Text

Enclosure C - Binder 1 of 2, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (Dbnps) References. (Tab Am 1 Through a 7)
	ML11227A196
Person / Time
Site:	Davis Besse
Issue date:	05/27/2011
From:	; FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Co
To:	; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
	L-11-165
	Download: ML11227A196 (501)
	v • d • e

Enclosure C -Binder I of 2 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit No. 1 (DBNPS)Letter L-1 1-165 References Page 1 of 4 Enclosure C -Binder 1 of 2 L-1 1-165 Page 2 of 4 Requested References Tab Air & Meteorology NOAA 2009. NOAA e-mail, J. Kosanik to J, Snooks (AREVA), National Weather AM 1 Service, March 3, 2009.System Description for Meteorological Monitoring System for the Toledo Edison AM 2 Company Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, Oak Harbor, Ohio, SD-032C, Rev. 2, 10/04/2005 Ohio EPA, Davis-Besse Station, Auxiliary Boiler Air Quality Permit, Date of Issuance:

AM 3 05/26/89.Ohio EPA, No Permit Needed for Diesel Generators at Davis-Besse NPS, AM 4 October 1, 1996.TRC Environmental Corporation, Emission Inventory Report, Centerior Energy AM 5 Corporation, Davis-B esse Nuclear Power Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio, February 10, 1995.NOTE: This document is Confidential and is not provided due to Attorney-Client Privilege.

DBNPS, Greenhouse gas em issions at Davis-Besse, dated 03/04/2011 (1 page) AM 6 DPNPS, Actual vs Potential Emissions of Stationary Combustion Sources for AM 7 2005-2010 (18 pages)Memorandum from J.S. Seitz (OAQPS), Second Extension of January 25, 1995 AM 8 Potential to Emit Transition Policy and Clarification of Interim Policy, July 10, 1998 (4 pages)Ohio EPA, Final Title V Permit to West Lorain Plant, Issue Date: 11/19/04 (1 page) AM 9 Ohio EPA, 2004-2005 Non-Title V Air Emissions Report for Davis-Besse Station, AM 10 dated 02/21/2005 (1 page)Ohio EPA, 2006-2007 Non-Title V Air Emissions Report for Davis-Besse Station, AM 11 dated 04/04/2008 (1 page)Ohio EPA, 2008-2009 Non-Title V Air Emissions Report for Davis-Besse Station, AM 12 dated 02/26/2010 (1 page)Ohio EPA, Engineering Guide #61, "What is Ohio EPA's policy for limiting the AM 13 potential to emit (PTE) of air contaminant emissions at a facility for purposes of avoiding federal permitting?," Revised September 5, 1996 (3 pages)Letter from Polly Bolssoneault (DBNPS) to Jay Liebrecht (Ohio EPA), Submittal of the AM 14 2010 Annual Report for DBNPS Auxiliary Boiler (3 pages)Davis-Besse 10 Yr. Average Operating Hours and Fuel Burn (2 pages) AM 15 DBNPS, Diesel PM summaries (2 pages) AM 16 Enclosure C -Binder 1 of 2 L-1 1-165 Page 3 of 4 Requested References Tab Aquatic AE1 .b_L-08-039 Water WD rpt. for 2007_2008-02-05.pdf A 1 AE1 .b_L-09-027 Water WD rpt. for 2008_2009-02-11 .pdf A 2 AE1 .bL-1 0-030 Water WD rpt. for 2009_2010-01-22.pdf A 3 AE1 .bL-1 1-033 Water WD rpt. for 2010_2011-02-16.pdf A 4 AEl .bRAOG-07-0009 Water WD rpt. for 2006.pdf A 5 AE3.aCooper et al. 1981 Larval fish and ent.pdf A 6 AE3.bReutter et al 1980 Env Evaluation Final Report Study 1 .pdf A 7 AE3.cReutterJ.M.

1981a, Ent.pdf A 8 AE3.dReutter 1981 b, I mp.pdf A 9 Terrestrial TR1iATTACH TR-1.PDF T 1 TRIODNR 2010_PUB356(Oct 2010).pdf T 2 TRIODN R 201 1_RarePlantS peciesbyCounty.pdf T 3 TR3_Site Layout for New Structures_12-7

-10.pdf T 4 TR4, 5_Davis-Besse Site Veg Mgmt Contracts.pdf T 5 TR4, 5_FirstEnergy Xmiss Line Veg Mgmt Specifications.pdf T 6 TR4_NOBP-OP-2000_Env Best Mgmt Practices.pdf T 7 TR6.aUSFWS 2009b Critical Habitat.pdf T 8 TR6.bODNAP 2009a.pdf T 9 TR6.bONWRA 2009.pdf T 10 TR6.cBolsenga and Herdendorf 1993.pdf T 11 TR6.c_ Campbell 1995.pdf T 12 TR6.cFirstEnergy 2008.pdf T 13 TR6.cGORP 2009.pdf T 14 TR6.cHerdendorf 1987.pdf T 15 TR6.cMIPN 2009.pdf T 16 TR6.cODNAP 2009c.pdf T 17 TR6.cODNAP 2009d.pdf T 18 Enclosure C -Binder 1 of 2 L-11-165 Page 4 of 4 Requested References Tab TR6.dDownhower 1988.pdf T 19 TR6.dEwert and Rodewald 2008, Mng Habitats for Migrating Birds in West T 20 Lake Erie Basin.pdf TR6.dFirstEnergy 2008.pdf T 21 TR6.dUSFWS 2008.pdf T 22 TR6.eERIE 1995.pdf T 23 TR6.eLucas 2008.pdf T 24 TR6.e_Ottawa 2008.pdf T 25 TR6.eSandusky 2008.pdf T 26 TR6.fUSFWS 2009_Refuge Profiles.pdf T 27 TR6.g_FECorp 2009,pdf T 28 TR6.g_OPSB 2007.pdf T 29 TR6.g_US EPA 2009.pdf T 30

file:H/Cl/Documents and Settings/jsnooks/My Documents/Word7/Dav...newal/Draft Sections/Chp 2/2.10 Met&AirOJRe Ohio Climatology.htm From: James Kosarik [James.Kosarik@noaa.gov]

Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 7:44 PM# : SNOOKS John H (AREVA NP INC)Wbject: Re: Ohio Climatology Attachments:

ToledoClimate.jpg Mr Snooks: Thanks for getting in touch. You are right, it is not easy to find a generic climate text summary for Toledo. I found a version that comes with the Annual Climate Summary. This publication is put out by the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) in Asheville, NC. I could not find a version on-line and scanned a copy. It is attached, unfortunately it is a JPG file.The NCDC write-up is commerce oriented which may be fine. If you want a summary that is strictly weather oriented, you could say the following..."Toledo is located on the Maumee River on Maumee Bay at the western end of Lake Erie. It has a continental climate which is modified by its proximity to the Great Lakes. Summers are warm to hot with humid weather being common. Winter is cold although frequent thaws occur. The Great Lakes have a moderating effect on temperature and extremes are seldom recorded.

On average, only 15 days a year reach or exceed 90 degrees. On about 8 days a year the temperature drops to zero or lower.Bile the Great Lakes contribute little to the annual precipitation, it does enhance cloudiness lTuring the winter months. Heavy snow storms typically occur once or twice a winter but light snows are common. Thunderstorms occur regularly from late Spring through Summer with much of the summer precipitation coming from thunderstorm rains. Strong thunderstorms occur a few times each year.The terrain is mostly flat and has little influence on the weather. An east wind off Lake Erie will bring significant cooling to the downtown and lake shore areas each spring and fog can also occur. The lake breeze brings a comfortable cooling effect to the lake shore during the summer months. A prolonged strong east wind, although rare, can produce lake shore flooding." If you use this write-up, please credit "NOAA/National Weather Service".

If you use the NCDC write-up (attached) or a combination of the two please credit NOAA/National Climatic Data Center.Let me know if you have any questions.

Jim Kosarik 6 1teorologist, National Weather Service, Cleveland file:///CI/Documents and Settings/jsnooks/My Docum...ctions/Chp 2/2.10 Met&AirQ/Re Ohio Climatology.htm (1 of 2) [3/9/2010 3:29:13 PM]

file:///Cl/Documents and Settings/jsnooks/My Documents/Word7/Dav...newal/Draft Sections/Chp 2/2.10 Met&AirOJRe Ohio Climatology.htm SNOOKS John H (AREVA NP INC) wrote: Hello, I have been trying in vain to obtain a good description of the climatology of northern Ohio, especially around Toledo. I have ample data on temps, precip, and the usual from the NCDC, but nothing on the type of weather patterns, air masses that contribute to the seasonal weather and so forth.Hopefully, you can point me to a person, Web sight or publication that describes Ohio weather in general. Usually the state climatologist has something, but I couldn't find anything on his Web site.Many thanks, J.H. Snooks Senior Environmental Consultant AREVA NP Inc.An AREVA and Siemens Company 400 Donald Lynch Blvd.Marlborough, MA 01752 Work: 508.573.6577 Fax: 508.573.6614 e-mail: iohn.snooksRareva.com A Please consider our environment before printing.file:///Cl/Documents and Settings/jsnooks/My Docum...ctions/Chp 2/2.10 Met&AirQ/Re Ohio Climatology.htm (2 of 2) [3/9/2010 3:29:13 PM]

0 2005 TOLEDO, OHIO (TOL)Toledo is located on the western end of Lake Erie at the mouth of the Maumee River. Except for a bank up from the river about 30 feet, the terrain is generally level with only a slight slope toward the river and Lake Erie. The city has quite a diversified industrial section and excellent harbor facilities, making it a large transportation center for rail, water, and motor freight. Generally rich agricultural land is found in the surrounding area, especially up the Maumee Valley toward the Indiana state line.Rainfall is usually sufficient for general agriculture.

The terrain is level and drainage rather poor, therefore, a little less than the normal precipitation during the growing season is better than excessive amounts. Snowfall is.generally light in this area, distributed throughout the winter from November to March with frequent thaws.The nearness of Lake Erie and the other Great Lakes has a moderating effect on the temperature, and extremes are seldom recorded.

On average, only fifteen days a year experience temperatures of 90 degrees or higher, and only eight days when it drops to zero or lower. The growing season averages 160 days, but has ranged from over 220 Humidity is rather high throughout the year in this :area, and there is an excessive amount of cloudiness.

In the winter months the sun shines during only about 30 percent of the daylight hours. December and January, the cloudiest months, sometimes have as little as 16 percent of the possible hours of sunshine.Severe windstorms, causing more than minor damage, occur infrequently.

There are on the average twenty-three days per year having a sustained wind velocity of 32 mph or more.Flooding in the Toledo area is produced by several factors. Heavy rains of 1 inch or more will cause a sudden rise in creeks and drainage ditches to the point of overflow.

The western shores of Lake Erie are subject to flooding when the lake level is high and prolonged periods of east to northeast winds prevail.

NJ SYSTEM DESCRIPTION FOR METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM FOR THE TOLEDO EDISON COMPANY DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION UNIT 1 OAK HARBOR, OHIO Approvals:

Preparer Date /_-. _-_.4 o "lie.Oev' 5 , p/o/. Date Design Engineering Reviewer-/ eJ.( C-Date /q OS Cognizant Supervisor SD-032C Rev. 2 LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Revision Page Revision Page Revision i 2 ii 2 iii 2 iv 2 v 2 vi 2 1-1 2 1-2 2 1-3 2 1-4 2 2-1 2 2-2 2 2-3 2 2-4 2 3-1 2 4-1 2 F1.1 2 F1.2 2 SD-032C Rev. 2 RECORD OF REVISIONS Rev.No. Date Preparer (Initials and Date)Checker (Initials and Date)Summary of Chanqe 0 1 2 Issued for Use* *9/18/98 Revised to incorporate AR-96-ENVMG-01-OBS-05 as per NA request.*6*~1 ~Incorporate SDCN 032C-01-001 ii SD-032C Rev. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES ...............

RECORD OF REVISIONS

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................

LIST OF TABLES ........................

LIST OF FIGURES .......................

LIST OF APPENDICES

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

....... .. ............. .... ...i....... .. ............. .... ..i...........................

iii............................

iv... .... .. .. ....... ... .... .. ..v............................

v i 1.0 SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS

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

1-1 1.1 SYSTEM BOUNDARIES AND FUNCTIONS

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

1-1 1.1.1 System Boundaries

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

1-1 1.1.2 Functions

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

1-1 1.2 DESIGN REQUIREMENTS

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

1-2 1.2.1 Process/Performance Requirements

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

1-2 1.2.2 Structural Requirements

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

1-2 1.2.3 System Configuration and Interface Requirements

..... 1-2 1.2.4 Surveillance Testing and Inservice Inspection (ISI)Requirements

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

1-3 1.2.5 Setpoint Basis ......................................

1-3 1.2.6 Electrical Requirements

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

1-3 1.2.7 Quality Assurance Requirements

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

1-3 1.2.8 Codes and Standards

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

1-3 1.2.9 Environmental Qualification Requirements

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

1-4 1.2.10 Fire Protection or Security Requirements

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

1-4 2.0 SYSTEM DESIGN DESCRIPTION

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

2-1 2.1 DESIGN DESCRIPTION

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

2.1.1 General

Description

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

2.1.2 Loop Description

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

2.2 SENSORY

EQUIPMENT

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

2.3 SIGNAL

PROCESSING AND OUTPUT DEVICES .....2.4 COMPONENT DATA ...........................

2.5 SYSTEM

ARRANGEMENT

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

2.6 ANCILLARY

INDICATIONS

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

2.7 ELECTRICAL

SYSTEMS AND POWER SUPPLIES ..............

2-1..........

2-2..........

2-3..........

2-4 3.0 SYSTEM LIMITATIONS, SETPOINTS, AND PRECAUTIONS

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

3-1 3.1 Section Deleted ............................................

3-1 3.2 OTHER LIMITS AND PRECAUTIONS

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

3-1

4.0 REFERENCES

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

4-1 4.1 DESIGN DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS

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

4-1 4.2 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS

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

4-1 4.3 VENDOR EQUIPMENT MANUALS AND DRAWINGS ......................

4-1 4.4 USAR SECTIONS, TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS MANUAL, AND REGULATORY DOCUMENTS

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

4-1 4.5 MISCELLANEOUS CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS

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

4-1 iii SD-032C Rev. 2 LIST OF TABLES Table Title Page None iv SD-032C Rev. 2 LIST OF FIGURES Figure Title Page 1.1 Primary Meteorological Equipment Shelter (Sheet 1) FI.I 1.2 Backup Meteorological Equipment Shelter (Sheet 2) F1.2 v SD-032C Rev. 2 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix Title Page None vi SD-032C Rev. 2 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING SYSTEM DESCRIPTION

1.0 SYSTEM

REQUIREMENTS

1.1 SYSTEM

BOUNDARIES AND FUNCTIONS 1.1.1 System Boundaries 1.1.1.1 Meteorological Monitoring System The Meteorological Monitoring System consists of two sets of wind speed, wind direction, and temperature instruments.

Precipitation and dew point are also monitored.

The instruments are located on a freestanding meteorological tower and on an auxiliary tower. Recorders and power supply equipment are located at the base of the meteorological tower (Reference 4.4.2). A simplified system schematic diagram is shown in Figure 1.1 and 1.2.1.1.1.2 Electrical circuit breakers and fuses that control or feed the equipment or circuits in this system are included within the boundary of this system.1.1.1.3 Control and instrumentation necessary for the operation of the Meteorological Monitoring System are included within the system boundary.1.1.2 Functions 1.1.2.1 Functions Important to Safe Plant Operation The Meteorological System collects data for Radiological dose calculations and historical meteorological data review and does not directly impact plant operations.

1.1.2.2 Other Operational Functions Meteorological Monitoring System The primary function of the meteorological system is to determine the atmospheric dilution and dispersion parameters of the site. This is accomplished through the monitoring of local meteorological conditions that provide basic input data for determining atmospheric dilution and analysis of radioactive gas releases to the atmosphere.

Historical as well as real-time data are necessary to determine the dispersion of radioactive material in the atmosphere during controlled releases as well as accidental releases.i-I SD-032C Rev. 2

1.2 DESIGN

REQUIREMENTS 1.2.1 Process/Performance Requirements The primary requirement of the Meteorological System is to determine the atmospheric dilution and dispersion characteristics of the plant site.This should be accomplished by measuring and recording wind speed, wind direction, atmospheric temperature, in accordance with RG 1.23 "Proposed Rev. 1, Circa 1980" and NUJREG-0737 (References 4.4.4 and 4.4.6).The instruments should be capable of measuring wind direction, wind speed, ambient air temperature.

The tower or mast should be located at approximately the same elevation and in the same area as the plant structures.

The tower-mounted instruments should be at an elevation of 10 meters above the ground, and an upper level 55 meters above the lower level instruments (Reference 4.4.4).The system should meet the following additional requirements as noted: 0 Instruments should be situated in the plant area so that plant structures should not affect their measurements (Reference 4.4.4).0 The measured parameters should be displayed in the Control Room via DADS system M-points M001-MIOO.

o Information should be recorded and retained to determine the actions to be taken due to the dispersion of radiological releases to the atmosphere, post-accident, and the actions necessary as required by NUREG-0654, FEMA-REP-1, Rev. 1.1.2.2 Structural Requirements The meteorological tower(s) should be located in the same area as the plant structures and at the same elevation.

The location should be such that the data shall not be influenced by interference from the plant structures (Reference 4.4.4).The tower or mast should be capable of withstanding the most severe wind expected for the site and shall be capable of withstanding or being protected from a direct lightning strike by proper application of grounding (Reference 4.4.4).The equipment should be suitable for continuous operation in an environment of -20OF to 100OF (Reference 4.5.1).1.2.3 System Configuration and Interface Requirements The Meteorological Monitoring System is configured as discussed in Subsection 1.1.1.1. The system shall interface with the Control Room to display and record system data (Reference 4.4.2). The recorded data shall be submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) annually.Refer to Figure 1.1 and 1.2 for the system configuration and interfaces with the Control Room.1-2 SD-032C Rev. 2

1.2.4 Surveillance

Testing and Inservice Inspection (ISI)Requirements The meteorological instruments should be inspected and serviced at a frequency that will ensure at least a 90 percent joint data recovery for temperature, wind speed, and wind direction at a level that represents the effluent release point and that will minimize extended periods of instrument outage. The system instruments should be calibrated at least semiannually and as frequently as necessary to ensure that the accuracy requirements are met. If any instrument fails a calibration test, the data should be rejected until the instrument passes the calibration test. This is in accordance with RG 1.23 and meets the intent of ANSI/ANS 2.5 (Reference 4.4.4). Surveillance requirements are included in the Technical Requirements Manual, Section 4.3.3.4a, and 4.3.3.4b.1.2.5 Setpoint Basis There are no setpoints for this system instrumentation, since the instruments continuously read the environmental condition at the plant.1.2.6 Electrical Requirements The Meteorological Monitoring System does not perform a safety-related function.

System instrumentation shall be available all the time to maintain continuity of the weather time history recording.

The system instrumentation should be supplied by a primary and a backup power source to meet the requirements of NUREG-0654.

1.2.7 Quality

Assurance Requirements The Meteorological Monitoring System is an augmented quality system and is within the scope and design of the AQ criteria of the Quality Assurance Program.1.2.8 Codes and Standards The following codes and standards shall apply: o Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Proposed Revision 1), 1980 Onsite Meteorological Programs o NUREG-0654, Rev. 1, November 1980, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants 0 NUREG-0737,Section III.A.2, Improving Licensee Emergency Preparedness, Long Term 0 1-3 SD-032C Rev. 2

1.2.9 Environmental

Qualification Requirements The Meteorological Monitoring System is not a safety-related system and, therefore, the equipment is not required to meet environmental qualification.

