix Table L. (Continued) 0 0 t'._b.0 0*0, Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800-(0600- Night1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600" 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m 3 / 100 m /100 m, /100 m 3 /10m W 100m /100 m, /100 m /10 0 M, /100 m, /100 m /100 m Aug- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0. 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 "0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued)

U))N (n rnj C,<0 Co.0 0.lb Appendix Table L. (Continued) 0 0 0 CD 0o 5" 0 0 Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet ' Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800-(0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m' /100 m, /100 m/ /100MI /1O0M3 /100m, /100m, /Vm /100n, /mO0m, /100M, /100m'Sep- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued) rni CO)0-o cn Appendix Table L. (Continued)

"3 0 0 0 1ýa)_-.r CD, 0)w w 6, Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diet Diel Die[ Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m' /100 m / /100M3 /100 m, /100 m, /100 m3 /100 Hm /100M, /100m' /100 m, /100 m, /100 m, Oct- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 goby larvaeRound Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvaeYellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued)-Q'nl rn 20 CO,-I 00 0>C 0 p CA)

Appendix Table L. (Continued)

.5.CAo C, I-Q 0 0 Station Experimental, 30-40 -Experimental, surface-feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m' /100 W /100 m' /100 m 3 /100 m, /100 m, /100 m 3 /100 m' /100 m, /100 m? /100 m, /loom, Nov- Alewife Egg ,0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 05 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0..larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round. Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued)

C,, C,, I-hin C, Md-o 0 0 (0 3" Appendix Table L. (Continued) 0 0 0 CDC S'CD 0 0 Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600-(1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m, /100 m, /100 M, /100 m, /100 no /100 m, /100 mn' /100 M, /100 M3 /100 m, /100 m, /100 M3_Apr- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeCommon Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2.7 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvaeYellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.9 0 0 4.4 (continued) rn.ZZ, rn I-1Z~'-'C 0 0 Q.0 0)0)0 C., 0 p QP\

Appendix Table L. (Continued) 1'3 0 0 03 M DC (5~0*0 00-C)C Co Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m 3 /100 m' /100 m 3 /100 m 3 /100 m 3 /100 m' /100 m 3 /100 m' /100 in, /100 m3 /100 m' /100 in'May Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 (continued)

Cl)03 Cl)(In CO 0 0 PD o Appendix Table L. (Continued) 0 0 03 M CD ca 5" CL CD 0 0 C?Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel I_ Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1860) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/0m/100 M, /100 m 3 /100 MI /10Dm 3 /100 M3 /100 M, /100 M3 /100 m' /100 m 3 /100 M, /100 m, /100 m'Jun- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13.8 06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 3.3 0 4.6 0 6.6 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 .0 .0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 1.1 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50.3 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 1.3 1.1 34.9 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5.3 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.3 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0.5 0 0 3.3 1.8 4.6 0 14.5 2.1 99 (continued)

(,o C4 CO)rM)h n,, co M (Il 0)

Appendix Table L. (Continued)

C3)0 0 a,*0 0 C?Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diet Diet Diet Diel Diet Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m, /100M, /100M / 100 mm /100 m' /100 M, /100 m 3 /100mW /100m, /100 m 3 /100 m 3 /100 m, Jui- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 1.9 2.7 2 0 2 6.6 1.8 0 4.6 1.7 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 1.9 0.5 6.1 3.8 0 7.9 17.9 0 9.2 09 57.8 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0* 0 0 0carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1.8 0 0 0 3 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.8 0 0 0 6 larvaeRound Post-yolk-sac 0 1.9 0 0.5 0 14.1. 0 10.7 0 0 0 0goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeSlimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0s6ulpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 5.6 3.3 8.6 3.8 18.1 14.6 34 0 13.8 2.6 66.7 (continued) 10 rrl ZZ 00 (jh-4 z 0 (0 0.

Appendix Table L. (Continued) 4, C)0 0 G)a.0)0~C?Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel -Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m, /100 mW /100 mW /100 m, /100 m, /100 m 3 /100 m, /100 m 3 /100 m3 /100 m, /100 m 3 /100 m, Aug- Alewife Egg 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.9 (continued),a 0 lb rn Cz Qo r(j in-0 (A 0 (0 0.

0'.3 0 0 0-Appendix Table L. (Continued)

Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- '(1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100

_100 mO '/1m /100/ , /0100 m' /100' M100 mM /100 mM /100 //100 m' 100 m3 /100 m3 C4)CO)rr h--l , Sep- Alewife Egg 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 larvae C.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rost-yolK-sac larvae U 0 0 0 0 0 0-,>Co Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeRound Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvaeRound Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 *0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,larvae Total 0 00000000 0 0 0 (continued)

Appendix Table L. (Continued) 4M C)0 0 0)0*w C>_Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -*feet 20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Diel Diel Diei Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density. Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density/100 m 3 /100 m, /100 m, /100 m, /100 m, /100 m, /100 m' /100 m, /100 m 3 /100 m 3 /100 m, /100 m3 Oct- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Common Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeRound Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 -0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (continued) rn W5 0 0 0 0 0,-I,o C?00o Appendix Table L. (Continued)

Station Experimental, 30-40 Experimental, surface -feet -20 feet Intake, 22 feet Intake, 11 feet Intake, surface Shoreline Diel Diel Diel Die] Diel DielDay Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day Night Day (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- (1800- (0600- Night 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) 0600) 1800) (1800-0600)

Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density Density S/10m 10m 10m' m /100 m /100 M /100 M /1 M /00M103m /00m /100 m /100 m3 /100 m3 Nov- Alewife Egg 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 06 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvaeCommon Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 carp larvae Cyprinidae Unidentified 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Round Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 goby larvae Round Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.whitefish larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Slimy Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 sculpin larvae Yellow Yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 perch larvae Post-yolk-sac 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 larvae Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rn P I-W, 0 CL Co Co 0 CD 311 316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table M. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish per hour) of Fish Captured in Gill Nets in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.Station Intake 40 ft Diel Diel Day (0600- Night (1800- Day (0600- Night (1800-1800) 0600) 1800 0600)CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Jun-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channelcatfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 5.76 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.89 0.24 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 9.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 10.22 6.24 0.00 0.73 Jul-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 Spottail shiner 0.00 4.34 0.00 3.00 Walleye 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 4.10 4.75 0.25 Total 0.00 8.67 4.75 4.00 Aug-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.24 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 1.18 0.00 0.75 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 As A-58 Normandeau Associates, Inc. -- "-

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table M. (Continued)

Station Intake 40 ft Diel Diel Day (0600- Night (1800- Day (0600- Night (1800-1800) 0600) 1800) 0600 CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Aug-05 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 (Cont'd) Walleye 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.24 0.24 1.00 0.00 Total 1.65 2.13 1.76 0.47Sep-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.23 0.24 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Spottail shiner 0.00 1.71 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 4.42 0.24 0.00 0.00 Total 4.65 2.69 0.00 0.00 Oct-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 1.74 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.74 0.25 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Spottail shiner 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 1.97 2.48 0.00 Nov-05 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-59 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table M. (Continued)