However, the Meteorological Monitoring System instruments should be protected against severe environmental conditions, such as icing, salt, sand, and air pollution (Reference 4.4.4).1.2.10 Fire Protection or Security Requirements 1.2.10.1 There are no special security requirements for the Meteorological Monitoring System.1-4 SD-032C Rev. 2

2.0 SYSTEM

DESIGN DESCRIPTION

2.1 DESIGN

DESCRIPTION

2.1.1 General

Description The Meteorological Monitoring System consists of two sets of three wind direction, three wind speed, two differential temperature, two ambient temperature, one dew point, one multi-channel strip chart recorder, Barometric Pressure and Solar Insolence; and three strip chart recorders, one for each primary monitoring level on the tower (Reference 4.4.2).Subsection

2.1.2 discusses

the system in detail.2.1.2 Loop Description The collection of meteorological data from the 100 meter freestanding meteorological tower and 10 meter auxiliary tower is representative of the site. These data can be obtained by providing instrumentation at different levels on the 100 meter freestanding meteorological tower and on the 10 meter auxiliary tower. Wind direction and speed are measured at 75 meter and 100 meter on the 100 meter freestanding meteorological tower, and at 10 meter on the satellite tower. The low-level wind data most representative of the finished plant grade are those from the 10 meter auxiliary tower. Measurement of delta T (differential temperature) is made between the 10 and 75 meter elevations and between the 10 meter and 100 meter elevations.

In addition, dew point measurement is made at the 10 meter level of the freestanding meteorological tower. Precipitation measurements are made at the ground level near the base of the 10 meter auxiliary tower. These data are transmitted on a continuous basis directly to the Control Room and the Emergency Control Center. The data recording and signal conditioning equipment are housed in an environmentally controlled shelter located near the base of the 100 meter freestanding meteorological tower. Signals from the instruments mounted on the tower are changed from analog to digital at the Meteorological Data Processing System (MDPS), which is located in the environmentally controlled instrument shelters located at the base of the freestanding meteorological tower (Reference 4.4.2). The MDPS collects all real-time data and produces a 15-minute average from the real-time values.2.2 SENSORY EQUIPMENT The Meteorological Monitoring System instruments are provided to measure different meteorological parameters, such as precipitation, wind speed, wind direction, ambient temperature differential temperature, and dew point temperature, at various levels on the freestanding meteorological tower and auxillary tower. Each sensor is wired to the environmentally controlled instrumentation shelter located at the base of the meteorological tower.The shelter serves as a signal conditioning and data logging facility.Wind speed and direction sensors are located at 2-1 SD-032C Rev. 2 specific levels on the towers as described in Subsection 2.1.2. In addition, temperature sensors monitor ambient temperature and provide basic data for determining temperature differentials between the three-tower instrument levels. This information provides the basis for establishing the ambient temperature at the low level and for the thermal inversion characteristics of the area.At the lowest tower level, the moisture content of the air is monitored by a dew point sensor. This information can be used to establish the operating parameters for the cooling tower, in addition to providing basic data for environmental impact studies. The precipitation monitor is located at ground level, approximately 100 feet away from the instrument shelter.A description and function of meteorological instruments are provided in Subsections 2.1.2 and 2.3.2.3 SIGNAL PROCESSING AND OUTPUT DEVICES All analog instrumentation signals are converted into digital signals in the meteorological shelter. Most of these signals are also fed to recorders.

The data are also made available to the DADS computer as 15-minute and hourly averages.

Points M001 through MI00 should be used via DADS system.Wind speed and wind direction data are recorded on Esterline-Angus dual-channel strip chart recorders, one recorder for each primary tower level instruments.

Ambient temperature, dew point, delta T, and precipitation are recorded on one Esterline-Angus multipoint strip chart recorder, each parameter being recorded on an individual channel (Reference 4.4.2). Strip charts are de-energized and only energized for meteorological evaluation in support of possible sensor malfunctions.

Reference Subsection 2.4 and Figure 1.1 and 1.2 for meteorological instrument details.2.4 COMPONENT DATA The Meteorological Monitoring System instrumentation consists of the following:

o Tower-mounted instrumentation

-sensors Location of the instruments is discussed in Subsection 2.1.2.-Wind speed transmitter.

Wind direction transmitter.

-Temperature detector 2-2 SD-032C Rev. 2

-Dew point detector-Rainfall monitor o Instrument shelters, including:

-Meteorological system instrumentation

-MDPS/21X Datalogger

-Digital communications system-AC power distribution system-Digital telemetry interface communications to the DADS computer and Emergency Control Center The various system components are shown on the simplified system schematic, Figure 1.. and 1.2.2.5 SYSTEM ARRANGEMENT The system consists of the following:

o A 100 meter tower, which supports meteorological sensors at selected heights above ground level o A 10 meter auxillary tower, which also supports meteorological sensors o Two equipment shelters located near the 100 meter meteorological tower containing recording and signal conditioning equipment o A rainfall monitor mounted at ground level near the primary shelter o The entire station (shelters and towers) enclosed by protective fencing 2.6 ANCILLARY INDICATIONS This system does not use any ancillary indications.

0 2-3 SD-032C Rev. 2

2.7 ELECTRICAL

SYSTEMS AND POWER SUPPLIES 2.7.1 Meteorological Monitoring System 2.7.1.1 External Power Supplies BY-5 is the 480 V distribution center that powers the primary system. The backup system is fed by a pole mounted transformer, X3006. Auto Transfer Switch D-3002 supplies power to Panelboard BY-5 from two sources (Reference 4.1.2) to fulfill the requirements of Subsection 1.2.6.2.7.1.2 Internal Power Supplies The wind speed transmitters, wind direction transmitters, and wind translator are equipped with integral 12 VDC power supplies.

Devices that do not come with integral power supplies and require DC power are fed from Teledyne Geotech Series 40 AC power supply, which converts the 120 VAC line voltage to +/-12 VDC (adjustable).

This power supply is located in each Meteorological Shelter.2-4 SD-032C Rev. 2

3.0 SYSTEM

LIMITATIONS, SETPOINTS, AND PRECAUTIONS

3.1 Section

Deleted.3.2 OTHER LIMITS AND PRECAUTIONS Technical Requirements Manual Table 3.3-8 lists the meteorological instrumentation channels that shall be demonstrated to be operable to avoid a limiting condition (Reference 4.4.5).Wind speed, wind direction, temperature, and dew point data should be averaged over a period of at least 15 minutes once each hour (Reference 4.4.4).3-1 SD-032C Rev. 2

4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 DESIGN

DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS 4.1.1 Design Criteria Manual,Section I.D 4.1.2 Drawings E4, Sheet 4, E428, Sheets 1-5, E1801 series, 4.2 EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS 4 .3 VENDOR EQUIPMENT MANUALS AND DRAWINGS 4.3.1 Meteorological Monitoring System for Davis-Besse, G-MT-0007 j 4.4 USAR SECTIONS, TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS MANUAL, AND REGULATORY DOCUMENTS 4.4.1 USAR Section 2.3, Meteorology

4.4.2 Regulatory

Guide 1.23, 1972, Onsite Meteorological Programs 4.4.3 Technical Requirements Manual Sections 4/3.3.3 and 4/3.3.4 4.4.4 NUREG-0737, TMI Action Plan Requirements 4.4.5 NUREG-0654, Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants, Rev. 1 4.4.6 Standard for Determining Meteorological Information at Nuclear Power Sites, ANSI/ANS 2.5, 1984 4.5 MISCELLANEOUS CONTROLLED DOCUMENTS 4.5.1 Miscellaneous NUS and Davis-Besse drawings for Meteorological System.4-1 SD-032C Rev. 2 0 FIGURE 1. 1 TOWERS PRIMARY METEOROLOGICAL DeftaT EQUIPMENT SHELTER 75-10m Delta T lOO-lOm TA T Temperature 1Om AmbT Processor loom WS I00m WS 0/75m WS g Surge 75m WS Protector 100mWD 10mWS 75mrWD 100m WD loin Dew Pt 75m WD Strip Chart Recorders 10mWD 10omWS-° 10m Dew Pt E OmWD spirator Monitor 10mWD -Isolatedly Campbell Isolterfac 21 XL Precipitation ADatalogger Teledyne-Geotech PrecLp. Rackmount 49 03-1 Meteorological Monitoring System Block Diagram SD032C 0 Fl.1I SD-032C Rev.

FIGURE 1.2 TOWERS Dota T 75-10m Delta T 100-10m 1Om ArnbT 0oom WS 75m WS 100m WD 75m WD 10m BP 10 m SI 10m WS 10mWD Fl .2 SD-032C Rev. 2

State of Ohio Envkonmental Protection Agency ICW*M) i P.O. Box 1049, 1800 WaterMark Dr.Columbus.

Ohio 43266-0149 Richard F. Celeste Governor 0362000091 8001 CERTIFIED MAIL DAVIS -6ESSE STATION MR JOSEPH E MURRAY May 26, 1989 300 MADISON TOLEDO OH 43652;

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed are Permit(s) to Operate which allow you to operate the described air contaminant source(s) in the manner indicated in the permit(s).

Because these permits contain several conditions and restrictions, I urge you to read them carefully.

You are hereby notified that this action of the Director is final and may be appealed to the Environmental Board of Review pursuant to Section 3745.04 of the Ohio Revised Code. The appeal must be in writing and set forth the action complained of and the grounds upon which the appeal is based. It must be filed with the Environmental Board of Review within thirty (30) days after notice of the Director's action. A copy of the appeal must be served on the Director of the Ohio Environmental Law Division of the Office of the Attorney General within three (3) days of filing with the board. An appeal may be filed with the Environmental Board of Review at the following address: Environmental Board of Review 236 East Town Street Room 300 Columbus, Ohio 43215 If you have any questions, please contact the air pollution control agency to which you submitted your application.

yors, Thomas G. Rigo, anager Field Operations Section Division of Air Pollution Control TGR/gs EPA-3167 04/23/87

/7 STATEMENT OF THE OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 0362000091BOO1 APPLICATION NUMBER$270.00 AMOUNT DUE DAVIS -BESSE STATION FACILITY NAME PURSUANT TO SEC.3745.11 OF THE OHIO REVISED CODE, FULL AMOUNT OF THIS PERMIT FEE IS DUE WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THIS PERMIT.MAKE CHECKS PAYABLE TO: THE TREASURER OF THE STATE OF OHIO.RETURN THIS STATEMENT WITH YOUR REMITTANCE USING THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE TO: GENERAL ACCOUNTING OHIO EPA P.O. BOX 1049 COLUMBUS, OH 43266-0149 ALL QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS FEE SHOULD INCLUDE THE APPLICATION NUMBER SHOWN ABOVE.

O'hb0z State df Ohio Environmental Protection Agency PERMIT TO OPERATE AN AIR CONTAMINANT SOURCE Date of issuance 05/26/69 Application No. 0362000091B001 Effective Date 05/26f89-Permit Fee $270 This document constitutes issuance to: DAVIS -BESSE STATION RFDt NO3. STATE ROUTE 2 OAK. HARBOR. OHIO 43449 of a permit to operate for..Z26.'rNNBTU/HR NO- Z. OITL FIRED :BOILER AUXILIARY.

BOILER-The following terms and conditions are hereby expressly incorporated into this permit to operate: 1. This permit to operate shall be effective until 05/25/92_You will be contacted approximately six months prior to this date regarding the renewal ot this permit It jou are not contacted, please write to the appropriate Ohio EPA field office.2. The above-described source is and shall remain In full compliance with all applicable State and federal laws and reg-ulations and the terms and conditions of this permit.3. Prior to any modification of this source, as defined in rule 3745-31-01 of the Ohio Administrative Code (OAC), a permit to install must be granted by the Ohio EPA pursuant to OAC Chapter 3745-31.4. The Director of the Ohio EPA or an authorized representative may, subject to the safety requirements of the permit holder, enter upon the premises of this source at any reasonable time for purposes of making inspections, conducting tests, O examining records or reports pertaining to any emission of air contaminants, and determining compliance with any applicable State and federal air pollution laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of this permit.5. A permit fee in the amount specified above must be remitted within 15 days from the issuance date of this permit 6. Any transferee of this permit shall assume the responsibilities of the prior permit holder. The appropriate Ohio EPA field office must be notified in writing of any transfer of this permit 7. This source and any associated air pollution control system(s) shall be maintained regularly in accordance with good engineering practices in order to minimize air contaminant emissions.

Any malfunction of this source or any asso-ciated air pollution control system(s) shall be reported immediately to the appropriate Ohio EPA field office in accord-ance with OAC rule 3745-15-06.

Except as provided in'that rule, any scheduled maintenance or malfunction necessi-tating the shutdown or bypassing of any air pollution control system(s) shall be accompanied by the shutdown of this source.8. Any unauthorized or emergency release of an air contaminant from this source which, due to the toxic or hazardous nature of the material, may pose a threat to public health, or otherwise endanger the safety or welfare of the public, shall be teported immediately to the appropriate Ohio EPA field office (during normal business hours) or to the Ohio EPA's Emergency Response Group (1-800-282-9378). (Additional reporting may be required pursuant to the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act)9. The appropriate Ohio EPA field office is: OHIO EPA, NORTHWEST DISTRICT OFFICE AIR POLLUTION GROUP 1035 DEVLAC GROVE DR.BOWLING GREEN, OH 43402 (419) 352-8461 10. O Il this term and condition is checked, the permit holder is subject to the attached special terms and conditions.

OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Director EPA.3634 REVISED 1.87

IA 2/e AA State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency"rthwest District Office W North Dunbridgo Road W [Ing Green. Ohto 43402 (419) 352-8461 FAX (419) 352-8468 EXr 96-02102 George V. Volnovich Governor Re: Ottawa County Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Premise No. 0362000091 October 1, 1996 Mr. Al Pervical Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 300 Madison Avenue M.S. 3065 Toledo, Ohio 43652

Dear Mr. Pervical:

This letter shall serve as follow-up to the inspection conducted on July 10, 1996, of the above referenced facility by Megan Murphy and the writer. The purpose of this inspection was to determine the compliance status of all air contaminant sources located there.Based on our discussions, observations during the inspection, and a review of the company files all sources appear to be in compliance with air pollution control regulations of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency at this time.Thank you for the courtesy extended to us during our visit. Should you have any questions and/or comments, feel free to contact this office at the above address or call me at (419)373-3133.

Sincerely,"7 I)Shawn P. Naber Division of Air Pollution Controi/cs pc: Don Waltermeyer, DAPC, NWDO Megan Murphy, DAPC, NWDO NWDO File 9 Printed on recycled paper (revised 12/93)

COMMITMENT CLOSEOUT FORM ED 7974-3 TO CCN NO.T. K. Wasch FROM DATE A, f. Percival 08/06/96 TERMS A18174 DESCRIPTION OF CLOSEOUT ACTIVITY TERMS item A18174, which requests additional information on our emergency diesel sources, may be closed out at this time.On a July 10, 1996 visit to our facility by Ohio EPA staff, a copy of final legislation was provided to us that exempts all of our emergency diesels (see attached copy of OAC 3745-31-03).

In order to maintain these exemptions we must: 1) Operate our diesel sources less than 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months (each source) per rolling 12 month period and burn fuel with less than or equal to 0.5% by weight sulfur.hodr.s 2) Maintain monthly records that contain the rolling twelve month jof operation; and 3) Maintain records that show the type of fuel used and the percent by weight sulfur contained in these fuels.We have been maintaining these records for twenty months already. The permit applications, which were submitted by us to the Ohio EPA on May 11, 1994, were returned to us during this visit.RESPONSIBLE MANAGER/SUPERVISOR r DATE ATTACWJLIST SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION LICENSING APPROVAL'- CLOSEOUT APPROVED U CLOSEOUT DISAPPROVED

-REASON COGNIZANT LICENSING INDIVIDUAL DATE U'I AM 5 TRC Environmental Corporation, Emission Inventory Report, Centerior Energy Corporation, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Oak Harbor, Ohio, February 10, 1995.This document is Confidential and is not provided due to Attorney-Client Privilege.

0)

Kristin S Yanko To: Marjorie G. Twymon/FirstEnergy@FirstEnergy 03/04/2011 11:36 AM cc:

Subject:

GHG emissions at Davis Besse Gale:*As requested, below are the 2010 GHG emissions from stationary and mobile combustion sources at Davis Besse: Stationary Sources (includes auxiliary boiler, EDG1, EDG2, SBODG): C02 = 4,321 metric tons CH4 = 0.64.metric tons N20 = 0.09 metric tons CO2e = 4,364 metric tons These are based on gallons of number 2 fuel oil used in 2010 (as provided by the facility), and are calculated using Tier 1 methodology as described in US EPA"s GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule.Mobile Sources (diesel tractors, vehicles, cranes, backhoes, etc): C02 = 326 metric tons CH4 = 0.02 metric tons N20 = 0.01 metric tons CO2e = 329 metric tons These are based on approximate fuel usage for mobile units in 2010 (as provided by the facility), and are calculated using equations and default emission factors as described in The Climate Registry's General Reporting Protocol (2008).

-J Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDG 1-1 12 mo. Ave. EDG1-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. ERF (DBAB) Diesel 12 =mo. ave. Aux. Boiler Year2010rTime 27 44.7 44.7 37.2 11.26 29.47 1099 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (B001) -226 mmBtu/hr.Proposed>

Potential Actual Fuel Emission Anul Ata. Maxhimumn Fuel Emissions.

oeta Consumption.

Factor:: Heat Content Conversion Emissions Emissions:.

`n ion-(PTE)

Emissions (gallons/year) (Ib/gal) ..% Sulfur (Btu/gallon) (lbs/ton) (tonslyear) (lbs/hr.)

.(gallonslyear) (tornsyear) (PTE) :(Ibsihr)PM 401,336 0.00200 138,265 2,000 0.40 0.73 2,700,000 2.70 0.62 S02 401,336 0.14200 0.019 138,265 2,000 0.54 0.99 2,700,000 3.64 0.83 NOx 401,336 0.02400 138,265 2,000 4.82 8.76 2,700,000 32.40 7.40 VOC 401,336 0.00020 138,265 2,000 0.04 0.07 2,700,000 0.27 0.06 CO 401,336 0.00500 138,265 2,000 1.00 1.83 2,700,000 6.75 1.54 P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (ZO0I) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed...

Maximum Fuel..::.

Ernission Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual .Maximum Annual Consumption Factor Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours :Hours: (gallons/year) (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

*. (tons/year)

.lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 27.00 8,760 4,731 0.01370 2000 0.03 2.40 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 27.00 8,760 4,731 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.33 0.46 50,000 0.07 0.01 NOx 27.00 8,760 4,731 0.43800 2000 1.04 76.75 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 27.00 8,760 4,731 0.01120 2000 0.03 1.96 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 27.00 8,760 4,731 0.11600 2000 0.27 20.33 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Emission Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Factor Conversion Emissions, Emissions Consumption Emissions.

Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year) (Ib/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

.. (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr'PM 44.70 8,760 6,122 0.01370 2000 0,04 1.88 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 44.70 8,760 6,122 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.42 0.36 50,0001- 0.07 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2010 MGT3/9/2011 NOx 44.70 8,760 6,122 0.43800 2000 1.34 59.99 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 44.70 8,760 6,122 0.01120 2000 0.03 1.53 50,000 0.28 0.06 Co 44.70 8,760[ 6,122 0.11600 2000 0.36 15.89 50,000 2.90 0.66 P003 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Propoe Maximum.: Fuel Emission Annual Actual Maximum Fuel An nual .. Maximum Annual Consumption

Factor Conversion Emissions Emissions

..Consumption Emissions..

Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year) (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

(tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallonslyear) tons/year lbs/hr PM 44.70 8760 6,360 0.01370 2000 0.04 1.95 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 44.70 8760 6,360 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.44 0.37 50,000 0.07 0.01 NOx 44.70 8760 6,360 0.43800 2000 1.39 62.32 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 44.70 8760 6,360 0.01120 2000 0.04 1.59 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 44.70 8760 6,360 0.11600 2000 0.37 16.50 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Emission Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual.. Consumption Factor c. .. ..Conversion Emissions E ns Consumpt on Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallonslyear)

.(lb/gal) %Sulfur HeatContent. (lbs/ton) (tonslyear) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 29.47 8760 1,300 0.01370 ?000 0.01 0.60 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 29.47 8760 1,300 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.09 0.12 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 29.47 8760 1,300 0.43800 2000 0.28 19.32 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 29.47 8760 1,300 0.01120 2000 0.01 0.49 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 29.47 8760 1,300 0.11600 2000 0.08 5.12 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (Z005) -2.3 mmBtu/hr..Proposed.

Mxiu Fuel Emission Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Factor Conversion Emissions-, Emissions.

Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year) (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 37.20 8,760 100 .0.01370 2000 0.00 0.04 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 37.20 8,760 100 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.01 0.01 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 37.20 8,760 100 0.43800 2000 0.02 1.18 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 37.20 8,760 100 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.03 10,000 -0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2010 MVGT3/9/2011 ICo 1 37.201 8,7601 1001 0.116001 1

I 20001 0.011 0.311 10,0001 0.581 0.131 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Emission Annual Actual Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Factor Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption.

Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year) (Ib/gal) % Sulfur' Heat Content (lbs/ton). (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallonslyear).

tons/year lbs/hr PM 11.26 8760 3,900 0.01370 2000 0.03 4.75 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 11.26 8760 3,900 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.27 0.91 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 11.26 8760 3,900 0.43800 2000 0.85 151.71 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 11.26 8760 3,900 0.01120 2000 0.02 3.88 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 11.26 8760 3,900 0.11600 2000 0.23 40.18 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Maximum Annal Actal Annual 'Maximum Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions..... .. ... .. ...._...._ _* ... ..._ ._._* _ .. (tons/year) lbs/Hr. (tons/year) lbs/Hr.PM -_0.56 12.34 3.93 0.90 S02 2.09, 3.21 3.88 0.89 NOx 9.75 380.03 71.82 16.40 VOC _.. 0.17 9.57 1.28 0.29 CO ::.___2.31

100.15 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potential to emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2010 MGT3/9/2011 Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date I SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDGI-1 12 mo. Ave. EDGI-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. ERF (DBAB) DieseIl 12 mo. ave. Aux. Boiler Year 2009 Time 23.5 31.2 33.2 7.3 19.85 23.19 388 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (BO01) -226 mmBtu/hr.r r T T --Actual Fuel.Consumption (gallons/year)

Emission Factor (lb/aal)Heat Content Conversion (Btu/gallon) (lbs/ton)-Annual Emissions (tons/year)" Actual Emissions (lbs/hr.)% Sulfur PM 236,349 0.00200 138,590 2,000 0.24 1.22 S02 236.349 0.14200 0.019 138.590 2.000 0.32.1.64 NOx 236,349 0.02400 138,590 2,0001 2.841 .14.621 2,700,000 32.40 7.40 VOC 236,349 0.00020 138,590 2,0001 0.021 0.121 2,700,000 0.27 0.06 CO 236,349 0.005001 138,590 2,000 0.591 3.051 2,700,000 6.75 1.54 P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (ZO01) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel, Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption.

Emission .Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)i Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

.(tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr.PM 23.50 8,760 4,731 0.01370 2000 0.03 2.76 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 23.50 8,760 4,731 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.33 0.53 50,000 0.07 0.01 NOx 23.50 8,760 4,731 0.43800 -2000 1.04 88.18 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 23.50 8,760 4,731 0.01120 2000 0.03 2.25 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 23.50 8,760 4,731 0.11600 2000 0.27 23.35 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Actal Proposed.

Maximum Fuel Annual Mcua aximumn Fuel Annual Maximum, Annual Consumption Emission.

.Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions'

_______Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal).

% Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year 1 lbs/hr PM 31.20 8,760 6,122 0.01370 1 1 2000 0.04 2.69 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 31.20 8,760 6,122 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.42 0.51 50,000 0.07 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2009 MGT 3/9/2011 NOx 31.20 8,760 6,122 0.43800 2000] 1.341 ..85.95[ 0,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 31.20 8,760 6,122 0.01120 20001 -0.031 "2.201 50,0001 0.281 0.06 CO 31.20 8,760 6,122 0.11600 20001 0.361 22.761 50,0002.90 0.66 P003 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annuail Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours. Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (Ib/ga!s % Sulfur...

Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year).'

lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 33.20 8760 6,360 0.01370 2000 0.04 2.62 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 33.20 8760 6,360 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.44 0.50 50,000 0.07 0.01 NOx 33.20 8760 6,360 0.43800 2000 1.39 83.90 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 33.20 8760 6,360 0.01120 2000 0.04 2.15 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 33.20 8760 6,360 0.11600 2000 0.37 22.22 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual. Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption ,Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

.(tons/year) lbs/hr.. (gallons/year)

tonslyear C lbs/hr.PM 23.19 8760 1,300 0.01370 2000 0.01 0.77 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 23.19 8760 1,300 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.09 0.15 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 23.19 8760 1,300 0.43800 2000 0.28 24.55 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 23.19 8760 1,300 0.01120 2000 0.01 0.63 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 23.19 8760 1,300 0.11600 2000 0.08 6.50 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (ZO05) -2.3 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum , Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel .Annual 1 Maximum Annuall, Consumption -Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours' (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) %.Sulfur Heat Content f (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) lbs/hr PM 7.30 8,760 100 0.01370 2000 0.00 0.19 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 7.30 8,760 100 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.01 0.04 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 7.30 8,760 100 0.43800 2000 0.02 6.00 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 7.30 8,760 100 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.15 10,000 0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2009 MGT 3/9/2011 Ico 1 7.301 8,7601 1001 0.116001 1 20001 0.011 1.591 10,000 0.58 0.13 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr Proposed _Maximum Fuel Annual .Actual Maximum Fuel t Annual Maximum~Annual Consumption Emission .Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption SEmissions~

Emissions.Operating Hours Hours _ (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/al)% 'kSulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tonslyear)

.lbslhr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr.PM 19.85 8760 3,900 0.01370 2000 ' 0.03 2.69 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 19.85 8760 3,900 0.13800 0.019 2000 0.27 0.52 10,000 0.01 0.00 NOx 19.85 8760 3,900 0.43800 2000 0.85 86.06 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 19.85 8760 3,900 0.01120 2000 0.02 2.20 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 19.85 8760 3,900 0.11600 2000 0.23 22.79 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Annual Actual Annual Maximum Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions__'__ _ _ _(tons/year) lbs/Hr. (tons/year) lbs/Hr.PM 0.39 12.94 3.93 0.90 S02 3.89 3.88 0.89 NOx 7.77 389.26 71.82 16.40 VOC 0.15 9.70 1.28 0.29 CO _ __1.90 102.27 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potentialto emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2009 MGT 3/9/2011 Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDGI-1 12 mo. Ave. EDG1-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. IERF (DBAB) Diesell 12 mo. ave. Aux. Bailer Year 2008 Time, 24.8 31.3 44.5 29.3 11.13 23.6 987 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (BOOI) -226 mmBtu/hr.Actual Fuel7 Consumption~(gallons/year)

Emission Factor (lb/gal)Heat Content Convers!(Btu/gallon)

-(Ibs/tor% Sulfur PM 394,622 0.00200 138,711 2 S02 394,622 0.14200 0.023 138,711 2 NOx 394,622 0.02400 138,711 2 VOC 394,622 0.00020 138,711 2 CO 394,622 0.00500 138,711 P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (ZO01) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual I Maximum..Annual Emission Conversion Emissions.

Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours HoursT (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) %:Sulfur Heat Content -(lbs/ton) (tons/year)

-; lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 24.80 8,760 4,067 0.01370 2000 0.03 -2.25 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 24.80 8,760 4,067 0.13800 0.009 2000 .0.28 0.20 50,000 0.03 0.01 NOx 24.80 8,760 4,067 0.43800 2000 0.89 71.82 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 24.80 8,760 4,067 0.01120 2000 0.02 1.84 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 24.80 8,760 4,067 0.11600 2000 0.24 .19.02 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Popose Maximum Fuel -.Annual _ Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption

'fEmission, Conversion:

Emissions.

Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallonslyear).

Facto (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallonslyear) tons/year lbs/hr PM 31.30 8,760 8,702 0.01370 2000. 0.061 3.81 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 31.30 8,760 8,702 0.13800 0.009 20001 0.60 0.35 50,000 0.03 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2008 MGT 3/9/2011 NOx 31.30 8760 8,702 0.43800 2000 1.91 121.77 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 31.30 8,760 8,702 0.01120 20001 0.05 3.111 50,000 0.28[ 0.06 CO 31.30 8,760 8,702 0.11600 20001___:

J_:___1 0.501 32.251 50,0001 2.90 0.66 P003 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel .Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum.Annual Consumption Emission ... Conversion Emissions:

Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating.Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) < % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallonslyear) tons/ ear lbs/hr PM 44.50 8760 .8,215 0.01370 2000 0.06 2.53 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 44.50 8760 8,215 0.13800 0.009 2000 0.57 0.23 50,000 0.03 0.01 NOx 44.50 8760 8,215 0.43800 2000 .1.80 80.86 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 44.50 8760 8,215 0.01120 2000 0.05 2.07 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 44.50 8760 8,215 0.11600 2000 0.48 21.42 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed 2, Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission .. :Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (galions/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfurc Heat Content (lbsiton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 23.60 8760 1,300 0.01370 2000 ,,0.01 0.75 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 23.60 8760 1,300 0.13800 0.023 2000 ", 0.09 0.17 10,000 0.02 0.00 NOx 23.60 8760 1,300 0.43800 2000 ,0.28 24.13 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 23.60 8760 1,300 0.01120 2000 -0.01 0.62 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 23.60 8760 1,300 0.11600 2000 ": 0.08 6.39 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (ZO05) -'2.3 mmBtu/hr.Actal Proposed Maximum Fuel. nnual Actal Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum.Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours ear) Factor (Ib/lal) % Sulfur Heat Content l(bs/ton) (tonslyear) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tonsl/ear lbs/hi: PM 29.30 8,760 500. 0.01370 2000 , 0.00 .0.23 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 29.30 8,760 500 0.13800 0.023 2000 0.03 0.05 10,000 0.02 0.00 NOx 29.30 8,760 500 0.43800 2000 .0.11 7.47 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC, 29.30 8,760 500 0.01120 2000 0.00 .0.19 10,000 0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2008 MGT 3/9/2011 ICo 1 29.301 8,7601 5001 0.116001 20001 -0.031 1.981 10,000t 0.581 0.13 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours. (gallons/year)

Factor (lbigal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr.PM 11.13 8760 2,000 0.01370 2000 0.01 2.46 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 11.13 8760 2,000 0.13800 0.023 2000 0.14 0.57 10,000 0.02 0.00 NOx 11.13 8760 2,000 0.43800 2000 0.44 .78.71 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 11.13 8760 2,000 0.01120 2000 0.01 2.01 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 11.13 8760 2,000 0.11600 2000 0.12 20.84 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Maximum Annual Actual Annual Maximum Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions_ _ _.... _(tons/year) lbs/Hr. (tons/year)'

lbs/Hr.PM 0.56 12.83 3.93 0.90 S02 __ 2.35 ,, 2.88 4.55 1.04 NOx -____10.16 394.35 71.82 16.40 VOC .....0.18 '9.92 1.28 0.29 CO ___ 2.42 1: 103.990 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potential to emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2008 MGT 3/9/2011 Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date 3 SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDGI-1 12 mo. Ave. EDG1-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. ERF (DBAB) Diesell 12 mo. ave. I Aux. Boiler Year 2007 Time. 21.1 31.9 37.2 8.1 15.97 26.39 6 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (B001) -226 mmBtu/hr.Actual Fuel Emission Actual Actual Consumption Factor Heat Content Conversion Emissions Emissions (gallons/year)

J (lb/gal) % Sulfur (Btu/gallon) (lbs/ton) (tons/year) (lbs/hr.)PM 1.085 0.00200 138.078 2.000 0.00 0.361 S02 1,085 0.142001 0.190i 138,0781 2,0001 0.01 4.88 2,_NOx 1,085 0.02400 138,078 2,000 0.01 4.34 2,_VOC 1,085 0.00020 138,0781 2,000 0.00 0.04 2,_CO 1,085 0.005001 1 138,0781 2,0001 0.00 0.901 2, P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (ZOOI) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content .(lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 21.10 8,760 4,240 0.01370 2000 0.03 2.75 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 21.10 8,760 4,240 0.13800 0.190 2000 0.29 5.27 50,000 0.66 0.15 NOx 21.10 8,760 4,240 0.43800 2000 0.93 88.02 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 21.10 8,760 4,240 0.01120 2000 0.02 2.25 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 21.10 8,760 4,240 0.11600 2000 0.25 .23.31 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel , Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions-

.... ___ Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

-(tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) , tons/year lbs/hr PM 31.90 8,760 7,200 0.01370 2000 0.05 3.09 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 31.90 8,760 7,200 0.13800 0.190 2000 0.50 5.92 50,000 0.66 0.15 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2007 MGT 3/9/2011 NOx 31.90 8,760 7,200 0.43800 2000 0- 1[ 298.86 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 31.90 8,760 7,200 0.01120 2000 15 [004 1 2.531 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 31.90 8,760 7,200 0.11600 20001 :. 0.42 [ 26.18 50,000 2.90 0.66 P003 -

Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion

'Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor,(ib/gal)

% Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tonslyear lbs/hr PM 37.20 8760 7,148 0.01370 2000 .0.05 .2.63 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 37.20 8760 7,148 0.13800 0.190 2000 .0.49- '.5.04 50,000 0.66 0.15 NOx 37.20 8760 7,148 .0.43800 2000 ...1.57 ' 84.16 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 37.20 8760 7,148 0.01120 2000 '- 0.04 .2.15 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 37.20 8760 7,148 0.11600 2000 0.41 .22.29 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission, Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) %Sulfur Heat.Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. .(gallons/year)'

tons/year lbs/hr PM 26.39 8760 915 0.01370 2000 .0.01 ... '0.48 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 26.39 8760 915 0.13800 0.190 2000 ' 0.06 0.91 10,000 0.13 0.03 NOx 26.39 8760 915 0.43800 2000 0.20 %15.19 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 26.39 8760 915 0.01120 2000 .< " , 0.01 ' .' 0.39 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 26.39 8760 915 0.11600 _ 2000 .0.05 '4.02 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (ZO05) -2.3 mmBtu/hr.Propiosed' iMaximfumnf

":Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions____ Operatini Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (Ib/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content l(bs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr.

tonslyear lbs/hr PM 8.10 8,760 77 0.01370 2000 '0.00 0.13 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 8.10 8,760 77 0.13800 0.190 2000 0.01 0.25 10,000 0.13 0.03 NOx 8.10 8,760 77 0.43800 2000 4.16 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 8.10 8,760 77 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.11 10,000 0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2007 MGT 3/9/2011 ICo 8.1ol 8,7601 771 0.116001 20001 ..".0.001 110 10,000 0.58 0.13 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr Proposed ,Maximum Fuel :Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Annual, Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions.

Consumption Emissions Emissions, Operating Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr.. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 15.97 8760 35 0.01370 2000 0.00 0.03 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 15.97 8760 35 0.13800 0.190 2000 0.00 0.06 10,000 0.13 0.03 NOx 15.97 8760 35 0.43800 2000 0.01 0.96 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 15.97 8760 35 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.02 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 15.97 8760 35 0.11600 2000 0.00 0.25 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Maximum Annual Actual Annual Maximum Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions_ _ _ _ _ __ _,_(tons/year) lbs/Hr. (tons/iear) lbs/Hr.PM 0.14 9.47 3.93 0.90 S02 1.37 22.32 38.78 8.85 NOx 4.31 295.69 71.82 16.40 VOC __ 0.11 7.49 1.28 0.29 CO 1.14 78.06 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potential to emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2007 MGT 3/9/2011 Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date I SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDGI-1 12 mo. Ave. EDGI-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. ERF (DBAB) Diesel 12 mo. ave. Aux. Boiler Year 2006 Time 24.8 41 46.3 8.1 10.61 31.22 713 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (B001) -226 mmBtu/hr.Actual Fuel Consumption (aallons/vear)

Emission Factor (Ib/qal)Conversion (lbs/ton)Heat Content (Btu/oallon)

Actual Emissions (tons/vear)

Actual Emissions (lbs/hr.)% Sulfur I..- -________ ~. -~ .+. -_________PM 384,996 0.00200 134,883 2,000 0.38 1.08 SO2 [ 384,9961 0.142001 0.2101 134,8831 2 , 0 0 0 5.741 16.101 2,_NOx 384,996 0.02400 1 134,883 2,000 4.62 12.961 2, VOC 384,996 0.00020 134,883 2,000 0.04 0.11-~ I- I ~ ~CO 384,996 0.00500 134,883 2,000 0.96 2.70 P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (ZO01) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum.Actual Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 24.80 8,760 4,831 0.01370 2000 0.03 2.67 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 24.80 8,760 4,831 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.33 5.65 50,000 0.72 0.17 NOx 24.80 8,760 4,831 0.43800 2000 1.06 85.32 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 24.80 8,760 4,831 0.01120 2000 0.03 2.18 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 24.80 8,760 4,831 0.11600 2000 0.28 22.60 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Actual Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission .I Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption, Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal)°

% Sulfur Heat Content, (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr.. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 41.00 8,760 7,654 0.01370 2000 0.05 2.56 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 41.00 8,760 7,654 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.53 .5.41 50,000 0.721 0.17 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2006 MGT 3/9/2011 NOx 41.00 8,760 7,654 0.43800 2000 1.68 81.76 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 41.00 8,760 7,654 0.01120 2000 0.04 2.09 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 41.00 8,760 7,654 0.11600 2000 0.44 21.65 50,000 2.901 0.66 P003 -Emergncy Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/h r.Proposed Maximum Actual 'Fuel Annual Ata Maximum Fuel .a Annual Maximum Operating Annual, Consumption Emission Conversion, Emissions Emissions Consumption

.. Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) .% Sulfur- Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallOns/year) tons/year; lbs/hr PM 46.30 8760 9,606 0.01370 2000 0.07 2.84 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 46.30 8760 9,606 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.66 6.01 50,000 0.72 0.17 NOx 46.30 8760 9,606 0.43800 2000 2.10 90.88 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 46.30 8760 9,606 0.01120 2000 0.05 2.32 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 46.30 8760 9,606 0.11600 2000 0.56 24.07 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission

Conversion Emissions

'Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (Ib/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 31.22 8760 1,082 0.01370 2000 0.01 0.47 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 31.22 8760 1,082 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.07 1.00 10,000 0.14 0.03 NOx 31.22 8760 1,082 0.43800 2000 0.24 15.18 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 31.22 8760 1,082 0.01120 2000 0.01 0.39 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 31.22 8760 1,082 0.11600 2000 0.06 4.02 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (ZO05) -2.3 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum:Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operatin Annual Consumption Emission-Conversion Emissions 7 Emissions

.-Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

.(tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 8.10 8,760 77 0.01370 2000 0.00 0.13 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 8.10 8,760 77 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.01 0.28 10,000 0.14 0.03 NOx 8.10 8,760 77 0.43800 2000 .0.02 4.16 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 8.10 8,760 77 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.11 10,000 0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2006 MGT 3/9/2011 ICO 1 8.101 8,7601 771 0.116001 20001 0.001 1.101 10,000 0.581 0.13 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximuma Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton)

.(tons/year) ibs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 10.61 8760 23 0.01370 2000 0.00 0.03 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 10.61 8760 23 0.13800 0.21 2000 0.00 0.06 10,000 0.14 0.03 NOx 10.61 8760 23 0.43800 2000 0.01 0.95 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 10.61 8760 23 0.01120 2000 0.00 0:02 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 10.61 8760 23 0.11600 2000 0.00 0.25 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Maximum Annual Actual Annual Maximum, Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions_______.....