Station Intake 40 ft Diel Diel Day (0600- Night (1800- Day (0600- Night (1800-1800) 0600) 1800 0600)CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Nov-05 Rainbow smelt 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Cont'd) Round goby 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 1.88 0.73 0.50 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 2.34 1.47 0.74 0.00 Apr-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.46 0.22 0.00 May-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Jun-06 Alewife 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1V8108 A-60 .!ýýv Normandeau Associates, Inc.c2~5 3 16(b) PHASE /I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDYAppendix Table M. (Continued)

Station Intake 40 ft Die_ Diel Day (0600- Night (1800- Day (0600- Night (1800-1800) 0600) 1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Jun-06 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Cont'd) Longnose sucker 0.00 1.20 0:00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0T72 0.00 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Total 0.26 1.92 0.00 0.00 Jul-06 Alewife -0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.48 0.67 1.42 0.00 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 Yellow perch 0.73 0.00 0.47 0.00 Total 1.21 1.00 2.60 0.00 Aug-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 Walleye 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.25 0.00 0.75 0.00 Total 0.25 0.75 0.75 0.93 Sep-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-61 -, Normandeau Associates, Inc.99~~

3 16(b) PHASE 11 BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table M. (Continued)

I Station Intake 40 ft Diel Diel Day (0600- Night (1800- Day (0600- Night (1800-1800) 0600) 1800 0600_ CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Sep-06 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (Cont'd) Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Round goby 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.72 0;00 0.24 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.24 Total 0.00 1.69 0.00 0.47 Oct-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 Channel catfish 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 0.79 0.00 0.50 Gizzard shad 0.25 0.26 0.00 0.00 Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 2.64 0.00 0.25 Walleye .0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 2.11 0.00 1.00 Total 0.50 6.34 0.00 1.76 Nov-06 Alewife 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Bloater 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.24Channel catfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Common carp 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Freshwater drum 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00Gizzard shad 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Golden redhorse 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake sturgeon 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Lake trout 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 Lake whitefish 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.24Longnose sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24Rainbow smelt 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Round goby 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Spottail shiner 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.24 Walleye 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 White sucker 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Yellow perch 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 Total 0.25 0.74 0.00 1.45 20452 Cook 316b BaselineFinal.doc 1/8/08 Ams e A-62 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

316(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table N. Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish per trawl) of Fish Captured in the Otter Trawl in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.Station Shore Intake (22 ft) Experimental (40 ft)Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night (0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Jun-05 Alewife 1.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 3.0 14.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.Yellow perch 5.0 5.0 1.0 1.0 Total 9.0 27.0 1.0 1.0 Jul-05 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0,0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Total 0.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 Aug-05 Alewife 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 1.0 3.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 1.0 7.0 1.0 3.0 Sep-05 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker .0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 99.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 99.0 1.0 4.0 0.0 (continued) 20452-Cook 316b Baseline-Einal.doc 1/8/08 A--63 Normandeau Associates, Inc.

3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table N. (Continued)

Station Shore Intake (22 ft) Experimental (40 ft)Diel Diel DielDay Night Day Night Day Night (0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

CPUE CPUE -CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Oct-05 Alewife 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 9.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 17.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 1.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 2.0 0.0 11.0 6.0 16.0 Total 1.0 23.0 0.0 20.0 6.0 26.0 Nov-05 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0, 0.0 0.0 0.0Spottail shiner 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 4.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 Apr-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 2.0 Total 1.0 1.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 6.0 May-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 Round goby 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 5.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 1.0 1.0 5.0 9.0 7.0 3.0 Total 1.0 7.0 5.0 11.0 10.0 12.0 (continued)

-20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-64 Normandeau Associates, Inc.q,-gq 3 16(b) PHASE/I1 BASELIN FISH E & I STUDYAppendix Table N. (Continued)

Station Shore Intake (22 ft) Experimental (40 ft)Diel Die Diel Day Night Day Night Day Night (0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Jun-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0.Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 3.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 1.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 2.0 0.0 57.0 10.0 0.0 1.0 Total 2.0 0.0 58.0 13.0 6.0 7.0 Jul-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0. 0.0 3.0 1.0 4.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5.0 Rainbow smelt 0,0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 5.0 11.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Yellow perch 50.0 0.0 105.0 7.0 3.0 1.0 Total 50.0 0.0 105.0 13.0 11.0 23.0 Aug-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish

.0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 1.0 Total 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 1.0 Sep-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 -0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 0.0 Total 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-65 Normandeau Associates, Inc.Cý3 ::

3 16(b) PHASE I/ BASELINE FisH- E & I STUDY Appendix Table N. (Continued)

Station Shore Intake (22 ft) Experimental (40 ft)Diel Diel Diel Day Night Day- Night Day 00Night (0600D1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

(0600-1800)

(1800-0600)

CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE CPUE Oct-0 6 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0' 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Total 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0Nov-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Lake whitefish 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Slimy sculpin 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 8.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 Total 0.0 2.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 11.0 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Finaldoc 1/8/08 A-66 Normandeau Associates, Inc.O231 3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STuDY Appendix Table 0.Mean Catch per Unit Effort (fish per haul) of Fish Captured in the Seine in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.Diel Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Aug-05 Alewife 2.5 17.0 Bloater 1.0 2.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0Eastern banded killifish 1.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0Round goby 0.5 0.5 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 1.0 30.0 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 545.5 68.0 Total 551.5 117.5 Sep-05 Alewife 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.5 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0.Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0. 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0 Eastern banded killifish 0.5 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.5 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.5 0.0 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 Total 1.5 0.5 (continued) 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-67 -Z Normandeau Associates, Inc.

3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table 0. (Continued)

Diel Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Oct-05 Alewife 4.0 3.5 Bloater 16.0 1.5 Bluegill 0.5 0.0Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0Eastern banded killifish 0.5 0.0 Gizzard shad 13.5 47.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.5 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 3.5 0.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.5 0.0 Total 39.0 52.5 Nov-05 Alewife, 0.0 0.5 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.5Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 15.5 Lake trout 0.0 0.5 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.5 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0Round goby 0.0 0.0Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 3.0 1.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 Total 3.0 19.0 20452 Cook 316b Býisefine Final.doc 1/8/08 A-68 4 CNormandeau Associates, Inc.-

316(b) PHASE 1I BASELINE FISH E & I STuDY Appendix Table 0. (Continued)

Die]Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Apr-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0Brook silverside 0.0 1.5 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0 Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.5 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0Round goby 0.0 7.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 5.0 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye. 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 1.0 Yellow perch 0.5 1.0 Total 0.5 16.0 May-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0Brook silverside 0.5 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0 Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.5 2.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 2.5 29.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellowperch 0.0 0.0 Total 3.5 31.5 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final,dfoc 1/8108 A-69 Normandeau Associates, Inc.(93q-3 16(b) PHASE 1I BASELINE FISH E & I STUDY Appendix Table 0. (Continued)