________ _________(tons/year) lbs/Hr. (tons/year) lbs/Hr., PM _______ __ _ , 0.54 .= 9.78 3.93 0.90 S02 7'_______

W<.35 , 34.51 42.87 9.79 NOx ___-___ !9.72 291.21 71.82 16.40 VOC __0.17 7122 1.28 0.29 CO 2 '.31 76.39 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel-SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potential to emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2006 MGT 3/9/2011 Davis-Besse Emergency Diesel and Auxiliary Boiler Hours Date SBODG 12 mo. ave. EDGI-1 12 mo. Ave. EDGI-2 12 mo. ave. Misc. 12 mo. ave. Fire Pump 12 mo. Ave. ERF (DBAB) Diesell 12 mo. ave. Aux. Bailer Year 2005 Time 1 21.7 64.1 J 27.8 7.9 16.1 26.2 606 B001 -Auxiliary Boiler Emission Calculations (B001) -226 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Potential~

Actual Fuel Emission Actual Actual Maximum Fuel Emissions Potential Consumption Factor Heat Content Conversion Emissions Emissionsi Co'nsumlption (PTE) Emissions (gallons/year) (lb/gal) % Sulfur (Btu/gallon) (lbs/ton) (tons/year) (lbs/hr.)

_ (qaflons/ye'ar) (tonisyear) (PTE) (Ibs/lir)PM 231,405 0.00200 137,710 2,000 0.23 0.76 2,700,000 2.70 0.62 S02 231,405 0.14200 0.330 137,710 o 2,000 5.42 17.89 2,700,000 63.26 14.44 NOx 231,405 0.02400 137,710 2,000 2.78 9.16 2,700,000 32.40 7.40 VOC 231,405 0.00020 137,710 2,000 0.02 0.08 2,700,000 0.27 0.06 CO 231,405 0.00500 137,710 2,000 0.58 1.91 2,700,000 6.75 1.54 P001 -Station Blackout Diesel Generator (Z001) -29.7 mmBtu/hr Proposed Maximum Actual .Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 21.70 8,760 4,378 0.01370 2000 0.03 2.76 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 21.70 8,760 4,378 0.13800. 0.33 2000 0.30 9.19 50,000 1.14 0.26 NOx 21.70 8,760 4,378 0.43800 2000 0.96 88.36 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 21.70 8,760 4,378 0.01120 2000 0.02 2.26 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 21.70 8,760 4,378 0.11600 2000 0.25 23.40 50,000 2.90 0.66 P002 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-1 (Z002) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Actual Fuel Annual Actual C Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions__ " Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content .:(lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. " (gallons/year) .tons/year lbs/hr : PM 64.10 8,760 11,752 0.01370 2000 0.08 2.51 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 64.10 8,760 11,7521 0.13800 0.33 _ 20001 0.81 8.35 50,000 1.14 0.26 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2005 MGT 3/9/2011 NOx 64.10 8,760 11,752 0.43800 2000 2.57 80.30 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 64.10 8,760 11,752 0.01120 2000 0.07 2.05 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 64.10 8,7601 11,752 0.11600 2000 0.68 21.271 50,000 2.90 0.66 P003 -Emergency Diesel Generator 1-2 (Z003) -29.7 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Actual Fuel- Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual .Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr" PM 27.80 8760 5,691 0.01370 2000 0.04 2.80 50,000 0.34 0.08 S02 27.80 8760 5,691 0.13800 0.33 2000 0.39 9.32 50,000 1.14 0.26 NOx 27.80 8760 5,691 0.43800 2000 1.25 89.66 50,000 10.95 2.50 VOC 27.80 8760 5,691 0.01120 2000 0.03 2.29 50,000 0.28 0.06 CO 27.80 8760 5,691 0.11600 2000 0.33 23.74 50,000 2.90 0.66 P005 -DBAB Diesel Generator (Z004) 7.6 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum-Actual Fuel Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions..

Emissions__..... Hours Hours (gallons/year)

Factor (lb/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year-lbs/hr PM 26.20 8760 908 0.01370 2000 0.01 0.47 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 26.20 8760 908 0.13800 0.33 2000 0.06 1.58 10,000 0.23 0.05 NOx 26.20 8760 908 0.43800 2000 0.20 15.18 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 26.20 8760 908 0.01120 2000 0.01 0.39 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 26.20 8760 908 0.11600 2000 0.05 4.02 10,000 0.58 0.13 P006 -Misellaneous Diesel Generator (ZO05) -2.3 mmBtu/hr.Proposed Maximum Actual Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operatingi Annual Consumption Emission Conversion Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions, .Emissions Hours ;;Hours (gallons/year)

Factor(Ib/gal

%Sulfur Heat Content (lbs/ton) (tons/year) lbs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbs/hr PM 7.90 8,760 75 0.01370 2000 0.00 0.13, 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 7.90 8,760 75 0.13800 0.33 2000 0.01 0.43 10,000 0.23 0.05 NOx 7.90 8,760 75 0.43800 2000 0.02 4.16 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 7.90 8,760 75 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.11 10,000 0.06 0.01 Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2005 MGT 3/9/2011 ICO 1 7.901 8,7601 751 0.116001 20001 0.001 -1.101 10,001 0.581 .13 P004 -Fire Pump Diesel Engine (Z006) -24.8 mmBtu/hr~Proposed Maximum Actual Fuel A. Annual Actual Maximum Fuel Annual Maximum Operating Annual Consumption Emission Conversin Emissions Emissions Consumption Emissions Emissions Hours Hours , (gallons/year)

Factor (Ib/gal) % Sulfur Heat Content (lbsiton) (tons/year),, ibs/hr. (gallons/year) tons/year lbsihr PM 16.10 8760 35 0.01370 2000 , 0.00 0.03 10,000 0.07 0.02 S02 16.10 8760 35 0.13800 0.33 2000 '0.00 0:10 10,000 0.23 0.05 NOx 16.10 8760 35 0.43800 2000 0 0.01 0.95 10,000 2.19 0.50 VOC 16.10 8760 35 0.01120 2000 0.00 0.02 10,000 0.06 0.01 CO 16.10 8760 35 0.11600 2000 \ 0.00 0.25 10,000 0.58 0.13 Total Station Maximum Annual ~Actual ~Annual J~Maximum Emissions Emissions EmiissionsY Emissions (tons/year)

Ib/Hr. (toislyear) lb~s/Hr.PM _ :__,_:___0.39 948 3.93 0.90 S02 ________7.00

46.86 67.36 15.38 NOx 7.78 287.77 71.82 16.40 VOC _ ::"0.15 7.20 1.28 0.29 CO C 1.90. 75.70 17.19 3.92 Notes: 1. Emission factors are from USEPA's Chief Webfire site. Aux. Boiler SCC ID 1-01-005-01 and diesel SCC ID 2-02-004-01

2. Auxiliary Boiler annual fuel usage is as reported in the Annual Report for Operation of the Davis-Bess Auxiliary Boiler; diesel annual fuel usage from plant reports 3. Auxiliary boiler potential emissions based on proposed maximum fuel consumption (voluntary restriction on auxiliary boiler fuel burn to limit potential emissions to below major source thresholds).

4. Diesels operate under Ohio EPA's permit by rule (PRB); included in calculations for facility potential to emit for synthetic minor consideration.

5. Fuel burn for exempt engines (P005 and P006) estimated based on ratio of fuel burn and operating hours from 1995 TRC report and current operating hours.Actual vs Potential Emissions Emissions for 2005 MGT 3/9/2011

July 10, 1998 MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT:

Second Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition Policy and Clarification of Interim Policy FROM: John S. Seitz, Director /s/Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (MD-10)Eric V. Schaeffer, Director Office of Regulatory Enforcement (2241 A)TO: See Addressees This memorandum further extends the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)January 25, 1995 transition policy for potential to emit (PTE) limits relative to maximum achievable control technology (MACT) standards issued under section 112 of the Clean Air Act and federal operating permits issued under Title V programs.

It also clarifies how the EPA's interim policy on PTE, first discussed in a January 22, 1996 memorandum, works with the transition policy.Background Many Clean Air Act requirements apply only to "major" sources, that is, those sources whose actual or potential emissions of air pollution exceed threshold emissions levels specified in the Act. A source's total potential to emit is determined by a two step process. First, the source's potential emissions at maximum physical capacity are established.

This figure is then reduced by any recognized, practically enforceable limits on the source's emissions, such as limits on rates of production, hours of operation, and type and amount of fuel burned or materials processed.

The three primary programs where PTE is a significant factor are (1) the section 112 MACT program to control emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs); (2) the Title V operating permits program; and (3) the New Source Review (NSR) programs in Part C of Title I (the prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) program) and Part D of Title I (the nonattainment NSR program).

These programs each contain a definition of PTE. Due to several court decisions addressing the requirement in EPA's regulatory definition of PTE under these programs that any enforceable limits on potential emissions be federally enforceable, these regulations are currently under review, and the EPA is engaged in a rulemaking process to consider amendments to the current requirements.

The EPA has reviewed information provided 2 through a stakeholder process and is preparing a proposed rule presenting several options related to practical and federal enforceability.

Further information on options being considered is contained in January 1996 and November 1997 options papers (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/).

The Current Transition Policy In a January 25, 1995 policy memorandum entitled "Options for Limiting the Potential to Emit (PTE) of a Stationary Source Under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act (Act)," issued before the court decisions regarding the definition of PTE and federal enforceability, the EPA announced a transition policy for Section 112 and Title V (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5pgm.html).

This transition policy alleviated concerns that some sources may face gaps in the ability to acquire federally enforceable PTE limits because of delays in State adoption or EPA approval of programs or in their implementation.

In order to ensure that such gaps would not create adverse consequences for States or for sources, the EPA provided that during a 2-year period extending from January 1995 to January 1997, for sources lacking federally enforceable limitations, State and local air regulators had the option of treating the following types of sources as non-major in their Title V programs and under section 112: (1) sources that maintain adequate records to demonstrate that their actual emissions are less than 50 percent of the applicable major source threshold, and have continued to operate at less than 50 percent of the threshold since January 1994, and (2) sources with actual emissions between 50-100 percent of the threshold, but which hold State-enforceable limits that are enforceable as a practical matter.On August 27, 1996, the EPA announced an extension of the transition policy until July 31, 1998. See Memorandum entitled "Extension of January 25, 1995 Potential to Emit Transition Policy" (Aug. 27, 1996) (Internet site http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t5pgm.html).

This extension was originally based, in part, on the schedule for completing the rulemaking on the definition of PTE.Second Extension of Transition Policy The EPA does not expect that the PTE rulemaking which will address the PTE requirements in, among other rules, the MACT standard General Provisions (40 C.F.R. part 63, subpart A) and the Title V operating permits program, will be completed before July 1998. These rule amendments will affect federal enforceability requirements for PTE limits under these programs.

Thus, there will continue to be uncertainty with respect to federally enforceable limits, and a basis for the January 25, 1995 transition policy will continue to be valid after July 31, 1998.The EPA is, therefore, extending the transition period for the MACT and Title V programs until December 31, 1999, or until the effective date of the final rule in the PTE rulemaking, whichever is sooner.Interim Policy Durin2 Period Between D.C. Circuit Opinions and Final PTE Rule 0 3 A January 22, 1996 policy memorandum entitled "Release of Interim Policy on Federal Enforceability of Limitations on Potential to Emit" sets forth the EPA's interim policy on federal enforceability during the period prior to the effective date of a final PTE rule (available on the Internet at http://www.epa.gov//ttn/oarpg/t5pgm.html).

Because there have been several inquiries into the application of the interim policy, the EPA encourages Regions, States and regulated sources to review that policy memorandum, as it still represents the EPA's position.

A brief description is provided below.Section 112: In National Mining Association

v. EPA, 59 F.3d 1362 (D.C. Cir. 1995), the D.C. Circuit questioned whether the federal enforceability requirement in the General Provisions to 40 C.F.R. part 63 was "necessary." The court remanded, but did not vacate, the definition of PTE in the General Provisions.

Nonetheless, as noted above, since January 25, 1995, in a policy decision prior to the National Mining opinion, the EPA has followed the transition policy regarding what limits are necessary to render a source of hazardous air pollutants a "synthetic minor" source for purposes of section 112. As discussed above, today's memorandum extends the transition policy until December 31, 1999.Title V: In Clean Air Implementation Project v. EPA, No. 96-1224 (D.C. Cir. June 28, 1996) (CAIP), the court vacated and remanded the requirement for federal enforceability for PTE limits under 40 C.F.R. part 70. The EPA has stated that the term "federally enforceable" in section 70.2 should now be read to mean "federally enforceable or legally and practicably enforceable by a State or local air pollution control agency" pending any additional rulemaking by the EPA.As stated in the August 1996 memorandum, the EPA interprets the court order vacating the part 70 definition as not affecting any requirement for federal enforceability in existing State rules and programs.

Pending the outcome of the current rulemaking effort, the EPA believes that States are not likely to pursue submittals for program revisions.

Thus, despite the State program requirements for federal enforceability, there may be States wishing to continue to observe the transition policy -- the transition policy specifically allows States to follow it in determining Title V applicability.

Therefore, as stated above, the EPA is extending the transition policy as it relates to Title V permitting until December 31, 1999.New Source Review: In Chemical Manufacturers Association

v. EPA, No. 89-1514 ( D.C.Cir. Sept. 15, 1995) the court remanded and vacated the federal enforceability requirement in the federal NSR/PSD rules. The EPA reiterates that neither the January 25, 1995 transition policy, the opinion in National Mining nor the court order in CAIP impacts the NSR or PSD programs.A full discussion of the EPA's policy with respect to PTE issues related to the NSR and PSD programs is presented in the January 22, 1996 policy memorandum.

In brief, that memorandum states that the court's order in Chemical Manufacturers Association did not impact the individual state rules implementing these programs that have been incorporated into EPA-approved State Implementation Plans (SIPs). Thus, the order's practical impacts on NSR/PSD programs are not substantial for new construction

-- federal enforceability is still required to create "synthetic minor" new and modified sources in most circumstances 4 pending completion of the PTE rulemaking.

The precise impact of the vacatur on NSR/PSD applicability can be definitively determined only by reviewing the applicable SIP provisions.

Distribution/Further Information We are asking Regional Offices to send this memorandum to States within their jurisdiction.

Questions concerning specific issues and cases should be directed to the appropriate Regional Office. The Regional Office staff may contact John Walke of the Office of General Counsel at 202-260-9856; or Carol Holmes of the Office of Regulatory Enforcement at 202-564-8709.

The document is also available on the Internet, at http:\\www.epa.gov\ttn\oarpg, under "OAR Policy and Guidance Information." Addressees:

Director, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Region I Director, Division of Environmental Planning and Protection, Region II Director, Division of Air Quality, Region III Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Management Division, Region IV Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region V Director, Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, Region VI Director, Air, RCRA, and TSCA Division, Region VII Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Pollution Prevention, State, and Tribal Assistance, Region VIII Director, Air and Toxics Division, Region IX Director, Office of Air, Region X Regional Counsels, Regions I-X Director, Office of Environmental Stewardship, Region I Director, Division of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Region II Director, Enforcement Coordination Office, Region III Director, Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Region VI Director, Enforcement Coordination Office, Region VII Assistant Regional Administrator, Office of Enforcement, Compliance and Environmental Justice, Region VIII Enforcement Coordinator, Office of Regional Enforcement Coordination, Region IX cc: C. Holmes (2242A)J. Ketcham-Colwill (6103)J. Walke (2344)L. Hutchinson (MDI2)

State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency FINAL TITLE V PERMIT Issue Date: 11/19/04 Effective Date: 01/03/05 Expiration Date: 01/03/10 This document constitutes issuance of a Title V permit for Facility ID: 02-47-08-0487 to: WEST LORAIN PLANT 7101 WEST ERIE AVENUE LORAIN, OH 44053-0000 B001 (GENERAL ELECI GENERAL ELECTRIC M COMBUSTION TURBIN B002 (GENERAL ELECT GENERAL ELECTRIC M COMBUSTION TURBIN.Emissions Unit ID (Company ID)/Emissions Unit Activity Description lRC CT-lA) B006 (AUX. BOILER, B) P003 (GE CT Unit #/4),ODEL 7000 AUX. BOILER, OIL-FIRED STEAM BOILER GENERAL ELECTRIC C/E MODEL 7EA P001 (GE CT UnitI#2)RIC CT- IB) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMBUSTION TURBINE P004 (GE CT Unit # 5)[ODEL 7000 MODEL 7EA GENERAL ELECTRIC C4 OMBUSTION TURBINE OMBUSTION TURBINE OMBUSTION TURBINE rE B003 (AUX. BOILER, A)AUX. BOILER, ERIE DISTILLATE OIL-FIRED STEAM BOILER P002 (GE CT Unit # 3)GENERAL ELECTRIC COMBUSTION TURBINE MODEL 7EA MODEL 7EA P005 (GE CT Unit # 6)GENERAL ELECTRIC C(MIODEL ?EA You will be contacted approximately eighteen (18) months prior to the expiration date regarding the renewal of this permit. If you are not contacted, please contact the appropriate Ohio EPA District Office or local air agency listed below. This permit and the authorization to operate the air contaminant sources (emissions units) at this facility shall expire at midnight on the expiration date shown above. If a renewal permit is not issued prior to the expiration date, the permittee may continue to operate pursuant to OAC rule 3745-77-08(E) and in accordance with the terms of this permit beyond the expiration date, provided that a complete renewal application is submitted no earlier than eighteen (18) months and no later than one-hundred eighty (180) days prior to the expiration date.Described below is the current Ohio EPA District Office or local air agency that is responsible for processing and administering your Title V permit: Northeast District Office 2110 East Aurora Road Twinsburg, OH 44087 (330) 425-9171 OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Christopher Jones Director

-s 0 2004-2005 NON-TITLE V AIR EMISSI&of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency ision of Air Pollution Control -PIER OBox 1049, Columbus, OH 43216-1049 httn:llwww-ena-state.oh.us/daoclnontvfee.html

PORT A2..,,67, 6x ///2 ./Need Assistance?

Contact usl Ohio EPA (Northwest District Office)Samir Araj, (419) 373-3138 or OCAPP 1-800-329-7518 FACILITY ID # 0362000091 02/21/2005 RAYMOND EVANS DAVIS -BESSE STATION C/O FIRST ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT 76 S MAIN ST AKRON, OH 44308 Iuj I JUN 111111 ll o DUE: APRIL 17, 2006*036 200009 *FACILITY LOCATION: DAVIS -BESSE STATION..RFD NO 1 STATE ROUTE 2 OAK HARBOR, OH 43449 FORM SIDE ONE For each year, please complete ONE of the options numbered 1-7 for this facility.

2004 2005 1. More than zero, but less than 10 Tons per Year (TPY)for all pollutants facility-wide.

El 11 2. 10 TPY 6e more, but less than 50 TPY for all pollutants facility-wide.

3. 50 TPY or more, but less than 100 TPY for all pollutants facility-wide.

Specify the Particulate Matter (PM)Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)amount (in tons) of each pollutant listed that your facility emitted for each year.Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)Organic Compounds (OC)100 TPY or more for all pollutants facility-wide.

Specify the amount (in tons) of each Parficulate Matter (PM)ollutant listed that your facility emitted for each year. Sulfur Dioxide (SO2)* , ..Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)Organic Compounds (OC)5. Zero Emissions (no.air contaminant sources operated at any time during this year and we wish to keep our permits EJ El or registrations active).6. All air contaminant sources were permanently shut down or dismantled at this location as of December 31st of El El checked year..SHUTDOWN DATE: 7. I/ The company did not own or operate this facility on December 31st of checked year. LI LI OWNERSHIP TRANSFER DATE ......IMPORTANT:

COMPLETE OWNERSHIP CHANGE INFORMATION.

ON REVERSE SIDE By checking this option and signing this form, you are attesting to the following:

For the period(s) checked, I am not required to apply for a permit under the provisions of the OAC rule 3745-77-02 Title V program for the facility for which this annual emissions fee is being paid. I affirm, based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, that all factual statements in this report are true to the best of my knowledge, and that all judgments and estimates provided in this report have been made in good faith. I understand that the data provided in this document will be used by the Ohio EPA to calculate a fee, which my facility will be required to ay under Ohio Revised Code 3745.11(D) and Ohio Administrative Code 3745-78-02(D), based on the tons of poluion emitted b he cility a ignature and Title of Company Official:*

-.., Date: ame, Title, and Phone# of Compa Offi (pleas print): A iio1M0 L. E Y AN'sIn 6-4, n mo. 1ogV o I/ ( L0,3 .t2 MAKE A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS.--SEE OTHER SIDE TO UPDATE ADDRESS, OWNER OR CONTACT INFORMATION.

rol I of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency isiion of Air Pollution Control-PIER

~:0. Box 1049, Columbus, OH 43216-1049 ,http:/Iwww.epa.state.oh.us/dapc/nontvfee.html 2006 2007 Non-Title V Air Emissions Report Need Assistance?

Contact us!Ohio EPA DAPC, Northwest District Office (419)352-8461, OCAPP 1-800-329-7518, or Central Office (614)644-2270 FACILITY ID: 0362000091 III11111111111 11111 II 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 11111 iiil 4/4/2008 RAYMOND EVANS DAVIS -BESSE STATION C/O FIRST ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT 76 S MAIN ST.AKRON, OH 44308 DUE DATE: June 6, 2008 Facility Location: RFD NO 1 STATE ROUTE 2 -OAK HARBOR, OH 43449 How do I determine what my annual emissions are?To assist you in completeing the current report we provided you with the emissions information given to Ohio EPA for the previous reporting period.2004: 10 or more but less than 50 2005: 10 or more but less than 50 Emissions Information For the year(s) provided, complete one of the facility-wide emissions level options numbered 1-5 with a check mark. If the emissions were greater than 50 or 100 TPY provide info on each specified pollutant.

See page 2 to indicate an ownership change or that this facility is shutdown.Emissions Reportina Year: 2006 Emissions Reporting Year: 2007 1. Zero Emissions (did not operate this year)2. More than zero, but less than 10 TPY 3. More than 10, but less than 50 TPY 4. More than 50 TPY*5. More than 100 TPY**If you checked Particulate Matter (PM)line 4 or 5 proide th or Sulfur Dioxide (S02)provide the emissions per Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)pollutant.

Organic Compounds (OC)6. Permanently shutdown this year (see p. 2) 1 1. Zero Emissions (did not operate this year)2. More than zero, but less than 10 TPY--__/ _3. More than 10, but less than 50 TPY 4. More than 50 TPY*5. More than 100 TPY**If you checked Particulate Matter (PM)line 4 or 5 provide Sulfur Dioxide (S02)the emissions per Nitrogen Oxide (NOx)pollutant.

Organic Compounds (OC)6. Permanently shutdown this year (see p. 2)Emissions Statement Requirement:

Total VOC and NOx emissions for the year specified must be reported if the actual emissions of VOC or NOx is 25 TPY or more.By checking this option and signing this form, you are attesting to the following:

For the period(s) checked, I am not required to apply for a permit under the provisions of the OAC rule 3745-77-02 Title V program for the facility for which this annual emissions fee is being paid. I affirm based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, that all factual statements in this report are true to the best of my knowledge, and that all Judgements and estimates provided in this report have been made in good faith. I understand that the data provided in this document will be used by the Ohio EPA to calculate a fee, which will be required to pay under Ohio Revised Code 3745.11(D) and Ohio Administrative Code 3745-78-02(D), based on the tons of pollution emitted by the facility.Signature and Title of Company Official:

E Name, Title, and Phone # of Company Official (please prin ): ,. 3 , ate:.,.Page 1 of 2 MAKE A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS N)0 Yhio[b Environmental

,,Coj i oJ Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control-PIER P.O. Box 1049, Columbus, OH 43216-1049 A http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dapc/nontvfee.aspx 2008 2009 Non-Title V Air Emissions Report Need Assistance?

Contact us!Ohio EPA DAPC, Northwest District Office (419)352-8461, OCAPP 1-800-329-7518, or Central Office (614)644-2270 FACILITY ID : 0362000091 1111111 11 H lll 1111111111111 11111 II 1 11 l ll 11111 Jll lll l l 2/26/2010 DUE DATE: April 15, 2010 Facility Location: RFD NO 1 STATE ROUTE 2 OAK HARBOR, OH 43449 RAYMOND EVANS Fenoc -Davis -Besse Station C/O FIRST ENERGY ENVIRONMENTAL DEPT 76 S MAIN ST AKRON, OH 44308 How do I determine what my annual emissions are?To assist you in completeing the current report we provided you with the emissions information given to Ohio EPA for the previous reporting period.2006: More than 0 but less than 10 Tons per Year 2007: More than 0 but less than 10 Tons per Year Emissions Information For the year(s) provided, complete one of the facility-wide emissions level options numbered 1-5 with a check mark. If the emissions were greater than 50 or 100 TPY provide info on each specified pollutant.

See page 2 to indicate an ownership change or that this facility is shutdown.Emissions Reporting Year: 2008 Emissions Reporting Year: 2009 1. Zero Emissions (did not operate this year)2. More than zero, but less than 10 TPY 3. More than 10, but less than 50 TPY 4. More than 50 TPY*5. More than 100 TPY**If you checked Particulate Matter (PM)line 4 or 5 provide the Organic Compounds (OC)emissions per Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)pollutant.

Sulfur Dioxide (S02)6. Permanently shutdown this year (see p. 2)1. Zero Emissions (did not operate this year)2. More than zero, but less than 10 TPY 3. More than 10, but less than 50 TPY 4. More than 50 TPY*5. More than 100 TPY**If you checked Particulate Matter (PM)line 4 or 5 provide Organic Compounds (OC)the emissions per Nitrogen Oxides (NOx)pollutant.

Sulfur Dioxide (S02)6. Permanently shutdown this year (see p. 2)By completing and signing this form, you are attesting to the following:

For the period(s) checked, I am not required to apply for a permit under the provisions of the OAC rule 3745-77-02 Title V program for the facility for which this annual emissions fee is being paid. I affirm based on information and belief formed after reasonable inquiry, that all factual statements in this report are true to the best of my knowledge, and that all judgements and estimates provided in this report have been made in good faith. I understand that the data provided in this document will be used by the Ohio EPA to calculate a fee, which will be required to pay under Ohio Revised Code 3745.11(D) and Ohio Administrative Code 3745-78-02(D), based on the tons of pollution emitted by the facility.Signature and Title of Company Official:________

Date: 31c, 9"6 Name, Title, and Phone # of Company Official (please p lIt): /,I ,,r- $ /'l-1 / 1 IT Jj- 4,JJ" v()-32214S Page 1 of 2 MAKE A COPY FOR YOUR RECORDS C,,0 Engineering Guide #61 Question: What is Ohio EPA's policy for limiting the potential to emit (PTE) of air contaminant emissions at a facility for purposes of avoiding federal permitting?

Answer: In response to the January 25, 1995 and September 6, 1995 guidance memoranda from John S. Seitz, Director, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, USEPA, on limiting an entity's PTE to avoid federal permitting requirements, Ohio EPA has prepared the following guidance document.

We asked USEPA Region V staff to review this document, and they concurred that this engineering guide is consistent with federal policy.Inherent Physical Limitations An entity can take advantage of an inherent physical limitation that in effect limits the entity's potential air pollution emissions.

These inherent physical limitations can now be considered as a true restriction for calculating the PTE for each regulated pollutant as defined in OAC rule 3745-77-01 (DD) or in federal new source review law (PSD & Nonattainment New Source Review). For example, a machine may be physically limited in operation well below the 8760 hours0.101 days 2.433 hours 0.0145 weeks 0.00333 months that the theoretical potential to emit has been traditionally based. An entity must document this inherent physical limitation (e.g., using a manufacturer's specification for maximum operating conditions for a specific machine) and use this "common sense" approach to establish a more accurate PTE. Again, the inherent physical limitation makes it impossible to exceed these limitations.

If necessary, records (e.g., production records or operating hours)may be maintained that demonstrate the inherent physical limitation is not exceeded.

USEPA points out that for small entities these inherent physical limitations are straightforward.

Seasonal operations or limited shifts [where physical conditions limit the operations (e.g., the operations can only occur during daylight hours)] are other examples of inherent physical limitations.

Operational records must be maintained for seasonal or shift limitations to prove compliance with the inherent physical limitation.

For larger facilities, it may be difficult to prove that an inherent physical limitation exists. If an entity can take advantage of an inherent physical limitation, we request that the entity's representative notify Ohio EPA that it now qualifies for non-Title V status. Please submit this notification by May 15, 1995 or immediately after the determination is made in accordance with the instructions described below.Presumed Inherent Physical Limitations (Title V applicability only)Ohio EPA is taking the position that a very small emitting facility is presumed to have inherent physical limitations if the facility's actual emissions are below twenty percent of any major regulated pollutant threshold.

Owners and operators of such small facilities can take advantage of this presumption by maintaining actual emission records showing that emissions are less than twenty percent of the major threshold.

Also, owners and operators of facilities that take advantage of this presumed inherent physical limitation due to size, must initially notify Ohio EPA in writing (only once) that the facility is a non-Title V facility.

Please submit this notification by May 15, 1995 or immediately after the determination is made in accordance with the instructions described below. Since all owners and operators of air emitting (non-Title V and Title V) facilities are required to maintain actual emission records for fee purposes (OAC Chapter 3745-78), these same records can be used as documentation that the entity has presumed inherent physical limitations.

Ohio EPA's common sense position eliminates the need for very small air pollution emitting facilities to obtain federally enforceable State operating permits (FESOP's).

If an entity avoiding Title V permitting is taking advantage of this presumption, and in a future year the regulated pollutant emissions exceed the twenty percent threshold, then the entity will have one year to obtain a FESOP or submit a complete Title V permit application.

Two-Year Transition Period (Title V applicability only)

Ohio will take advantage of the discretion that USEPA allows to facilities that are potential major Title V facilities, but have actual emissions that are less than fifty percent of the major threshold.

Persons owning or operating qualifying facilities may choose to delay obtaining federally enforceable conditions in a FESOP for up to three and one half years (July 31, 1998)and operate as a non-Title V facility.

Eligible participating facilities must maintain adequate records on site to demonstrate that emissions are maintained below these thresholds for the entire facility.

Again, a person owning or operating any facility that qualifies, who intends to delay obtaining a FESOP, must notify the Ohio EPA in writing (only once). Please submit this notification by May 15, 1995 or immediately after the determination is made in accordance with the instructions described below.Other Possible Synthetic Minors If a person owns or operates a facility that has a potential to emit over the major threshold, but actual emissions for one or more regulated pollutants are at or above fifty percent of the major threshold, the owner or operator needs to obtain a FESOP or file a complete Title V application within the required deadline.

Since Ohio's FESOP State Implementation Plan (SIP) request was approved on December 27, 1994, Ohio will not take advantage of the temporary programs that USEPA has created for states that do not have approved FESOP SIP's.Hazardous Air Pollutants Under Ohio's current approved FESOP SIP (effective December 27, 1994), the owner or operator can limit potential hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that are federally enforceable in a permit to operate issued under the provisions of OAC rule 3745-35-07.

Emergency Generators For purposes of this guidance, an emergency generator means a generator whose sole function is to provide back-up power when electric power from the local utility is interrupted.

The emission source for such generators is typically a gasoline or diesel-fired engine, but can in some cases include a small gas turbine.For emergency generators, a reasonable and realistic worst-case estimate of the number of hours that power would be expected to be unavailable from the local utility may be used as the maximum capacity of such generators for the purpose of estimating their potential to emit.Potential to emit for emergency generators should be determined based upon an estimate of the maximum amount of hours the generator could operate, taking into account: (1) the number of hours power would be expected to be unavailable; and (2) the number of hours for maintenance activities.

Ohio EPA will accept an assumption of 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months per year as the maximum amount of hours an emergency generator could operate, unless there is clear evidence that more hours of operation have been experienced in the past and will be experienced in future years. The owner or operator of an emergency generator may assume less than 500 hours0.00579 days 0.139 hours 8.267196e-4 weeks 1.9025e-4 months per year of operation for purposes of calculating potential to emit based upon historical operating experience and future operating projections.

This guidance is only meant to address emergency generators as described.

Specifically, the guidance does not address: (1) peaking units at electric utilities; (2) generators at industrial facilities that typically operate at low rates, but are not confined to emergency purposes; and (3) any standby generator that is used during time periods when power is available from the utility. This guidance is also not intended to discourage Ohio EPA from establishing operational limitations in PTI s when such limitations are deemed appropriate or necessary.

Additionally, this guidance is not intended to be used as the basis to rescind any such restrictions already in place.Title V Fees Facilities that are considered minors because of physically inherent limitations or presumed physically inherent limitations are not required to pay a Title V fee or file a Title V fee emission report. Two-year transition facilities will not be required to pay a Title V fee or file a Title V fee emission report during the two-year transition period [i.e., for the 1995 fee (assessed for CY 1994 emissions) and the 1996 fee (assessed for CY 1995 emissions)].

Notifications If a facility is requested or required to notify the Ohio EPA as discussed in the sections on physically inherent limitations, presumed physical inherent limitations, or two-year transition period facilities, the notification should be sent to Mike Ahern Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Division of Air Pollution Control Lazarus Government Center P.O. Box 1049 Columbus, Ohio 43216-1049 The appropriate Ohio EPA District Office or local air agency should be copied.Calculating Potential to Emit For your convenience, the guidance is attached that has been provided to Ohio facilities to instruct them on how to calculate potential to emit. This instruction has been revised to reflect the most current guidance and understanding.

Instructions for Calculating Potential To Emit"Potential to emit" means the maximum capacity of a stationary source to emit any regulated air pollutant under its physical and operational design. Any physical or operational limitation on the capacity of a source to emit an air pollutant, including air pollution control equipment and restrictions on hours of operation or on the type or amount of material combusted, stored, or processed, shall be treated as a part of its design if the limitation is enforceable by the administrator of the USEPA. The term does not alter or affect the use of this term for any other purposes under the Act, or the term "capacity factor" as used in Title IV of the Clean Air Act or the regulations promulgated thereunder.

Note: For potential to emit purposes, to take credit for air pollution control equipment or operational restrictions there must be federally enforceable limitations.

What this means is that USEPA must be able to enforce the restrictions that are established with a State Implementation Plan (SIP) limitation (e.g., an emission limitation rule which USEPA has approved as part of Ohio's SIP), or federally enforceable limitations established in a permit to install (issued first as a draft, then issued final), or FESOP that both the public and USEPA had an opportunity for comment prior to final issuance.

If there is no SIP emission limit or federally enforceable PTI or PTO restriction, then you must calculate the potential to emit for the emission based on the uncontrolled emission rate at maximum capacity."Nitrogen oxides" means all oxides of nitrogen which are determined to be ozone precursors, including, but not limited to nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide, but excluding nitrous oxide, collectively expressed as nitrogen dioxide.Ohio EPA Division of Air Pollution Control April 27, 1995 Revised November 6, 1995 Revised September 5, 1996

-h FENOC Davis-B esse Nuclear PowerStation FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Oak Harbor Ohio43449 January 14, 2011 L-1 1 -006.Mr.,Jay Liebrechi.....Northwest DstrictOffice Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: 3.....47.North Dunbridgp....

Road BowlIng Green,.Ohio 43402-466.

SUBJECT:

Submittal of the 200 AnulRprfo Dai-Besse Nuclear Poweý6r Station Auxiliary Boiler.Enclosed Is the Annual Report for operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear. Power Station Auxilliary 0iler for .the 2010 calendar ..year. T.is .report is te in accordance with th pcalT Trms and, Cn itin fthe Permit to, Operate' an A~ir Contamilinaint Sourcep (PrmtApplicaton Number 03620000911BOOi)..

There are no regulatory commitments.

contained, In this lettepr. If there are any questions or if addtioalInformation isrqre edI peasecontact ,Mr. Alfred M.Perclval, SeniorNuclear Specialist) at (419) 321-7883...ý

Sincerely, olyM. Boissoneault Manager -Site Chemistry, Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station KAS/AM P Enclosure.

A. Annual Report for Opera~tion o~fthe Davis-Besse Auxiliary Boiler cc: Z. A. Clayton, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency Enclosure A L-1 -005 Page 1of 1 ANNUAL REPORT. forOPERATION of. the DAVIS-BESSE

AUXILIARY BOILER..: Application No. 0362000091B001.Equipment

==

Description:==

226 M BTUIHr.Quantity of Oil Consumed In. Boiler Average Heat Content.Weight Percent Ash Weight Percent Sulfur.Weight Percent NitrogenýYear.2010 No. 2 oil-fired boiler 401,336 gallons 138,265 BTUlgallon.

"<0.001<0.020<0.75 For internal distribution only: bcc: Director Site Operations Manager Site Chemistry Director Site Engineering FirstEnergy Environmental FileNet

,a' Davis Besse 10 Yr. Average Operating Hours and Fuel Burn hours fuel burn hours fuel burn hours fuel burn hours fuel burn Date SBODG EDGI-1 EDG1-2 Misc.Year 2000 Time 24 4,313 37.4 6,745 36.7 6,976 8.4 711 Year 2001 Time 20.1 3,954 32.6 5,889 32 6,244 43.8 881 Year 2002 Time 20.5 3,807 31.4 6,055 41.8 8,373 21.6 922 Year 2003 Time 18.9 4,225 104.3 K17,224 110.7 7 65.5 1,165 Year 2004 Time 22.4 4,120 31.1 5,890 35.3 6,722 54.5 917 Year 2005 Time 21.7 4,378 64.1 11,752 27.8 5,691 7.9 908 Year 2006 Time *24;8 4,831 41 7,654 46.3 9,606 8.1 1,082 Year 2007 Time 21.1 4,240 31.9 7,200 37.2 7,148 8.1 915 Year 2008 Time 24.8 4,067 31.3 8,702 44.5 8,215 29.3 1,300 Year 2009 Time 23.5 4,731 31.2 6,122 33.2 6,360 7.3 1,300 10 Yr. Avg 22.18 5 Yr.Avg. 23.18 4,266 4,449 43.63 39.9 8,323 8,286 44.55 37.8 8,204 7,404 25.45 12.1 1,010 1,101 Davis Besse 10 Yr. Average Operating Hours and Fuel Burn hours fuel burn hours fuel burn hours ERF (DBAB)Fire Pump Diesel Aux. Boiler 47.3 80 20.5 104 450 200,898 97.9 416 25.4 214 9 1,136 78.71 205 26.59 172 3032 537,054 19.9 33.3t6 44 5637 1,489,191 22.68 518 26.44 50 1357 1,729,230 16.1 75 26.2 35 606 231,405 10.61 77 31.22 23 713 384,996 15.97 77 26.39 35 6 1,085 11.13 500 23.6 2,000 987 394,622 19.85 100 23.19 3,900 388 236,349 34 14.7 267 166 26 26.12 658 1,199 1,319 540 520,597 249,691 0

The Emergency Diesel Generators (EDGs) and the Station Blackout Diesel Generator (SBODG) preventive maintenance activities are largely based on a recommended maintenance practices document authored by a diesel generator owners group. The largest engine maintenance activity is the twelve year preventive maintenance (PM)activity, which removes each of the 20 cylinders' power packs (cylinder head, piston, cylinder liner) for replacement of cylinder liner seals. The six year PMs remove each of the twenty heads, and replace the jacket water seals. Four and / or two year PMs perform activities such as checking the torque on engine fasteners, performing detailed in-cylinder inspections, fuel rack adjustments, governor oil replacement, standby lube oil pump and motor replacements, lube and diesel oil filter changes, and intake air filter inspections.