Diel Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Jun-06 Alewife 0.5 4.5 Bloater 1.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 1.0 0.0Eastern banded killifish 1.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 8.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0Spottail shiner 61.0 28.0 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.5White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 6.5 3.0 Total 79.0 36.0 Jul-06 Alewife 0.0 6.5 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0 Brook silverside

.0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.5 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0 Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 1.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 2.5 22.0 Steelhead 0.5 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.5 Yellow perch 2.0 2.0 Total 5.5 32.0 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08 A-70 Normandeau Associates, Inc. C-3 16(b) PHASE 1I BASELINE FISH E & I STuDYAppendix Table

0. (Continued)

Diel Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Aug-06 Alewife 0.0 0.5 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0 Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0 Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.5 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 0.0 0.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 1.5 0.5 Total 1.5 2.0 Sep-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 Bloater 0.0 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0 Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.5 Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0 Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0 Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 7 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 2.0 0.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 1.5 Total 2.0 2.5 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.docA/8/08 A-71 22o6Bl Normandeau Associates, Inc.93(o 3 16(b) PHASE II BASELINE FISH E & I STUDYAppendix Table

0. (Continued)

Diel Night (1800-Day (0600-1800) 0600)CPUE CPUE Oct-06 Alewife 32.0 0.0 Bloater 40.5 0.0 Bluegill 0.0 0.0 Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0:0Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0, Gizzard shad 0.0 0.5 Lake trout 0.0 0.5 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.5 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 1.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 3.5 0.5 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0 White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.0 Total 77.5 1.5 Nov-06 Alewife 0.0 0.0 Bloater- 0.0 0.5 Bluegill 0.0 0.0 Brook silverside 0.0 0.0 Chinook 0.0 0.0 Coho 0.0 0.0Eastern banded killifish 0.0 0.0 Gizzard shad 0.0 0.0Lake trout 0.0 0.0 Longnose sucker 0.0 0.0 Muskellunge 0.0 0.0Rainbow smelt 0.0 0.0 Round goby 0.0 0.0 Shorthead redhorse 0.0 0.0 Spottail shiner 1.5 0.0 Steelhead 0.0 0.0 Walleye 0.0 0.0White sucker 0.0 0.0 Yellow perch 0.0 0.5 Total 1.5 1.0 20452 Cook 316b Baseline Final.doc 1/8/08A-72 Normandeau Associates, Inc.ý3-ý f'3 C, 0-n" 0 c3o Appendix Table P.Water Quality Data Associated with Ichthyoplankton Sampling in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.[Location=Inshore Station April May June July August September October November 2005 Surface Temperature (Q C) 18.6 23.1 12.0 13.2 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 9.8 9.1 9.9 10.8 2006 Surface Temperature ( m C) 7.3 10.5 19.4 23.0 23.2 22.2 9.9 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.3 12.4 10.7 8.5 8.9 9.2 10.9 Location=Intake Station (22 ft in depth)2005 Surface Temperature

(° C) 26.0 27.2 19.5 22.8 12.8 12.9 Mid-depth Temperature (0 C) 22.4 24.7 17.3 22.6 11.9 12.8 Bottom Temperature (0 C) 19.7 24.5 14.7 22.3 10.9 12.4 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 8.9 7.8 9.4 9.1 9.5 10.5 Mid-depth Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i) 9.5 8.2 10.4 9.1 9.6 10.5Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 10.3 8.2 11.2. 9.2 9.5 10.4 2006 Surface Temperature

(° C) 6.4 10.5 18.2 23.9 22.4 22.1 10.6 Mid-depth Temperature

(° C) 6.4 9.6 17.5 22.4 21.8 20.8 9.7Bottom Temperature (0 C) 6.4 9.0 17.1 19.0 21.2 20.8 9.5 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.3 12.4 10.9 8.7 9.0 9.2 10.7 Mid-depth Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 13.2 12.4 11.1 9.3 9.3 9.3 10.7 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) .13.3 12.5 11.3 10.8 9.4. 9.2 10.9 Location=Experimental Station (40 ft in depth)2005 Surface -20 ft. Water Temperature (0 C) 23.5 25.4 17.0 22.6 12.6 12.8 30-40 ft Water Temperature

(° C) 12.0 24.5 11.7 20.2 10.5 12.2 Surface -20 ft. Water Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 9.5 8.0 10.4 9.1 9.6 10.5 30-40 ft. Water Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.1 8.2 11.9 9.9 9.3 10.5 2006 Surface -20 ft. Water Temperature (0 C) 6.1 9.4 17.4 23.0 21.4 21.3 10.0 30-40 ft Water Temperature (0 C) 6.1 7.8 12.2 17.0 20.6 20.6

9.3 Surface

-20 ft. Water Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 13.4 12.4 .11.3 9.3 9.2 9.2 10.7 130-40 ft. Water Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i) 13.3 12.6 1 13.5 10.9 9.4 9.2 11.1"-:z rn C/)(X 0.D A),

0 0 0 ca (4, 5'0*0J C, 8 00 Appendix Table Q.Water Quality Data Associated with Gill Net (A), Otter Trawl (B), and Seine (C) Sampling in the Vicinity of Cook Nuclear Plant, June through November 2005 and April through November 2006.A. Gill Net Location April May June July August September October November Intake 2005 Surface Temperature (0 C) 22 27..2 19.9 25.2 13.4 13.1Bottom Temperature ( C) 21.2 24.4 15.8 22.5 11.2 12.4 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 9.3 7.9 9.5 8.6 9.6 10.5 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 9.6 8.2 10.9 9 9.6 10.5 2006 Surface Temperature (0 C) 6:4 10 18.3 24.2 22.9 22.4 10.8Bottom Temperature (Q C) 6.3 8.5 17.1 20.2 21.6 20.5 9.6 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 13.4 12.7 10.9 8.8 9 8.5 10.5 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 13.3 12.7 11.4 10.1 9.2 8.6 10.6 40 ft 2005 Surface Temperature (0 C) 22.5 27.8 19.6 24.6 13 13.2Bottom Temperature (0 C) 10.1 24.5 11.7 14.1 10.5 12.3 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 9.3 7.6 9.7 8.7 9.7 10.5 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 13.6 8.2 12.1 11.7 9.3 10.4 2006 Surface Temperature (0 C) 6.1 10.6 18.2 24 22.4 22.5 11.1 Bottom Temperature (0 C) 6 7.8 11.7 15.1 21.1 20.4 9.4 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 13.6 12.4 11 8.9 9.1 8.5 10.7_Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 13.3 12.6 13.7 11.4 9.3 8.4 10.1 tAo CO)I hi U, Co-l 0 0 Q 0 0 CU-0 0 ,>Appendix Table Q. (Continued)