Numerous other smaller scope PM activities are performed at intervals down to quarterly.

Per the EPRI/FENOC Equipment Reliability Template for Small Standby Diesels (NORM-ER-3406A) the Engine for the Diesel Fire Pump contains the following Preventative Maintenance Tasks: Bi-Monthly:

0 Oil Sample Annual Inspection:

Air Intake System -inspection

Coolant System -inspection, filter change and proper additive concentration

Universal Joints -Grease* Lubricating System -Oil (and filter) change* Fuel System -filter change* Heat Exchange zinc plugs inspection

Belt inspection

Air Cleaner inspection/change

Mounting bolt -inspection

Controller

-Clean and inspect Every 18-months:

Capacity/Flow test (150%, 100%, and 50% load)* Vibration Monitoring (150% and 100% load)* Overspeed trip test Bi-Annual Inspection:

Fuel Injector and valve adjustment

Cooling System flush* Batteries

-replace Five Year inspection:

Fuel Injector -replace* Oiler Cooler -replace* Water pump -inspection

Turbocharger

-inspection 1W" Vibration Damper -inspection

Fuel Pump -refurbish Fifteen year Inspections:

Cylinder head and liner -inspection

Cam Lobe -inspection

Rocker arm and rollers -inspection

Pushrod -inspection" Timing gear -inspection

Crank case breathers

-inspection Exhaust System -inspection 0

I

FirsErNe,.

Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor. Ohio 43449-9760 February 5, 2008 L-08-039 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Water Resources Section 2045 Morse Road, Bid. B-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6605

SUBJECT:

Water Withdrawal Reoort for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 for 2007 In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 1521.16, "Water Withdrawal Registration," enclosed is the Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for the year 2007. This report is required to be submitted by all registered facilities that have a 100,000 gallon per day or greater capacity.

Flow values were obtained from continuous data acquisition systems and were based on hourly averages.If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr.Stephen M. Chimo, Advanced Nuclear Specialist, at (419) 321-7149.Sincerely, Patrick J. McCloskey Manager -Site Chemistry Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station JCS/SMC

Enclosure:

A. Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2007 Enclosure A L-08-039 Page 1 of 1 Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2007 (one form follows)

STATE OF OHIO SEND TO: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER WITHDRAWAL DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION FACILITY REGISTRATION 2045 MORSE ROAD, BLD. B-2 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-6693 ANNUAL REPORT FORM (614) 265-6745 AUTHORITY:

Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities and file an annual report with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.Water Withdrawal Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2007 Contact Information:

Contact Name: Patrick I McCloskey Is this a new Contact Name? C] YES 0 NO Company Name: FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp. -Davis-Besse Power Station Is this a new Company Name? E] YES 0 NO Address: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address? El YES [3 NO Phone: Is this a new Phone Number? El YES [3 NO-Downloaded Internet eForm -Facility Owner: Owner Name: FirstEnergy Corp.Company Name: FirstEnergy Nuclear C Address: F550] North State t Is this a new Owner Name? El YES[E NO ieneration Corp. -Davis-Besse Power Station Is this a new Company Name? El YES [R NO Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address?n YES [n NO l31NO Ph Co 419O321t7274 Is this a new Phone Number? .- YES L-lFacility Name and Withdrawal Mode: County: Ottawa*Registration Number: 00598 Facility Name: FFNOC-Dfnviq-Reysge Nnclear Power Station* Please double check the registration number, Thank you.Please note changes in facility status, or naming, in the gray spaces next to the well or intake number(s) below.Facility's WELL (Ground Water) Identification Facility's INTAKE (Surface Water) Identification 01 F Tf -- -_+_-, -],-,,t ý1_ 17-- - --11 1 K I A\ ')41,- 47 A 1Z WITHDRAWALS NOTE: This page may be photocopied if additional space is required.

Please be sure to sign and date each copy.GROUND WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons)Registration Number__________

SOURCE JAN.FEB. IMARCHI APRILI MAY JUNE JULY AUG.SEPT. I OCT.NOV.DEC.TOTAL PER YEAR WELL NO.W WELL NO.-WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.TOTAL GRAND TOTAL MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION_

Are ground water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?

r-yes -no (check one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SURFACE WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons)___

SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR INTAKE 1290 1119 1461 1349 1402 1279 1454 1393 1293 1338 1241 1206 15825 INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 1290 1119 1461 1349 1402 1279 1454 1393 1293 1338 1241 1206 15825 MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 29 363 Are surface water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings? -x]yes r]Qno (check one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

RETURN FLOW (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR FLOW 1044 899 1218 1121 1146 1002 1171 1106 1018 1073 1010 993 12801 FL1.OW GRA.ND TOTAL TOTAL 1044 899 1218 1121 1146 1002 1171 1106 1018 1073 1010 993 12801 Are return flow amounts based on metered readings?'Zyes

[] no (check one) If "no," how were the reported return flow amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

NOTE: Is the information originally supplied on your registration form still correct?']

yes Q]no (check one)If "no," please attach a separate sheet indicating the nature of the change. If needed, a new registration form will be forwarded to you so that you may provide this office with the necessary revisions.

Owner or authorized representative's signature Date 08 W DNR 7805e (12/04/07)

N)

FENOC Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station%5501 N. State Route 2 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 February 11, 2009 L-09-027 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Water Resources Section 2045 Morse Road, Bid. B-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6605

SUBJECT:

Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 for 2008 In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 1521.16, "Water Withdrawal Registration," enclosed is the Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for the year 2008. This report is required to be submitted by all registered facilities that 5 have a 100,000 gallon per day or greater capacity.

Flow values were obtained from continuous data acquisition systems and were based on hourly averages.Also enclosed is the "Water Withdrawal Baseline Capacity Reporting Form 2008" to update the registered water withdrawal baseline capacity.If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr.Stephen M. Chimo, Advanced Nuclear Specialist, at (419) 321-7149.Sincerely, Polly M. Boissoneault Manager -Site Chemistry Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station TSC/SMC

Enclosure:

A. Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2008 B. Water Withdrawal Baseline Capacity Reporting Form 2008 Enclosure A L-09-027 Page 1 of 1 Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2008 (one form follows)

STATE OF OHIO SEND TO: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER WITHDRAWAL DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION FACILITY REGISTRATION 2045 MORSE ROAD, BLD. B-2 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-6693 ANNUAL REPORT FORM (614) 265-6745 AUTHORITY:

Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities and file an annual report with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.Water Withdrawal Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2008 Contact Information:

Contact Name: Poll) M_ Boissnnenmlt Isthis a new Contact Name? [ YES 5 NO Company Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is this a new Company Name? [] YES 0 NO Address: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address? [] YES

NO Phone: 1.419.321,8549 Is this a new Phone Number? "3 YES 0 NO-Downloaded Internet eForm -Facility Owner: Owner Name: FirstEnergy Corp- Is this a new.Owner YES Company Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is this a new Company Name? 0 YES El NO Address: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address? n YES 13 NO Phone: 1.419.321.8549 Is this a new Phone Number? EJ.YES [I NO Facility Name and Withdrawal Mode: County: Ottawa*Registration Number: 00598 Please double check the registration number, Thank you.Facility Name: FFNOC-Davis-Resye Nuiclear Power Stqtion Please note changes in facility status, or naming, in the gray spaces next to the well or intake number(s) below.Facility's WELL (Ground Water) Identification Facility's INTAKE (Surface Water) Identification 01 If you have questions about this form please call (614) 265-6745.

W TT 14 DR AW A TSýNOTE: This page may be photocopied if additional space is required.

Please be sure to sign and date each copy.GROUND WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons) Registration Number SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR WELL NO. ___I WELL NO.W WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.TOTAL GRAND TOTAL MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION--

Are ground water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?

[]yes E] no (check one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SURFACE WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR INTAKE INTAKE 511 1050 1309 1314 1428 1309 1583 1615 1376 981 957 1221 14654 INTAKE I INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 511 1050 1309 1314 1428 1309 1583 1615 1376 981 957 1221 14654 MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION 31 29 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 366 Are-surface water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?

[Z]yes [:]no (check one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

RETURN FLOW (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY J UNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR FLOW 490 864 944 960 1037 913 1158 1189 970 596 603 949 10673 FLOW GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 490 864 944 960 1037 913 1158 1189 970 596 603 949 10673 Are return flow amounts based on metered readings?

[] yes [: no (check one) If "no," how were the reported return flow amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

NOTE: Is the information originally supplied on your registration form still correct? E] yes [Z no (check one)If "no," please attach a separate sheet indicating the nature of the change. If needed, a new registration form will be forwarded to you so that you may provide this office with the necessary revisions.

Owner., outho ized repl'esenitative's signature

-pau r Date K2/i0O0o)DNR 7805e (1I-/04/07)

Enclosure B L-09-027 Page 1 of I Water Withdrawal Baseline Capacity Reporting Form 2008 for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (one form follows)

Ohio Department of Natural Resources RETURN T(Division of Water OHIO DEPA DIVISION 0 Water Withdrawal Baseline 2045 MORS Capacity Reporting Form 2008 COLUMBUS Facility Name: FENCO-DAVIS BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION*RTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES F WATER, WATER RESOURCES SECTION.E ROAD, BLD. B-2.OHIO 43229-6693 Registration Number: 00598 Well ('anacitie'.

.1 All revistered well canaicitv valuies are coiTect' I have ho edits~ or new wells to repor-t-: Wcll ID "ODNR WellLog Number Registered Well Your Current Well Capacity *(mg:(Id Cap6cit,..*(m.'d r Please provide additional corrunents if needed.

m/d Millionsof Gallons per Day.Intake Capacities IAll registered intake capacity values are correct, I have no edits or new intakes to report.Intake ID Water Body Name Registered Intake Your Current Intake In-keIDCapacity

mjd Capacity *(nigid)01 LAKE ERIE 50 80 Please provide additional conmments if needed.

mg/d = Millions of Gallons per Day.Owner Ol autholized represenlative's

ignaldi1Ite Date A6m0 FENCO-DAVIS BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION 00598 Great Lakes -St. Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact Becomes Law and Will Impact Future Water Withdrawals December 2008

Dear Lake Erie Basin Water Withdrawer:

As you may already have heard, the Great Lakes-St.

Lawrence River Basin Water Resources Compact was recently passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. This interstate compact prohibits new and increased diversions of water out of the Great Lakes Basin and requires each of the eight Great Lakes states to regulate new or increased withdrawals within the Basin. Existing withdrawals will not be regulated under the Compact and your current withdrawal will, therefore, not be impacted.To fully protect existing water withdrawals, the Ohio Department of Natural Resources is developing a list of existing Lake Erie Basin withdrawals and their capacities.

This list will serve as the baseline for existing withdrawals and capacities that will be "grandfathered" and not subjected to future regulation as a new or increased withdrawal.

On the table on the reverse side of this page, we have listed the existing wells and/or intakes that are included on your water withdrawal facility registration, along with the withdrawal capacities that you have provided.

To assure that we have your complete withdrawal capacity for inclusion on the list of existing withdrawals, we are requesting that you review these listed wells and/or intakes and their capacities to make sure they are still current and accurate.Please revise the table on the reverse side of this page and return it with your annual withdrawal report in the enclosed envelope.i Thank you for your cooperation in this important matter. If you have questions, please call Mike Hallfrisch at 614-265-6745 or e-mail him at: mike.hallfrisch@dnr.state.oh.us Instructions for Completing the Baseline Capacity Reporting Form In determining withdrawal capacities, be sure to include those wells and/or intakes that are operable or could be readily made operable (e.g., by adding pumping capacity), even if they may not currently be in regular use. Also, if the withdrawal quantities of existing wells and/or intakes could readily be increased (e.g., again, by adding pumping capacity), list the well and/or intake capacity rather than the current pumping capacity.Well or Intake ID: This is the well/intake identification number that your facility assigned to the well/intake and listed on the registration form sent to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water." If the well/intake identification has changed, please note those changes on this form." Please add any wells or intakes at the facility that are not on this list.Well or Intake Capacity:

This is the capacity of each individual well or intake (in millions of gallons per day) that was listed on the registration form sent to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.Changes or Modifications to Well or Intake Capacity:

If the well/intake capacity in the "Registered Well Capacity" or "Registered Intake Capacity" column is incorrect, please make changes in this column.Additional Comnments:

Please add any additional comments that you feel are appropriate.

Please complete form on back t,,)

FENOC FktsjErnergyj Nuear Operating compary Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Staiionr 5501 N. State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 January 22, 2010 L- 10-030 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Soil and Water Resources Water Planning Program 2045 Morse Road, Bid. B-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693

SUBJECT:

Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 for 2009 In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 1521.16, "Water Withdrawal Registration," enclosed is the Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for the year 2009. This report is required to be submitted by all registered facilities that have a 100,000 gallon per day or greater capacity.

Flow values were obtained from continuous data acquisition systems and were based on hourly averages.If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr.Stephen M. Chimo, Advanced Nuclear Specialist, at (419) 321-7149.Sincerely, Polly M. Boissoneault Manager- Site Chemistry Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station KAS/SMC

Enclosure:

Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2009 0 0 0 Enclosure L-10-030 Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Page 1 of 3 II 4 IIIII STATE 0 4 01.0 r WATER WITHDRAWAL

.FACILITY REGISTRATIONI ANNUAL REPORT FORM SEND TO: OHIO DEPARTIWIf OF NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION OF SOILAl'bWATERRESOURCES WATER PLANNING PROGRAM.2045 MORSE ROAD, BLD. B-2 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-6693 (614) 265-6938 AUTHORITY, Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities and file an annual report, with the ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Resources.

Water Withdrawal Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2009 Contact Information:

--Contact Name: Ms. Polly M. Boissoneault Is this'a new Contact Name? 0 YES El NO Company Name:' FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is.this. a new Company Name?0 YES ...NO.Address: 5501 North State Route 21 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 a this anewAd NO.Phone: 1.419.321.8549 .stigsa new Phone Number' " YES l:lNO-Downloaded Internet eForm -Facility Owner: Owner Name: F rst gy COm. Is this a Own 9 er Name? 0 YES El NO Company Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is this a new Campany Name? -1 El NO Address: 15501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Phone: 1.419.321.8549 k thi'~r~np.w Addmss7 , -,flY M NolN!Is:Ihis a~neW.Phone NujMberZ; 0,' [,YES 6,Io -1 ANIL Facility Name and Withdrawal Mode: County: Ottawa*Registration Number: 00598 Facility Name: FRN-ese Nuclear Power Station Please double check the registration number, Th nk you.Please note changes in facility status, or naming, in the gray spaces next to the well or intake number(s) below.Facility's WEL (Grun Water Idntfcain ailt'sITAE(Srac atrIetiiato

'44 44~ 44~%4~04: iI 4'44421:< 44~4:"-4 .,"> I, 4-44 "4'4:" 44~ '4 444 ...K .......-44' .4" 4~'44444~44-44444~

/m .......................................

4-"'.'. I44 4 4 4'4,44S4~444 4 4i44 ~~I"" ' --~ ~'~4" ">'4">~' -.4'W>4* ~4 ' .4 4~-,A,**.444, '>4',-444444'

'3"- '----' ..,44. ' -~ 444."' '*' -"' -." --4 I -If you have questions about this form please call (614) 265-6938.

W I-THD RAWAL S.NOTE: This page maY'$photoeopied if additional space is required.

Please be sIc to sign and date each copy.GROUND WNATER (in Units of Millions of GallonS) Registration Number 00598 SOURCE JAN. FEB,. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. .SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC.' TOTALPERYEAR WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELtL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.TOTAL GRAND TOTAL MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN, TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION Are ground water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?lyces

[]no (circle one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SURFACENWATER in Units of Millions of Gallons SOURCE JAN. FF13. MARCHJ APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR INTAKE INTAKE, 1275 1158 1416' 1196 1371 1418 1513 1547 1381 1270 1240 1170 15955 INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE IM-AKE _. .....TOTAL 1275 1158 1416 1196 1371 1418 1513 1547 1381 1270 1240 1170 GRAN TTAL MAXI4AUM MINIMUM DAET N ------- --... -'OTAL O ---KrION DAY OPERATION 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 30 31 O 36 N Are surface water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?g"yes -no (circle one) If"no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

RETURN FLOW (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB, MARCH APRIL MAY J UNE JULY AUG, SEPT OCT, NOV, DEC, TOTAL PER YEAR FLOW 1080 962 1181 1089 1093 1145 1221 1255 1108 1018 .997 953 13102 FLOW -OTE: I ---GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 1080 962 1181 1089 1093 1145 1221 1255 1108 1018 997 953 13102 Are return flow amounts based on metered readings?EJyes

-no (circle one) If "no," how were the reported return flow amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

NOTE: Is the information originally supplied on your registration form still correct'?

Z yes Ono (circle one)If "no," please attach a separate sheet indicating the nature of the change. If needed, a new registration form will be forwarded to you so that you may provide this office with the necessary revisions.

0 6 Owner or authorized representative's signature 6ý1 n -&bW I d D~ate 1 -/a ONR 7 8 OýY'(1 2 J/0 4/9) 4 FENIOC Datds-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 N. State Route 2 FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 February 16, 2011 L-1 1-033 P-31 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Soil and Water Resources Water Planning Program 2045 Morse Road, Bid. B-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6693

SUBJECT:

Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, for 2010 In accordance with Ohio Revised Code 1521.16, "Water Withdrawal Registration," enclosed is the Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for the year 2010. The report is required to be submitted by all registered facilities that have a 100,000 gallon per day or greater capacity.Flow values were obtained from continuous data acquisition systems and were based on hourly averages.If there are any questions or if additional information is required, please contact Mr.Stephen M. Chimo, Senior Nuclear Specialist, at 419-321-7149.

Sincerely, Polly M. Boissoneault Manager -Site Chemistry Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station SMC/KAS

Enclosure:

Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station for 2010 Enclosure L-1 1-033 Page 1 of 1 2010 Water Withdrawal Report for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (one form follows)

STATE OF OHIO SEND TO: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES S WATER WITHDRAWAL DIVISION OF SOIL AND WATER RESOURCES WATERWITHD AWALWATER PLANNING PROGRAM FACILITY REGISTRATION 2045 MORSE ROAD, BLD. B-2 COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-6693 ANNUAL REPORT FORM (614) 265-6938 AUTHORITY:

Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner ofa facility, or combination of facilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities and file an annual report with the ODNR, Division of Soil and Water Resources.

Water Withdrawal Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2010 Contact Information:

Contact Name: Polly Boissoneault Is this a new Contact Name? 11 YES ID NO Company Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is this a new Company Name? [I YES [K NO Address: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address? D ,'Es El NO Phone: 419.321.8549 Is this a new Phone Number? 0I YES El NO-Downloaded Internet eForm -Facility Owner: Owner Name: FirstEnergy Cotp. Is this a new Owner Name? F- YES E) NO Company Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Station Is this a new Company Name? El YES [D NO Address: 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 Is this a new Address? [ YES F) NO Phone: 419.321.8549 Is this a new Phone Number? D YES [!9 NO Facility Name and Withdrawal Mode: County: Ottawa*Registration Number: 00598 'Please double check the registration number, Thank you.Facility Name: FENOC-Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Please note changes in facility status, or naming, in the gray spaces next to the well or intake number(s) below.Facility's WELL (Ground Water) Identification Facility's INTAKE (Surface Water) Identification

_______________" ______01 A-i-I.4-I If you have questions about this form please call (614) 265-6938.

________XWI T H DRAW A L S________NOTE: This page may be photocopied if additional space is required.

Please be sure to sign and date each copy.GROUND WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons)Registration Number_ _________1~~ -~ *1 1~ I T ~. -, 1 1 1 SOURCE JAN.FEB. IMARCH 1 APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. I NOV. DEC.TOTAL PER YEAR WELL NO.WELLNO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELLNO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELLNO.WELL NO.WELL NO.TOTAL GRAND TOTAL MAXIMUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION Are ground water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?

EJ yes rno (check one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SURFACE WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR INTAKE 1171 1046 508 531 563 623 1194 1295 1383 1316 1177 1201 12008 INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE 1171 1046 508 531 563 623 1194 1295 1383 1316 1177 1201 GlAo70TAL MAXINIfUM MINIMUM DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 Are surface water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?[-lyes

[]no (check one) If"no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

RETURN FLOW (in Units of Millions of Gallons)SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY J UNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR FLOW 963 870 508 525 563 531 950 997 1108 1045 -959 979 9998 FLOW---GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 963 870 508 525 563 531 950 997 1108 1045 959 979 9998 Are return flow amounts based on metered Ehno (check one) If "no," how were the reported return flow amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

NOTE: Is the information originally supplied on your registration form still correct? [Jyes lQno (check one)If "no," please attach a separate sheet indicating the nature of the change. If needed, a new registration form will be forwarded to you so that you may provide this office with the necessary revisions.

Owne PT authorized representative's signature DNR 7805e (12/0412010)

Date / /f 01 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 5501 North State Route 2 Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449-9760 RAOG 07-0009 P-31 February 5, 2007.ebruary 2, 2007 Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Water Water Resources Section 2045 Morse Road, Bid. B-2 Columbus, Ohio 43229-6605

Subject:

Water Withdrawal Report for 2006 Ladies and Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Water Withdrawal Report for 2006"for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. This report is submitted pursuant to Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16, which requires that registered facilities with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallon per day file an annual report. Flow values were obtained from continuous data acquisition systems and were based on hourly averages.If you have any question or require additional information, please contact Mr. Stephen M.Chimo, Advanced Nuclear Specialist, at (419) 321-7149.Very truly yours, Patrick J. McCloskey Manager -Site Chemistry Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station JCS/SMC Enclosure Attachment RAOG 07-0009 Enclosure I Water Withdrawal Report for 2006 (one form to follow)*I STATE OF OHIO SEND TO: OHIO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES WATER WITHDRAWAL DIVISION OF WATER WATER RESOURCES SECTION FACILITY REGISTRATION 2045 MORSE ROAD, BLD. B-2 ANNUAL REPORT FORM COLUMBUS, OHIO 43229-6605 (614) 265-6745 AUTHORITY.

Ohio Revised Code Section 1521.16 requires that any owner of a facility, or combination offacilities, with the capacity to withdraw more than 100,000 gallons of water daily, register such facilities and file an annual report with the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Water.Water Withdrawal Report for the Year Ending December 31, 2006 According to our records the Contact is listed as: Please Make Corrections Below Contact Name: Patrick J. McCloskey

___. __Company Name: FirstEner.

NcLear Generation CoP-Davis-Besse Plant Address: 5 5 0 1 North State Route 2., * -.Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449 .,.-Phone: 1.419.321.7274 S&The Owner is listed as: Please Make Corrections Below (Notify us if facility ownership has changed)Owner Name: CmayName: Company Name: FirstEnergy Nuclear Generation Corp.Address: MIR...5501 North State Route 2 -" Oak Harbor, Ohio 43449- ' 4: Phone: 1.419.321.7274 .'O Facility Nanae and Withdrawal Mode: County: Qtta.'wa Registration Number 005.98 Facility Name:

Nuclear Power Station Registration Date:.Please note changes in facility status, or naming, in the gray spaces next to the well or intake number(s) below.Facilitys W L (GroundWater)

Identification Facility's INTAKE (Surface Water) Identification 01 N] i LAMM WITHDRAWALS NOTE: This nacre may h o nhntncnnied if additional snace is renuired.

Please be sure to sien and date each coov.GROUND WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons) Registration Number 00598 SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.WELL NO.TOTAL GRAND TOTAL MAXIMUM MIn7IMU`M DAYS IN TOTAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION Are ground water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings?

yes no (circle one) If "h o," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

SURFACE WATER (in Units of Millions of Gallons SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR 1241 1199 513 692 1397 1452 1566 1561 1373 1410 1317 1369 15090 INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE INTAKE TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 1241 1199 513 692 1397 1452 1566 1561 1373 1410 1317 1369 15090 MAXIMUM MINIMUMN DAYS IN 3TAL OPERATION DAYS OPERATION 31 28 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31 365 6 6 Are surface water withdrawal amounts based on metered readings? ( no (circle one) If "no," how were the reported withdrawal amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

RETURN FLOW (in Units of Millions of Gallons)'SOURCE JAN. FEB. MARCH APRIL MAY J UNE JULY AUG. SEPT OCT. NOV. DEC. TOTAL PER YEAR FLOW 938 936 474 663 1018 1075 1149 1142 1039 1048 1024 1035 11541 FLOW GRAND TOTAL TOTAL 938 936 474 663 1018 1075 1149 1142 1039 1048 1024 1035 11541 Are return flow amounts based on metered readings?'U no (circle one) If "no," how were the reported return flow amounts determined?(Attach separate sheet, if necessary)

NOTE: Is the information originally supplied on your registration form still correct? ()Do (circle one)If "no," please attach a separate sheet indicating the nature of the change. If needed, a new registration form will be forwarded to you so that you may provide this office with the necessary revisions.

Owner or authorized representative's signature Date O2ZZO 707 DNR 7805 (12./2006)

0 CLEAR TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 222 DISTRIBUTION, ABUNDANCE AND ENTRAINMENT STUDIES OF LARVAL FISHES IN THE WESTERN AND CENTRAL BASINS OF LAKE ERIE Prepared by C. Lawrence Cooper John J.ý Mizera Charles..

E. Herdendorf

.P roj ect Officer'Ne1son A. Thomas Large Lakes Research Station U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Grosse Ile, Michigan 48138 Prepared for Environmental Research Laboratory

-Duluth Office of Research and Development U.S'. Environmental Protection Agency Duluth, Minnesota 55804 Grant No. R-804612 THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR LAKE ERIE AREA RESEARCH COLUMBUS, OHIO October 1981 DISCLAIMER This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Research Laboratory

-Duluth, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publication.

Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.-ii -

ABSTRACT As part of a multi-agency effort to assess the impact of entrainment of larval fishes at steam-generating electrical power plants, personnel from The Ohio State University collected samples of larval fishes from waters of the Western and Central Basins of Lake Erie. Samples were collected in the Western Basin in 1975, 1976 and 1977. Samples were collected along the southshore of the Central Basin in 1978.A total of 19 taxa of larval fish was collected with metered plankton nets in Ohio and adjacent Ontario waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie in 1975 and 1976. Analysis of yellow perch collections indicates that shallow inshore areas serve as important nursery areas for this species.Collection of larvae provides evidence of relict breeding populations of lake whitefish and sculpin in the Western Basin. Sufficient data was gathered from 1975 and 1976 collections to permit calculation.

of an estimate of the impact of entrainment on adult yellow perch and emerald shiner populations using the equivalent adult approach of Goodyear.A total of 17 taxa were collected in the Maumee River estuary during sampling periods in 1975, 1976 and 1977. A total of 11 taxa were collected from the Sandusky River estuary in 1976. Gizzard shad/alewife, white bass/white perch and freshwater drum constituted 98 percent of the larvae collected in the Maumee River estuary proper and 91 percent of the larvae collected in the Sandusky River estuary.Gizzard shad/alewife, emerald shiners, white bass/white perch, and yellow perch; constituted over 97 percent of the larval fish collected in Ohio and Michigan waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie in 1977.Significantly greater numbers of gizzard shad/alewife and spottail shiner larvae were captured immediately adjacent to the shore than at a depth of five meters offshore while greater numbers of smelt larvae were captured at points further offshore at a depth of five meters than at points immediately adjacent to the shore. Significantly greater numbers of walleye larvae were collected along the Ohio shoreline portion of the study area than in Maumee Bay or along the Michigan shoreline.

Significantly greater numbers of freshwater drum larvae were collected in Maumee Bay.A total of 25 taxa of larval fish was collected in Ohio waters of the Central Basin portion of Lake Erie in 1978. Gizzard shad/alewives, emer-ald shiners and spottail shiners constituted 82.4 percent of the larval fish collected.

Larval gizzard shad, carp/goldfish, spottail shiners, troutperch and yellow perch densities were significantly higher in shallow (1-2 m deep) nearshore areas than offshore in areas five and ten meters deep. Significant differences were found between entrainment estimates derived from field samples and in-plant samples from the Central Basin for gizzard shad, rainbow smelt, carp and freshwater drum.All estimates of entrainment from field collections were higher than those for in-plant collections.

-iv -

FIGURES Figure 1. Dominant Summer Surface Currents.Figure 2. Dominant Summer Bottom Currents.Figure 3. Station Location and Delineation of Study Area During 1975-1976 Study Period.Figure 4. Location of the Sampling Stations in the Western Basin of Lake Erie -1977.Figure 5. Location of the Sampling Stations in the Central Basin of Lake Erie -1978.Figure 6. Western Basin Station Numbers and Locations.

Figure 7. Mean Density of Clupeid: Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 8. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae at Each Station..Figure 9. Mean Density of Smelt Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 10. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Smelt Larvae at Each Station.Figure 11. Mean Density of Carp Larvae in the Western Basin DOring 1977.Figure 12. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Carp Larvae at Each Station.Figure 13. Mean Density of Emerald Shiner Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 14. Western Basin 1977. Mean Density of Emerald Shiner Larvae at Each Station.Figure 15. Mean Density of Spottail Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 16. Western Basin* 1977. Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae at Each Station.Figure 17. Mean Density of White Bass Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 18. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of White Bass Larvae at Each Station.Figure 19. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.

FIGURES (cont'd.)Figure 20. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Larvae at Each Station.Figure 21. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Pro-Larvae at Each Station.Figure 22. Mean Density of Walleye Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 23. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Walleye Larvae at Each Station.Figure 24. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Walleye Pro-Larvae at Each Station.Figure 25. Mean Density of Logperch Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 26. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Logperch Larvae at Each Station..Figure 27. Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.Figure 28. Western Basin -1977. Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae at Each Station.Figure 29. Sampling Stations in the Central Basin in 1978.Figure 30. Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 31. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae at Each Station.Figure 32. Mean Density of Smelt Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 33. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Rainbow Smelt Larvae at Each Station.Figure 34. Mean Density of Carp Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 35. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Carp Larvae at Each Station.Figure 36. Mean Density of Emerald Shiner Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.-vi -

FIGURES (cont'd.)Figure 37. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Emerald Shiner Larvae at Each Station.Figure 38. Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 39. Central Basin -1979. Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae at Each Station.Figure 40. Mean Density of Trout Perch Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 41. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Trout Perch Larvae at Each Station.Figure 42. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 43. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Larvae at Each Station.Figure 44. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Yellow Perch Pro-Larvae at Each Station.Figure 45. Mean Density of Logperch in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 46. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Logperch Larvae at Each Station.Figure 47. Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Figure 48. Central Basin -1978. Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae at Each Station.-vii -

TABLES Table 1. Streams in the Study Area.Table 2. Common and Scientific Names of Fish Species Mentioned in the Text.Table 3. Characteristics of Western Basin Power Plants.Table 4. Characteristics of Central Basin Power Plants.Table 5. In-Plant Collection Methods.Table 6. Period of Capture and Relative Abundance of Larval Fish in the Ohio Waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie During 1975 and 1976.Table 7. Limnetic Fish Larvae From the Maumee River Estuary, 1975-1977.

Table 8. Limnetic Fish Larvae From the Sandusky River Estuary, 1976.Table 9. Relative Abundance of Larval Fishes Captured in the Western Basin of Lake Erie in 1977.Table 10. Relative Abundance of Larval Fishes Captured Along the Michigan Shoreline From Stoney Point to Woodtick Peninsula in 1977.Table 11. Relative Abundance of Larval Fishes Captured in Maumee Bay in 1977.Table 12. Relative Abundance of Larval Fishes Captured Along the Ohio Shoreline Between Little Cedar Point and Locust Point in 1977.Table 13. Volume Weighted Estimates of Larval Fishes in the Western Basin (1977).Table. 14. Relative Abundance of Larval Fishes Captured Along the Ohio Shoreline of the Central Basin in 1978.Table 15. Volume Weighted Estimates of Total Production of Larval Fishes in the Nearshore Zone of the Central Basin in 1978.Table 16. Entrainment Estimates for Western Basin Power Plants (Calculated From Field Collections).

Table 17. Entrainment Estimates for Central Basin Power Plants (Calculated from In-Plant Collections).

-viii -

~TABLES (cont'd.)Table 18.Table 19.Table 20.Entrainment Estimates for Central Basin Power Plants (Calculated From Field Collections).

Total Entrainment Estimates of Four Western Basin Power Plants During the 1977 Sampling Period.Comparison of Nearshore and Estuarine Production Estimates During the 1977 Study Period.Table 21. Estimates of the Relative Abundance of Fish Species Entrained at Each of Four Western Lake Erie Power Plants During the 1977 Study Period.Table 22. Estimate of the Percentage of Total Entrainment by Species at Each of Four Lake Erie Western Basin Power Plants During the 1977 Study Period.Table 23. Comparison of Relative Abundance of Estimated Entrained Species. In-Plant vs. Field Surveys.Table 24. Estimate of the Percentage of Total Entrainment by Species at Each of Six Central Basin Power Plants (Estimated From Field Collections).

Table 25. Comparison of Nearshore Production Estimates and Total Entrainment Estimates of Six Central Basin Powey' Plants During the 1978 Sampling Period (Calculated From Field Samples).Table 26.Table 27.Total Entrainment at Central Basin Power Plants (Estimated From Field Collections).

Estimates of the Relative Abundance of Fish Species Entrained at Each of Six Central Basin Power Plants (Estimated From In-Plant Collections).

Table 28. Comparison of Nearshore Production Estimates and Total Entrainment Estimates of Six Central Basin Power Plants During the 1978 Sampling Period (Calculated From In-Plant Collections).

Table 29. Percentage of Total Estimated Entrainment by Species at Each of Six Central Basin Power Plants (Estimated From In-Plant Collections).

Table A-1.Developmental Stages and Range of Lengths of Larval Fishes Captured in the Nearshore Zone and the Maumee and Sandusky Estuaries of the Western Basin of Lake Erie, 1975-1977.

-ix -

TABLES (cont'd.)Table A-2.Table A-3.Developmental Stages and Range of Lenqths of Selected Larval Fish Captured in the Western Basin During 1975 and 1976.Developmental Stages and Range of Lengths of Selected Larval Fishes Captured in the Nearshore Zone of Western Lake Erie During 1977.Table B-i.Table B-2.Table C-i.Table C-2.Table C-3.Table C-4.Table C-5.Table C-6.Volume Weighted Estimates of Larval Abundance Nearshore Depth Zones of the Western Basin (1977).in Three Volume Weighted Estimates (For Entire Sampling Period) of Larval Fishes in the Nearshore Zone of the Central Basin in 1978.Determination of the Average Lifetime Fecundity of a Three-Year-Old Recruit to the Yellow Perch Population of the Ohio Waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie.Seasonal Length Frequency Distribution of Larval Yellow Perch Needed to Estimate the Instantaneous Rate of Mortality on Length.E stimates of Se9l, for Each Length Class of Larval Yellow Perch.Estimate of the Loss of Three-Year-Old Yellow Perch Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1976.Estimate of the as a Result of Plant in 1975.Estimate of the as a Result of Plant in 1976.Estimate of the as a Result of Plant in 1977.Loss of Three-Year-Old Yellow Perch Recruits Entrainment Mortality at the Bayshore Power Loss of Three-Year-Old Yellow Perch Recruits Entrainment Mortality at the Bayshore Power Table C-7.Table D-1.Table D-2.Loss of Three-Year-Old Yellow Entrainment Mortality at the Perch Recruits Bayshore Power Determination of the Average Lifetime Fecundity of a One-Year-Old Recruit to the Western Basin Emerald Shiner Population.

Seasonal Length Frequency Distribution of Emerald Shiner Larvae Needed to Estimate the Instantaneous Rate of Mortality on Length.

TABLES (cont'd.)Table D-3. Estimates of Sel 1 and S 1 for Each Length Class of Larval Emerald Shiner.0 Table D-4.Table D-5.Table D-6.Table D-7.Estimate of the Loss of One-Year-Old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Toledo Edison Bayshore Power Plant in 1975.Estimate of the Loss of One-Year-Old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Toledo Edison Bayshore Power Plant in 1976.Estimate of the Loss of One-Year-Old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Assumed Entrainment Mortality at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1975.Estimate of the Loss of One-Year-Old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1976.-xi -

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This work is the product of the combined efforts of numerous faculty, staff, graduate and undergraduate research assistants at the Center for Lake Erie Area Research.

Valuable assistance in the field and in the laboratory was provided in 1975 and 1976 by Mr. W. Bartholomew, Mr. D.Davis, Ms. M. Gessner, Mr. M. Heniken, Mr. W. Overholtz, and Mr. F.Snyder. Similar assistance in 1977 was provided by Mr. W. Bartholomew, Mr. C. Bowen, Mr. D. Breier, Mr. L. Davidson, Mr. J. Haub, Mr. L.MacLean, Mr. L. Saunders and Mr. R. Thoma. In 1978, field and laboratory assistance was provided by Mr. D. Breier, Mr. J. Johnson, Mr. T. Reed and Dr. A. White and his staff at Environmental Research Associates, Cleveland Heights, Ohio. Laboratory studies of collections were performed with the assistance of Mr. D. Breier, Ms. T. Gordon, Mr. J.Hageman and Ms. A. Rush. The analysis and presentation of the data herein was aided throughout the study by Dr. J. Reutter. Figures were prepared by Ms. L. Fletcher, Ms. C. Kimerline and Mr. J.M. Mizera. The manuscript was typed by Ms. S. Hessler. Numerous others who assisted at various points throughout the study but not mentioned above are acknowledged collectively.

The assistance of Mr. J. Reidy, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency and the support of Mr. Nelson Thomas, Project Officer -USEPA Large Lakes Research Station, is gratefully acknowledged.

-xii -

TABLE OF CONTENTS Title Paqe Disclaimer

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

..........

ii Foreward ..................................... , .... ..........

iii Abstract .....................................................

iv Figures ...........................................

...........

v Tables .............................

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

viii Acknowledgement

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

.........

xii 1. Introduction

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

1 2. Conclusions

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

4 3. Site Description

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

7 4. Methods ................................................