B. Otter Trawl-April J May June July August September October November 5 ft 2005 Surface Temperature (0 C) 12.3 13.2Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/l) 9.9 11 2006 Surface Temperature (Q C) 7.1 10.4 19.8 23 22.5 20.9 9.5Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i) 13.2 12.4 10.7 8.9 8.9 8.7 10.9 Intake (22 ft) 2005 Surface Temperature (0 C) 22.4 27.1 20.3 25.5 12.4 12.7 Bottom Temperature (Q C) 21.2 24.4 15 22.5 12.3 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 9.3 7.8 9.6 8.7 9.8 10.8 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 9.7 8.5 11.3 9.1 10.7 2006 Surface Temperature (0 C) 6.4 10 21.3 23.9 22.1 21 10 Bottom Temperature (0 C) *6.4 8.9 18.5 19 21.7 20.5 9.2 Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 13.3 12.5 10.9 8.7 9 8.6 10.7 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.2 12.5 11.1 10.8 9.2 8.7 11.1 Experimental (40 ft) 2005 Surface Temperature C) 22 27.7 19.7 24.4 13.6 12.9 Bottom Temperature (0 C) 10.2 24.4 12 17.6 12.2Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 9.3 7.6 9.9 8.6 9.8 10.7 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/I) 13.5 8 12.1 10.7 10.5 2006 Surface Temperature ( C) 6.1 10.1 20.4 24 21.9 21.4 10.3 Bottom Temperature (0 C) 6.1 7.9 15.9 15.4 20.6 20.5 9.2Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.6 12.6 10.9 8.9 9.1 8.6 10.8 Bottom Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 13.2 12.6 12.1 11.9 9.5 8.6 10 C. Seine[ April May June July [August September[

October November 2005 Surface Temperature (0 C) 18.7 25 12.8Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/0 ) 9.7 8.8 10..7 2006 Surface Temperature ( m C) 8.5 10.6 19.5 23.1 23.1 21.5 9.9Surface Dissolved Oxygen (mg/i) 12.5 12.3 10.8 8.4 9 8.7 10.5 (Ao rn::z rli (0 W z 0 C)

Appendix 3 Post-hoc ANOVA Tests Used in Evaluating The Influence of Diel Period and Month on Sample Results Variation To evaluate if the categorical factors, diel period and month or their interaction, significantly (alpha = 0.05) affect impingement or entrainment density, a repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed using the General Linear Model procedure in SPSS (v. 15). When effects on impingement density were analyzed, diel period included two periods, day (0400-1600) and night (1600-0400).

When effects on entrainment density were analyzed, diel period included four periods: 0300-0900, 0900-1500, 1500-2100, and 2100-0300.

Repeated measures were used because impingement density was measured on the same date for each diel period. Densities measured on the same date are probably correlated (Montgomery 2005). Thus, the subject with repeated measures was date and the within-subject measure was diel period.The between-subjects factor was month. An interaction term of diel period with month was included in the models to test for a significant interaction between these two factors. To meet assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variance, density was natural-log transformed.

However, the entrainment density analysis still did not meet the assumption of sphericity (using Mauchly's test) and thus the Huynh-Feldt method was used to test for significance of the diel period. Post-hoc comparisons of impingement density using the pairwise comparison test, Dunnett T3, were performed to evaluate which pair of months significantly differed.

The ANOVA test outputs for impingement and entrainment follow.

Reference:

Montgomery, D. C. 2005. Design and analysis of experiments.

6 th edition. Wiley, New York.

ANOVA Test Output for Impingement Note -data was log transformed to better approximate a normal distribution Between-Subjects Factors N.Month 1 12 2 8 3 9 4 8 5 10 6 9 7 11 8 12 9 10 10 11 11 11 12 10 Multivariate Testsb Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig.Indensity Pillai's Trace .005 .5165 1.000 109.000 .474 Wilks' Lambda .995 .516a 1.000 109.000 .474 Hotelling's Trace .005 .516 a 1.000 109.000 .474 Roy's Largest Root .005 .516a 1.000 109.000 .474 Indensity

Month Pillai's Trace .081 .873a 11.000 109.000 .569 Wilks' Lambda .919 .873a 11.000 109.000 .569 Hotelling's Trace .088 .873a 11.000 109.000 .569 Roy's Largest Root .088 .873a 11.000 109.000 .569 a. Exact statistic b.Design: Intercept+Month Within Subjects Design: Indensity Mauchly's Test of Sphericity b Measure: MEASURE 1 Epsilon a Approx. Greenhous Within Subjects Effect Mauchly's W Chi-Square df Sig. e-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound Indensity 1.000 .000 0 1.000 1.000 1.000 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance. Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.b.Design: Intercept+Month Within Subjects Design: Indensity-z Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: MEASURE 1 Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Indensity Sphericity Assumed .210 1 .210 .516 .474 Greenhouse-Geisser

.210 1.000 .210 .516 .474 Huynh-Feldt

.210 1.000 .210 .516 .474 Lower-bound

.210 1.000 .210 .516 .474 Indensity Month Sphericity Assumed 3.905 11 .355 .873 .569 Greenhouse-Geisser 3.905 11.000 .355 .873 .569 Huynh-Feldt 3.905 11.000 .355 .873 .569 Lower-bound 3.905 11.000 .355 .873 .569 Error(Indensity)

Sphericity Assumed 44.340 109 .407 Greenhouse-Geisser 44.340 109.000 .407 Huynh-Feldt 44.340 109.000 .407 Lower-bound 44.340 .109.000 .407 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Measure: MEASURE 1 Type III Sum Source Indensity of Squares df Mean Square F Indensity Linear .210 1 .210 .516 .474 Indensity

Month Linear 3.905 11 .355 .873 .569 Error(Indensity)

Linear. 44.340 109 .407 1 _(~1'Y Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Measure: MEASURE_1 Transformed Variable:

Average Type III Sum Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.Intercept 200.653 1 200.653 64.570 .000 Month 452.379 11 41.125 13.234 .000 Error 338.719 109 3.108 POST HOC Month Multiple Comparisons Measure: MEASURE_1 Dunnett T3 Mean Difference (I) Month (J) Month (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval Upper Bound Lower Bound 1 2 -1.6289 .50380 .221 -3.7064 .4486 3 .3603 .55015 1.000 -1.8984 2.6189 4 1.3264 ,.59533 .754 -1.2215 3.8743 5 .9008 .38116 .681 -.5745 2.3762 6 1.4181 .54309 ..521 -.8062 3.6423 7 2.8054(-)

.34140 .000 1.4669 4.1438 8 2.3610(*)

.41688 .001 .7675 3.9545 9 3.1606(*)

.63648 .011 .5375 5.7837 10 1.3650 .56268

.638 -.8739 3.6038 11 .1001 .46552 1.000 -1.7069 1.9072 12 -.9382 .47204 .896 -2.7948 .9185 2 1 1.6289 .50380 .221 -.4486 3.7064 3 1.9892 .62358 .225 -.5348 4.5131 Mean Difference (I) Month (J) Month (I-J) Std. Error Sig. -95% Confidence Interval 4 2.9553(*)

.66378 .029 .2099 5.7007 5 2.5297(*)

.48112 .010 .4889 4.5705 6 3.0470(*)

.61737 .010 .5489 5.5450 7 4.4343(*)

.45027 .000 2.4336 6.4349 8 3.9899(*)

.50988 .000 1.8984 6.0814 9 4.7895(*)

.70092 .000 1.9694 7.6095 10 2.9939(*)

.63467 .011 .4792 5.5085 11 1.7290 .55036 .240 -.4831 3.9411 12 .6907 .55589 1.000 -1.5523 2.9338 3 1. -.3603 .55015 1.000 -2.6189 1.8984 2 -1.9892 .62358 .225 -4.5131 .5348 4 .9662 .69961 .998 -1.8786 3.8110 5 .5406 .52945 1.000 -1.6858 2.7670 6 1.0578 .65573 .987 -1.5658 3.6814 7 .2.4451(')

.50158 .024 .2545 4.6357 8 2.0007 .55572

.117 -.2699 4.2714 9 2.8003 .73494 .069 -.1192 5.7199 10 1.0047 .67205 .996 -1.6373 3.6467 11 -.2601 .59308 1.000 -2.6339 2.1136.12 -1.2984 .59821 .798 -3.6982 1.1013 4 1 -1.3264 .59533 .754 -3.8743 1.2215 2. -2.9553(*)

.66378 .029 -5.7007 -.2099 3 -.9662 .69961 .998 -3.8110 .1.8786 5 -.4256 .57626 1.000 -2.9577 2.1065 6 .0916 .69407 1.000 -2.7338 2.9171 7 1.4790 .55076 .502 -1.0421 4.0000 8 1.0346 .60048 .961 -1.5206 3.5898 9 1.8342 .76934 .665 -1.2446 4.9129 10 .0385 .70951 1.000 -2.8013 2.8784 11 -1.2263 .63521 .906 -3.8532 1.4006 12 -2.2646 .64001 .137 -4.9116 .3825 5 1 -.9008 .38116 .681 -2.3762 .5745 2 -2.5297(*)

.48112 .010 -4.5705 -.4889 3 -.5406 .52945 1.000 -2.7670 1.6858-9 J Mean Difference (I) Month (J) Month (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval 4 .4256 .57626 1.000 -2.1065 2.9577 6 .5172 .52212 1.000 -1.6732 2.7077 7 1.9046(*)

.30693 .001 .6867 3.1224 8 1.4602 .38916 .065 -.0472 2.9675 9 2.2598 .61868 .121 -.3393 4.8588* 10 .4641 .54246 1.000 -1.7346 2.6629 11 -.8007 .44087 .953 -2.5429 .9415 12 -1.8390(*)

.44775 .042 -3.6368 -.0411 6 1 -1.4181 .54309 .521 -3.6423 .8062 2 -3.0470(*)

.61737 .010 -5.5450 -.5489 3 -1.0578 .65573 .987 -3.6814 1.5658 4 -.0916 .69407 1.000 -2.9171 2.7338 5 -.5172 .52212 1.000 -2.7077 1.6732 7 1.3873 .49384 .427 .-.7652 3.5398 8 .9429 .54874 .969 -1.2938 3.1797 9 1.7425 .72967 .663 -1.1583 4.6434 10 -.0531 .66628 1.000 -2.6714 2.5652 11 -1.3179 .58654 .753 -3.6615 1.0256 12 -2.3562 .59173 .052 -4.7265 .0141 7 1 * -2.8054(-)

.34140 .000 -4.1438 -1.4669 2 -4.4343(*)

.45027 .000 -6.4349 -2.4336 3 -2.4451(*)

.50158 .024 -4.6357 -.2545 4 -1.4790 .55076 .502 -4.0000 1.0421 5 -1.9046(*)

.30693 .001 -3.1224 -.6867 6 -1.3873 .49384 .427 -3.5398 .7652 8 -.4444 .35031 1.000 -1.8218 .9330 9 .3552 .59500 1.000 -2.2176 2.9280 10 -1.4404 .51530 .419 -3.5897 .7089 11 -2.7053(*)

.40698 .001 -4.3585 -1.0520 12 -3.7435(*)

.41443 .000 -5.4633 -2.0238 8 1 -2.3610(*)

.41688 .001 -3.9545 -.7675 2 -3.9899(*)

.50988 .000 -6.0814 -1.8984 3 -2.0007 .55572 .117 -4.2714 .2699 4 -1.0346 .60048 .961 -3.5898 1.5206 Mean Difference (I) Month (J) Month (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval 5 -1.4602 .38916 .065 -2.9675 .0472 6 -.9429 .54874 .969 -3.1797 1.2938 7 .4444 .35031 1.000 -.9330 1.8218 9 .7996 .64130 1.000 -1.8322 3.4314 10 -.9960, .56813 .967 -3.2485 1.2564 11 -2.2609(*)

.47209 .007 -4.0893 -.4324 12 -3.2992(*)

.47853 .000 -5.1757 -1.4226 9 1 -3.1606(*)

.63648 .011 -5.7837 -.5375 2 -4.7895(*)

.70092 .000 -7.6095 -1.9694 3 -2.8003 .73494 .069 -5.7199 .1192 4 -1.8342 .76934 .665 -4.9129 1.2446 5 -2.2598 .61868 .121 -4.8588 .3393 6 -1.7425 .72967 .663 -4.6434 1.1583 7 *-.3552 .59500 1.000 -2.9280 2.2176 8 -.7996 .64130 1.000 -3.4314 1.8322 10 -1.7956 .74437 .647 -4.7148 1.1236 11 -3.0605(*)

.67393 .018 -5.7686 -.3523 12 -4.0987(*)

.67846 .001 -6;8258 -1.3717 10 1 -1.3650 .56268 .638 -3.6038 .8739 2 -2.9939(*)

.63467 .011 -5.5085 -.4792 3 -1.0047 .67205 .996 -3.6467 1.6373 4 -.0385 .70951 1.000 -2.8784 -2.8013 5 -.4641 .54246 1.000 -2.6629 1.7346 6 .0531 .66628 1.000 -2.5652 2.6714 7 1.4404 .51530 .419 -.7089 3.5897 8 .9960 .56.813 .967 -1.2564 3.2485 9 1.7956 .74437 .647 -1.1236 4.7148 11 -1.2648 .60472 .848 -3.6283 1.0986 12 -2.3031 .60976 .067 -4.6927 .0864 11 1 -.1001 .46552 1.000 -1.9072 1.7069 2 -1.7290 .55036 .240 -3.9411 .4831 3 .2601 .59308 1.000 -2.1136 2.6339 4 1.2263 ..63521 .906 -1.4006 3.8532 5 .8007 .44087 .953 -.9415 2.5429 3")

Mean Difference (I) Month (J) Month (I-J) Std. Error Sig. 95% Confidence Interval 6 1.3179 .58654 .753 -1.0256 3.6615 7 2.7053(*)

.40698 .001 1.0520 4.3585 8 2.2609(*)

.47209 .007 .4324 4.0893 9 3.0605(*)

.67393 .018 .3523 5.7686 10 1.2648 .60472 .848 -1.0986 3.6283 12 -1.0383 .52145 .897 -3.0718 .9953 12 1 .9382 .47204 .896 -.9185 2.7948 2 -.6907 .55589 1.000 -2.9338 1.5523 3 1.2984 .59821 .798 -1.1013 3.6982 4 2.2646 .64001 .137 -.3825 4.9116 5 1.8390(*)

.44775 .042 .0411 3.6368 6 2.3562 .59173 .052 -.0141 4.7265 7 3.7435(*)

.41443 .000 2.0238 5.4633 8 3.2992(*)

.47853 .000 1.4226 5.1757 9 4.0987(*)

.67846 .001 1.3717 6.8258 10 2.3031 .60976 .067 -.0864 4.6927 11 1.0383 .52145 .897 -.9953 .3.0718 Based on observed means.* The mean difference is significant at the .05 level.KJ~

ANOVA Test Output for Entrainment Note -data was log transformed to better approximate a normal distribution General Linear Model-Warnings I Post hoc tests are not performed for month because at least one group has fewer than two cases. I Within-Subjects Factors Measure: MEASURE 1 Dependentdiel Variable 1 Indensdiell 2 Indensdiel2 3 Indensdiel3 4 lndensdiel4 93 Between-Subjects Factors N month 1 1 10 3 11 3 12 1 2 1 3 2 4 4 5 5 6 9 7 13 8 13 9 7 Box's Test of Equality of Covariance Matrices a Box's M 72.460 F 1.885 dfl 30 df2 2286.576 Sig. .003 Tests the null hypothesis that the observed covariance matrices of the dependent variables are equal across groups.a.Design: Intercept+month Within Subjects Design: diel 9-,

Mu Itivariate Tests d Noncent. Observed Effect Value F Hypothesis df Error df Sig. Parameter Powera diel Pillai's Trace .281 3.000 48.000 .001 18.793 .952 Wilks' Lambda .719 6.264b 3.000 48.000 .001 18.793 .952 Hotelling's Trace .392 6.264b 3.000 48.000 .001 18.793 .952 Roy's Largest Root .392 6.264b 3.000 48.000 .001 18.793 .952 diel

month Pillai's Trace .968 2.166 33.000 150.000 .001 71.487 .999 Wilks' Lambda .272 2.391 33.000 142.121 .000 77.158 1.000 Hotelling'sTrace 1.832 2.591 33.000 140.000 .000 85.509 1.000 Roy's Largest Root 1.194 5.429c 11.000 50.000 .000 59.718 1.000 a. Computed using alpha = .05 b. Exact statistic

c. The statistic is an upper bound on F that yields a lower bound on the significance level.d.Design: Intercept+month Within Subjects Design: diel Mauchly's Test of Sphericity b Measure: MEASURE 1Epsilon a Approx. Greenhous Within Subjects Effect Mauchly'sW Chi-Square df Sig. e-Geisser Huynh-Feldt Lower-bound diel .734 15.067 5 .010 .862 1.000 .333 Tests the null hypothesis that the error covariance matrix of the orthonormalized transformed dependent variables is proportional to an identity matrix.a. May be used to adjust the degrees of freedom for the averaged tests of significance.

Corrected tests are displayed in the Tests of Within-Subjects Effects table.b.Design: Intercept+month Within Subjects Design: diel~pJ Tests of Within-Subjects Effects Measure: MEASUREI 1 Type III Sum Noncent. Observed Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Power diel Sphericity Assumed 307.816 3 102.605 7.852 .000 23.555 .988 Greenhouse-Geisser 307.816 2.585 119.059 7.852 .000 20.300 .978 Huynh-Feldt 307.816 3.000 102.605 7.852 .000 23.555 .988 Lower-bound 307.816 1.000 307.816 7.852 .007 7.852 .785 diel

month Sphericity Assumed 1093.233 33 33.128 2.535 .000 83.658 1.000 Greenhouse-Geisser 1093.233 28.439 38.441 2.535 .000 72.097 1.000 Huynh-Feldt 1093.233 33.000 33.128 2,535 .000 83.658 1.000 Lower-bound 1093.233 11.000 99.385 2.535 .013 27.886 .928 Error(diel)

Sphericity Assumed 1960.177 150 13.068 Greenhouse-Geisser 1960.177 129.270 15.163 Huynh-Feldt 1960.177 150.000 13.068 Lower-bound 1960.177 50.000 39.204 a. Computed using alpha = .05 Tests of Within-Subjects Contrasts Measure: MEASURE 1 Type III Sum Noncent. Observed Source diel of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Powera diel Linear 8.181 1 8.181 1.089 .302 1.089 .176 Quadratic 252.979 1 252.979 17.266 .000 17.266 .983 Cubic 46.656 1 46.656 2.739 .104 2.739 .368 diel

month Linear 226.977 11 20.634 2.746 .007 30.205 .949 Quadratic 694.520 11 63.138 4.309 .000 47.401 .997 Cubic 171.735 11 15.612 .916 .532 10.080 .439 Error(diel)

Linear 375.729 50 7.515 Quadratic 732.606 50 14.652 Cubic 851.841 50 17.037a. Computed using alpha = .05 9-)

Levene's Test of Equality of Error Variances a F dfl df2 Sig.Indensdiell 8.156 11 50 .000 Indensdiel2 6.004 11 50 .000 Indensdiel3 1.494 11 50 .163 Indensdiel4 4.912 11 50 .000 Tests the null hypothesis that the error variance of the dependent variable is equal across groups.a..Design: lntercept+month Within Subjects Design: diel Tests of Between-Subjects Effects Measure: MEASURE_1 Transformed Variable:

Average Type III Sum Noncent. Observed Source of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. Parameter Powera Intercept 2696.501 1 2696.501 105.230 .000 105.230 1.000 month 2968.628 11 269.875 10.532 .000 115.849 1.000 Error 1281.245 50 25.625 1 f a. Computed using alpha = .05 Appendix 4 Fish Community Density Calculation Fish Community Density Calculation Shoreline area to intake area fish community density ratios were derived for use in the Baseline scenario impingement estimate (CDS -Section 3). This required approximating sample density from CPUE data collected by the University of Michigan study (Jude et al., 1986) and NA (2007).Sample Volume Estimation The University of Michigan provided sampling water volume estimates for their seining and trawling data (1973-1982) which allowed the direct calculation of sample density. NA provided sample gear dimensions for use in determining fish density for the 2005 and 2006 data (NA, 2007). Sample volume for each gear type was approximated using the methodologies listed below.Seine Sample Volume Shoreline fish data were collected by seining at two sample station located in the vicinity of CNP. Seining was performed by anchoring one end of the seine to the beach then pulling the other end out by boat perpendicular to the beach. The boat then arced back to the beach and the seine was retrieved.

This seining pattern creates approximately one quarter circle of sample area (Figure A4-1).Figure A4-1 -Approximate area of beach seine sampling S o Lake Michigan_Iseine anchor point 1-"- Arrow denotes seine netting progression The lake surface area seined was calculated using geometry.

Volume was calculated by applying the depth of area seined. The sample equation used to approximate seine volume is presented in Equation A4-1.Equation A4-1: 4, -d 4 Where: V, = Volume of seine sample r = Width of seine accounting for pull d = depth of water z= 3.14 Parameters required for the volume calculations are provided in Table A4-1.

Table A4-1 -Seine Sample Volume Calculation Parameters Actual Seine width 1 00ft r (seine width during pull assuming 75% of actual width) 75ft (22.9 m)d (water depth) 1.5 m Based on the calculation method and parameters listed above, the estimated volume of each of NA's seine samples equals approximately 616 M 3.The actual volume of the seine samples is likely smaller for two reasons.First, the lake surface area estimate is likely smaller than a full % circle because the mobile end of the seine must be pulled back towards the anchor point prior to actually reaching the beach. Second, the depth estimate is assumed to be uniform when in reality the lake bottom tapers upwards as it approaches the shoreline.

A smaller number in either of these dimensions would result in a smaller volume estimate.

For the purposes of calculating fish density this estimated volume is considered conservative because a smaller sample volume would result in a higher density.

Trawl Volume Intake area fish data were collected by otter trawling at one station located near CNP. Intake area trawls were performed at a 9-m depth parallel to the shore for approximately 400 m.The trawl mouth surface area can vary because the head and foot ropes of the trawl mouth bow as the trawl is pulled. Mansfield and Jude (1986) used a number of studies which measured the reduction in length (as a ratio)of the head and foot ropes and vertical distance between the two during tow. The same ratios developed in Mansfield and Jude (1986) were applied to NA's trawl head and footrope lengths (Table A4-2), and the mouth surface are estimated.

Table A4-2 -Otter Trawl Dimensions Trawl Parameter Normandeau Mansfield

& Jude (1986) Adjusted Trawl Measurement (m) Ratio Measurement (m)Head Rope Length 4 0.575 2.3 Footrope length 5.2 0.603 3.1 Vertical distance 0.8' '1.095 0.9 Trawl mouths are dynamic in that they head and foot ropes flex. Therefore, the surface area was approximated by assuming the mouth of the otter trawl remains roughly trapezoidal.

Figure A4-2 presents the approximate dimensions of the otter trawl using head and foot rope lengths after applying the reduction ratios developed in Mansfield and Jude (1986).Figure A4-2 Dimensional Diagram Used to Approximate the Area of the Otter Trawl Mouth 2.3 m Approximate Shape of Trawl 0.9M Mouth 3.1 m Figure not to scale The area of the trapezoid was calculated to 2.78 M 2.The trawl sample volume was estimated by multiplying the mouth area by the trawl distance (400 m). The estimated trawl volume was calculated to be 1112 M 3.This volume was used to estimate lake fish community densities for the intake area.Fish Community Density Ratio Estimation Fish community densities forthe shoreline and intake area were calculated by'dividing CPUE raw data from NA (2007) by the gear volume estimates derived above, and the CPUE raw data from (Jude et al., 1986) divided by the gear volume estimates provided by the University of Michigan.

The ratio between shoreline and intake was calculated by dividing the shoreline density by the intake area density.Fish community density ratios were calculated by month for 1973-1982 and 2005-2006.

Differences in monthly densities were tested (as monthly populations) for statistical differences using the Wilcoxin-Mann-Whitney test.Significant differences existed between months. Therefore, densities were left as monthly estimates rather than computing an annual ratio. Data were available only for the months of April through November.

Monthly rates for non-samples months (December-March) were extrapolated by averaging the densities of November and April. The monthly density ratios for fish community are presented in table A4-3. Because of the large degree of inter-annual variation, the medianvalue from each month was selected for use in the Baseline Scenario calculations (parameter Rx).Table A4-3 -Suemary of Shoreline to Intake Area Fish Community Densities.

Ratio (Shoreline:lntake)" "oExtrapolated 0 0 o Months Year CO) Z (December-May)1973 73 82 1384 159 37081 4 1330 ND 702 1974 8 13 165 8932 16570 218 4 17 .13 1975 15 83 5233 347 202 63 468 54 35 1976 35 23 238 928 6981 30703 3 4 19 1977 13 85 171 11524 2239 377 6 179 96 1978 72 3 248 29150 1035 359 418- 2 37 1979 23 33 35 758 1915 797 234 1 12 Table A4+,-3 Summary ofShoreline to Intake6Area Fish Community Densities 1980 12 54 133 1166 7066 197 2 7 9 1981 8 1 1281 991 30689 128 48 0.01 4 1982 28 50 142 27 16 7673 2 ND 28 2005 ND ND 19 0.5 4 52 10 3 3 2006, ND ND 37 61 1 0.5 0.5 1 1 Mean 29 43 757 4504 8650 3381 210 27 80 Median 19 42 168 843 -2077 207 8 3 16 Ichthvoplankton Community Density Ratio Estimation Sample results for ichthyoplankton were already reported as densities for the shoreline and intake area in both NA (2007) and Jude et al., (1986). Thus, the ichthyoplankton density ratios between shoreline and intake were calculated by dividing the shoreline sample results by intake sample results. Data was insufficient to develop monthly density ratios, and were therefore left as annual estimates.

The annual estimates for the ichthyoplankton community density ratios are presented in table A4-4. Because of the large degree of inteir-annual variation, the monthly median value was selected for use in the Baseline scenario calculations (parameter R)Table A4-4 -Summary of Shoreline to Intake Area Ichthyoplankton I Community Density Ratio Year Ratio (Shoreline:lntake)

Year Ratio (Shoreline:

Intake)1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 2006 2005 7 1 4 40 29 15 15 24 7 2 2 7 Mean 13.ed.ian iA '. 2...C2(&tD References Jude, D. J., D. Bimber, N. Thurber, F. Tesar, L. Noguchi, P. Mansfield, H. Tin and P. Rago. 1986. Impact of the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant on Fish In: Southeastern Nearshore Lake Michigan:

Impact of the Donald C.Cook Nuclear Plant. R. Rossmann (ed.) Great Lakes Research Division Pub. 22. pgs. 285-351. The University of Michigan Ann Arbor, MI.Mansfield P J & Jude D J. 1986. Alewife (Alosa pseudoharengus) survival during the first growth season in southeastern Lake Michigan.

Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., Vol 43.

Appendix 5 Life History Parameters Used in the Adult Equivalency Analysis Life History Parameters Used in the Adult Equivalence Analysis Table A5-1 presents the life history parameters used to perform the Age 1 equivalence analysis of the report.Literature sources for these parameters included:

Parameter Development for Equivalent Adult and Production Forgone Models (EPRI, 2005) and Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule -Appendix G 1 Life History Parameters to Evaluate I&E in the Great Lakes Region (EPA, 2004).The parameter SO, (fraction of fish expected to survive from age 1 to the age of equivalence) was calculated using Equation A5-1.j max Equation A5-1: Si,A = 7 S 1.j=i Where: Si = stage fraction from stage j to stage j+1 S;,A = fraction of fish expected to survive from age i to age of equivalence Jma = the stage immediately prior to the age of equivalence References EPRI. 2005. Parameter development for equivalent adult and production foregone models. Technical Report No. 1008832. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto, CA: 2005.USEPA, 2004. Regional Analysis Document for the Final Section 316(b) Phase II Existing Facilities Rule..

Part G. Appendix G1. Office of Science and Technology Engineering and Analysis Division Washington, DC 20460 February 2004.

Table A5-1 -Parameters Used in Adult Equivalence Models Natural Fishing Survival Weight Source Species Life Stage Mortality Mortality Rate S[,A (g)Egg 0.56 0 0.5712 0.0001 0.00003 Yolk-sac larvae 0.69 0 0.5016 0.0002 0.00003 Post Yolk-sac larvae 1.73 0 0.1773 0.0003 0.00069 Young-of-Year 6.25 0 0.0019 0.0019 0.045.Age 1 0.30 0 0.7408 1.0000 20 EPRI, Alewife Age 2 0.30 0 0.7408 1.3499 29 2005 Age 3 0.30 0 0.7408 1.8221 30 Age 4 0.30 0 0.7408 2.4596 35 Age 5 0.30 0 0.7408 3.3201 37 Age 6 0.30 0 0.7408 4.4817 37 Age 7 0.30 0 0.7408 6.0496 37 Age 8 0.30 0 0.7408 8.1662 37 Young-of-Year 4.33 0 0.0132 0.0132 0.08 Age 1 0.80 0 0.4493 1.0000 21 Age 2 0.80 0 0.4493 2.2255 110 Shad Age 3 0.80 0 0.4493 4.9530 227 2005 Age 4 0.80 0 0.4493 11.0232 319 Age 5 0.80 0 0.4493 24.5325 409 Age 6 0.80 0 0.4493 54.5982 409 1 Egg 1.90 0 0.1496 0.0007 0.0021 Larvae 4.61 0 0.0100 0.0046 0.13 Spottail Young-of-Year 0.77 0 0.4630 0.4630 0.95 EPA, Shiner Age 1 0.37 0 0.6900 1.0000 1.8 2004 Age 2 4.61 0 0.0100 1.4492 3.1 Age 3 4.61 0 0.0100 145.6199 6.5 Young-of-Year 2.48 0 0.0837 0.0837 0.058, Age 1 0.22 0 0.8025 1.0000 6 Age 2 0.25 0 0.7788 1.2461 30 Yellow Age 3 1.20 0 0.3012 1.6000 65 EPRI, Perch Age 4 1.20 0 0.3012 5.3122 103 2005 Age 5 1.20 0 0.3012 17.6370 138 Age 6 1.20 0 0.3012 58.5570 168 Age 7 1.20 0.7 0.1496 194.4160 192 Egg 2.08 0 0.1249 0.0000 0.00032 Sculpin Larvae 5.71 0 0.0033 0.0002 0.00093 2004 Young-of-Year 2.85 0 0.0578 0.0578 0.34 Rainbow Egg 4.60 0 0.0101 0.0002 0.00028 EPRI, Smelt Larvae 3.06 0 0.0469 0.0185 0.00028 2005 Young-of-Year 0.93 0 0.3946 0.3946 0.026 December 12, 2008 NPDES Permit Amendment Request INDIANA Indiana Michigan Power MICHIG N "Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, MI 49106 A onit ofAmerican Electric Power IndianaMichiganPower.com Mr. Sean Syts, District Supervisor Michigan Department of Environmental Quality Water Bureau 525 West Allegan Street PO Box 30273 Lansing, MI 48909-7773 December 12, 2008 Re: American Electric Power' Company Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant NPDES Permit No. MI0005827

Dear Mr. Syts:

We are requesting an amendment to our current NPDES permit application.

We use a C02 Generator during shutdown periods for our electrical generator layup process. This C02 generator produces approximately 400 gallons of condensed steam during periodic operation.

We currently collect waste water from this skid for disposal.

Due to excessive costs involved with rerouting a nearby floor drain, we are proposing an amendment to the NPDES permit application to include this process to storm drain outfall 001S.The skid operation would occur up to 5 times per year, and generate 400 gallons of waste water per occurrence for a maximum of 2000 gallons per year.This water would be directed to the nearby storm drain, where it would be routed to the north outfall (Outfall 001S) .This outfall drains to the beach prior to entering Lake Michigan.

The waste water is condensed steam, the chemical composition has been already approved for discharge via Outfalls 001A and 002A (Combined Discharge).

Typical characteristics of this waste water is Iiydrazine 80 ppb, Ammonia, 10 ppm pH 9.99 (at room temp),Carbohydrazide 0 ppb.Due to the length of storm drain piping, and the slow drain rate, we estimate that the waste water will be broken down and diluted prior to discharge to Lake Michigan.Please contact me at telephone (269) 465-5901 extension 1599 if you have any questions regarding this information.

Sincerely, Doug W. Foster Environmental Manager Mr. Sean Syts C02 Generator Drain request Page 2 December 12, 2008I certify under penalty of law that I have personally examined and am familiar with the information submitted on this and all attached documents, and.based on my inquiry of those individuals immediately responsible for obtaining the information, I believe the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment.

D. W. Foster Environmental Manager

ML091340523

Text

1.2 Objectives

2.2 Artificial

3.2.1 Circulating

3.2.3 Biocide

4.1 SummaryThe

4.2 Recommendations

Dear Mr. Quraishi:

Subject:

REFERENCE:

2.1.3 Cooling

2.2 Source

9.7 September

9.7 November

2.4.2 Design

3.1 Introduction

3.2 Taxonomic

3.7 yellow

1.2 spottail

2.3 yellow

3.3.1 Summary

3.4.2 Current

3.4.3 Estimation

3.8 presents

7.5 times

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.5.5 Reference

1.0 INTRODUCTION

2.4.2 Impingement

2.5.2 Inspection

2.5.5 Reference

3.3 NEARFIELD

3.3.1 Ichthyoplankton

3.3.3 Otter

0.0 Gizzard

3.4.3 Otter

3.5 QUALITY

5.0 LITERATURE

9.3 Surface

Reference:

Dear Mr. Syts:

Navigation menu

Search