15 5. Results .............................................

25 Overview ........................................

25 Sources of Error. and Variability

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

25 Western Basin, 1975-1976

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

28 Maumee and Sandusky River Estuaries, 1975-1977 29 Western Basin, 1977 ..............................

34 Central Basin, 1978 ..............................

67 Power Plant Entrainment

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

88 6. Discussion

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

100 Species Distribution

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

100 Power Plant Entrainment

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

102 References

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

123 Appendices

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

.130 A. Developmental Stages of Larval Fish .................

130 B. Volume-Weighted Estimates of Larval Fish Numbers .... 137 C. Calculation of Yellow Perch Equivalent Adult Losses.. 145 D. Calculation of Emerald Shiner Equivalent Adult Losses 150 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The Great Lakes provide a freshwater supply for 70 to 75 percent of the basin's 29 million residents (Great Lakes Communicator, 1979), increasingly attractive recreational boating and sport fishing areas, and water for industrial processes and electrical generation.

Concern over the impacts of these conflicting uses has changed the prospective of this being an inexhaustible resource.

The purpose of this report is to sum-marize a series of studies conducted to assess the abundance, distri-bution and entrainment of larval fishes in the Ohio and Michigan waters of Lake Erie. The study area serves as one of the best examples in the Great Lakes of divergent interests competing of a single resource.

The impact of electrical generating facilities on larval fish numbers is potentially large. Electrical generation is the largest user of Great Lakes water.The 89 electrical generating stations in the coastal areas of the Great Lakes are responsible for over 70 percent of the total water use in the Great Lakes Basin (Murray and Reeves, 1977; Kelso and Milburn, 1979).With the United States relying more heavily on domestic energy supplies, the role of the Great Lakes will become even more important in energy production; it is planned that there will be an additional 17 power plants in the basin by the mid-1980's (Kelso and Milburn, 1979).Thermal electric generating stations convert water into high pres-sure steam which powers electric generators.

Little difference exists between fossil fuel and nuclear generating systems other than the type of fuel used to create high pressure steam. However, neither system uses all of the energy available for converting heat to electricity.

The steam used to generate electricity must be condensed before re-heating for maximum efficiency.

This is where the large water requirements and the environmental concerns arise (Kelso and Milburn, 1979).Steam electric generating plants have three major types of adverse effects upon the aquatic environment when they use large amounts of cooling water: 1. the intake of cooling water by a facility can cause the entrapment and impingement of fishes upon plants' intake structures;

2. entrainment can have a damaging effect upon smaller aquatic organisms such as plankton, fish eggs, fish larvae, and shellfish larvae; and 3. the discharge of heated cooling-waters into the aquatic environment can dis-rupt the function of complex and highly productive natural systems (Bugbee, 1977). The effect of entrainment bn larval fish numbers is the focal point of this study.Wickliff (1931) suggested and recent studies have supported (Heniken, 1977; Bartholomew, 1978; Cole, 1978a; and Waybrant and Schauver, 1979) that the nearshore zone of Lake Erie is a valuable fish spawning::and nursery area. The movement of larval fishes is often con-trolled more by water movement than by swimming ability (Houde, 1969).Thus the high densities of larval fishes and bouyant fish eggs in near-shore areas are highly susceptible to the hazards posed by high volume cooling water intakes.

Congress approved and the President signed into law, on October 18, 1972, The Federal Water Pollution Control Ammendments of 1972, (Public Law 92-500), the objectives being to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, :and biological integrity of the nation's navigable waters.Sections 316 (A) and (B)-of this act, respectively, deal with the effects of thermal discharges and cooling water intakes upon the biological system. These sections created a need for detailed knowledge of fish eggs and larvae, also known as ichthyoplankton (Boreman, 1976). Prior to the passsage of this legislation, scientific investigations of the egg, embryonic, and larval stages of fish received cursory attention in com-parison with many other aspects of. freshwater fishery science. In refer-ence to .Lake Erie, very few studies exist and few have examined more than species composition of larval fishes.Marie Poland Fish (1932), in her classic study, described the early developmental stages of 62 species of fish found in Lake Erie and its tributaries.

This. study produced an important atlas of! developmental stages of these species but gave little insight into the abudance or distribution of these fishes. Discussing this project, Wickliff (1931)noted that greater species diversity and higher numbers of fish larvae were captured around the island region of the Western Basin and in the nearshore zone than offshore.The Ohio Division of Wildlife sampled Sandusky Bay for young-of-the-year fishes with beach seines. Eighteen species were captured (Chapman, 1955). The Ohio Division of Wildlife also conducted a study attempting to locate major walleye spawning grounds in the Western Basin of Lake, Erie.Walleye eggs and larvae were found to be most abundant in-areas that have hard, rocky bottoms (Keller, et al., unpublished).

Most recent larval fish investigations in the United States have been conducted as required by Section 316(b) of Public. Law 92-500. A number of such studies have been conducted in Lake Erie. Unfortunately, these studies tend to report efforts concentrated in limited areas and have a very limited circulation.

Larval fish in the Locust Point area of the Western Basin have been studied by Reutter and Herdendorf, (1.975) as part of the pre-operational, and post-operational study (Reutter 1978a;1978b; 1979a; 1979b; 1980a; 1980b), for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (CLEAR Tech. Rept. No. 78a and 78b). Reutter (1979a and b) also reported on entrainment at Toledo Edison's Acme and Bayshore pl~ants.Hartley and Herdendorf (1976) reported the work of Donald Davis on larval fishes found during a study of a proposed power plant site in the Sandusky Bay area. This report will summarize portions of a-series of studies (Bartholomew, 1979; Heniken, 1977; Herdendorf, 1977; Herdendorf

' and Cooper, 1975 and 1976; Herdendorf, Cooper, Heniken and Snyder, 1976* and 1977; Reutter, Herdendorf and Sturm, 1978a and 1978b; and Snyder, 1978)conducted in Western Basin waters including the Maumee and Sandusky ,River estuaries between 1975 and 1977. The extent of fish production in these downstream or estuarine portions of the lake has received little atten-tion until recent times. Studies of larval fishes in. the Central Basin include on reported by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (1974) at Berlin Heights and one conducted by Aquatic Ecology Associates (1978) for a proposed United States Steel plant in Conneaut, Ohio.

Without question, the most complete study of larval fishes in Lake Erie is the overall program, of which the present study is a part, designed to assess the impact to cooling water intakes in Michigan and Ohio. This study was funded and coordinated by the Large Lakes Research Station (Grosse Ile, Michigan) of the United States Environmental Protection Agency and included sampling in Ohio, Michigan, and Canadian waters of Lake Erie, along with other on-site studies (Nelson and Cole, 1975; Heniken, 1977; Snyder, 1977; Cole, 1978a and 1978b; Patterson, 1979; Waybrant and Shauver, 1979).Environmental studies in the vicinity of Detroit Edison's Monroe, Michigan site began in 1970. Larval fish studies were initiated in 1973.A large multi-agency study of larval fish distribution was funded by the Large Lakes Laboratory, USEPA, in 1975. Data collected by personnel from The Ohio State University, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and Michigan State University allowed Dr. Richard Patterson of the University of Michigan to estimate losses of yellow perch due to entrainment in 1975 and 1976 at the 3200 MW generating facility at Monroe. Personnel from The Ohio State University collected samples in the nearshore zone of the Western Basin in 1977 to provide additional data for Dr. Patterson's model calculations.

Collections were made in the nearshore zone of the Central Basin in 1978. This study makes independent entrainment estimates for selected power plants in the Western and Central Basins. In addition, the distribution and abundance of selected larval fish species are described for the study period extending from May, 1975 to August, 1978.

SECTION 2 CONCLUSIONS

1. Sampling procedures employed were selective for species inhabiting limnetic areas and may not adequately represent species which inhabit littoral regions.2. Abundance estimates were made.. The resultant standard deviations and standard*

errors of the mean calculated were large but were s aller,. i.e., improved, when mean densities exceeded 100 fish/lO0 m.3. The capture of whitefish larvae on reefs *and along the Michigan and Ohio shorelines indicated that a remnant. spawning population of whitefish was inhabiting the Western Basin.4. The capture of sculpin larvae on reefs in the island area indicated that a remnant spawning population:

of sculpins was inhabiting the Western Basin.;5. The Maumee River estuary contained -higher. densities and greater estimated., numbers of larvae. than the Sandusky River estuary.Production estimates of gizzard shad and freshwater drum in the *two estuaries often. approached or matched the production estimates of.*these species in the Western Basin study areas.6. Both the Maumee and Sandusky-River estuaries are important spawning and nursery-sites for gizzard shad, white bass, walleye and fresh-water drum.7. Higher densiti es of gizzard shad, white bass and. freshwater drum were captured in Maumee Bay' and in Sandusky Bay than along either the.Ohio or Michigan shorelines.

This would indicate that these areas are valuable nursery areas for these species. The high densities of, larvae in these areas may result from spawning in the bay as well as result from. larvae carried into the bay areas.. by river currents.* 8,. .Rainbow smelt and yellow perch larvae were almost entirely* restricted to the lake proper.9. In the Western Basin in 1975 and 1976, larval yellow perch were found...predominantly in nears.hore areas associated with sandy and/or gravel substrate.

Perch larvae were concentrated near the bottom. Walleye larvae were collected in the same areas as perch larvae in the nearshore zone as well as offshore on the reefs.10. Higher densities of rainbow smelt and emerald shiner were collected at stations in deeper open water station than at stations located.adjacent to the shoreline.

11. In the Western Basin in 1977, larval yellow perch densities were highest in the area along the Michigan shoreline north of Woodtick Peninsula and south of the River Raisin. The larvae found here may have been carried into and retained in this area by the eddying effects of the Maumee and Detroit Rivers, as suggested by the fact that spawning habitat in the area is not ideal for yellow perch.12. In the Western Basin, yellow perch and walleye larvae densities were generally highest along the Ohio shoreline, particularly in the Locust Point area. The sandy, gravel bottom and offshore islands and shoals provide the best spawning habitat for these species remaining in Lake Erie.13. High densities of pro-larval smelt captured along Cedar Point in the Central Basin indicated that the area probably is being used as a spawning site for rainbow smelt. If so, this would be the first record of smelt spawning that far west along the United States shore-line.14. The capture of larval freshwater drum was limited to the western half of the Central Basin study area. Freshwater drum prefer water less than 12 meters deep. East of Cleveland, water less than 12 meters deep is limited to a very narrow band along the shoreline, limiting spawning habitat.15. In 1978, highest densities of larval yellow perch sampled were found in the eastern third of the Central Basin study area. Perch in the area are believed to be using the harbor breakwalls and sands col-lected in the quiet areas of these structures as spawning habitat.16. Because fish densities were highest in the Maumee estuary and Bay, and since Toledo Edison's Bayshore Plant is located at the mouth of the Maumee River, entrainment is likely to be higher at the Bayshore plant than at any other power plant studied.17. Significant differences were found between entrainment estimates derived from field collections and in-plant collections at Central Basin power plants.18. In-plant estimates of entrainment, when samples are collected with submersible pumps, are believed to give a better estimate of entrainment than field collections made with metered nets.Avoidance of the sampling gear is not as much a problem for pump samplers as it is for nets.19. Using in-plant collections entrainment estimates were highest at the Avon Lake power station. A total of 231,543,-500 larvae-or 60.1% of total entrainment in the study area of the Central Basin occurred here. Cyprinids accounted for 53% of the Avon Lake entrainment total.

20. Yellow perch entrainment was calculated to be highest at the Avon Lake and Ashtabula A and B plants. An estimated 1,340,500 yellow perch larvae were estimated to have been entrained at Avon Lake and 1,315,417 at the Ashtabula A and B Plant.21. Estimates of entrainment at the Ashtabula A and B Plant and the Ashtabula C Plant represent a comparison of entrainment losses due to inshore and offshore intakes. The Ashtabula C Plant, where the water intake is located 1200 meters offshore, has 78% of the water requirement of the Ashtabula A and B Plant with an intake located 425 meters offshore.

Estimates of entrainment were found to be much lower for the C Plant in all cases except rainbow smelt, which was 10 times higher. Yellow perch entrainment at the C Plant was found to be 20% of that at the A and B Plant.22. ifCentral Basin entrainment estimates generally represented between 2 and 4% of total estimated nearshore production.

Yellow perch entrainment represented 3% of total yellow perch production.

The*.highest percentage of any species entrained was carp, as 36% of the total nearshore carp production was entrained.

SECTION 3 SITE DESCRIPTION The southern border of the Great Lakes Basin from Green Bay, Wisconsin to Rochester, New York has been characterized as the"Industrial crescent", the premier heavy manufacturing region in the United States. Its people produce 70% of the nation's steel, 66% of the nation's autos, and almost 50% of its metals and machinery (Great Lakes Communicator 1980. Large industrial centers such as Buffalo, New York;Cleveland and Toledo, Ohio; and Detroit, Michigan make Lake Erie the center of Great Lakes manufacturing, therefore this region has a massive requirement for electrical power. Lake Erie serves as the major source of cooling water for these facilities.

Lake Erie is unique among the Great Lakes by reason of several of its natural characteristics.

It is the shallowest, having a mean depth of 18.5 meters and a maximum depth of 64.0 meters. It is the southern-most and warmest, with midlake surface water temperatures reaching an average maximum of about 24 0 C. Lake Erie has the shortest flow-through time, approximately 21/2 years. It is the most biologically productive of the Great Lakes and is the only one with its long axis parallel to the prevailing winds (Browne, 1975).Of considerable ecological importance is the natural morphological division of Lake Erie into three basins: Western, Central, and Eastern (Hartman, 1972). Of concern to this study is the immediate nearshore zone of the Western and Central Basins. Due to the dependence of successful fish reproduction on physical characteristics of thb spawning area, an understanding of the Western and Central Basins is useful. The major features of these basins are discussed below.WESTERN BASIN The Western Basin is the focal point of many competing interests.

Manufacturing industries in Detroit and Toledo use the lake and its tribu-taries for industrial source water. Great Lakes shipping industries especially utilize the Western Basin in the ports of Toledo and Detroit.These interests compete directly with an extensive recreation industry centered on sport fishing and boating. A resilient commercial fishing industry persists in the face of bans and prohibitions; and a vocal charter fishing industry is growing here in the wake of increasing fish stocks.The Western Basin lies west of an island chain extending from Point Pelee, Ontario to Marblehead, Ohio (Figure 1) (Upchurch, 1976). The basin bottom is essentially a flat mud plane with sharply rising rock islands and shoals along the *southern and central portions of the basin. The Western Basin reaches a maximum depth of 20.4 meters with an average depth of 7.4 meters, making it the shallowest of the three basins. 2 The Western Basin is also the smallest basin, having a surface of 3276 km (13% of the total lake surface area) and a volume of 24.2 km (5.1% of the total lake volume) (Hartman, 1972).

Several environmental conditions in the Western Basin are unique in Lake Erie. Primary productivity and turbidity are higher here than in the other basins of the lake (Fay, 1976; Hartley, et al., 1966). Winds effectively mix the water column, allowing isotheral -conditions to exist most of the time (Hartley, et al., 1966 Patuzkey, 1966). Temporarily stratified conditions do occur, but only after extended periods of hot calm weather (Patuzkey, 1966). Winds also subject this basin to extreme short-term lake water level fluctuations, especially during storm periods (Hartley, et al., 1966). And the overall shallow nature of the basin with its rock Tslinds and shoals make it the most important spawning and nursery grounds in the lake (Hartman, 1972).Two major rivers, the Detroit and Maumee Rivers, and several smaller streams empty into the Western Basin. The Detroit and Maumee Rivers together provide over 93% of the total water flow into Lake Erie. The Detroit River acc unts for over 90% of the total having an average dis-charge of 4,988 m /sec, while the Maumee River at 187 m /sec and accoun-ting for only 3.4% of the flow into the lake, contributes 34% of the total sediment loading (Lewis and Herdendorf, 1976). Table 1 lists the streams in the study area, their flow rates and sediment loadings.

Streams entering the study area have downstream portions influenced by lake conditions and may properly be described as freshwater estuaries (Brant and Herdendorf, 1972).Although surface flow in the Western Basin is often changed by changes in wind direction and intensity, currents in the Western Basin are dominated by the Detroit River inflow. Figure shows the inflow pattern of Detroit River water and dominant summer surface currents.

This shows a definite southern movement of midchannel Detroit River water with eddie effects along the sides of the midchannel flow. These eddies lead to sluggish movement of surface water between Stony Point, Michigan and Toledo, Ohio. Bottom currents, as shown in Figure , are very similar to surface currents being dominated by the Detroit River inflow. An eddy effect along the western side of the Detroit River inflow between Stoney Point, Michigan and the mouth of Maumee Bay tends to partially retain input materials leading to higher concentrations of water-quality related constituents in this area (U. S. Department of the Interior, 1968).For purposes of comparison and discussion, the Western Basin is divided into three physiographic regions: the Michigan shoreline, Maumee Bay, and the Ohio shoreline.

A closer look at the characteristics, particularly geologic, of each area follows.Michigan Shoreline Along the 30-mile stretch of shoreline between the Detroit River and Maumee Bay the dominant littoral drift is southwest.

The shoreline is low, marshy and composed of unconsolidated till and lake deposits, except for an outcrop of Sulurian dolomite at Stony Point seven miles north of Monroe. A sandy spit, Woodtick Peninsula and North Cape has formed a bay-mouth bar at the northern margin of Maumee Bay from material eroded from the low bluffs along the Michigan shoreline (Herdendorf, 1973). Marshy areas and the area around Woodtick Peninsula and North Cape are excellent spawning habitat for many lake fish species.

TABLE 1. STREAMS IN THE STUDY AREA STREAM AVERAGE % OF LAKE SUSPENDED

% OF LAKE DI§CHARGE ERIE TOTAL SOLIDS TOTAL (m /sec) (mtons/year)

WESTERN BASIN Michigan* Detroit 4988 90.0 1.42 x 106 25.7 Huron 16 0.3 1.63 x 10 3 0.1 Raisin 19 0.3 4.26 x 103 0.1 Others 20 0.4 3.69 x 103 0.1 Ohio Ottawa 3 0.1 9.07 x 102 0.1 Maumee 187 3.4 1.06 x 10 6 37.1 Toussaint 3 0.1 6.35 x 102 0.1 Portage 17 0.3 1.09 x 105 2.0 Sandusky River 8.6 0.2 0.1 CENTRAL BASIN Huron 11 0.2 1.09 x 104 0.2 Vermilion 9 0.2 8.16 x 103 0.1 Black 14 012 1.39 x 104 0.3 Rocky 9 0.2 2.68 x 10 4 0.5 Cuyahoga 23 0.4 2.36 x 105 4.3 Chagrin 9 0.2 3.18 x 10 4 0.6 Grand 1.92 x 10 5 3.5 Ashtabula 3 0.1 4.99 x 103 0.1 Conneaute 6 0.1 3.63 x 10 3 0.1 Others 31 0.6 1.81 x 105 3.3 Source: Lewis and Herdendorf (1976)

Figure I. Dominant Summer Surface 'Currents.

.:. -, -- -..To. ] J-. --.~ ~Ci Voland SanduskyA', ,*Source: U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1967.:,.."/ ."

Figure 2. Dominant Summer Bottom Currents.I I I I I I .,"t, '; i" -KILOMETERS W, 4f. ftj( t' t \42/ /" "r --.--, ...,.."....Toleado .'-,:,~*. ,*.. ..4.**C. ,. e. and.4..1 Source: U.S. Dept. of Interior, 1967.

6 The bottom here slopes gently from the shore out to an 8-meter depth, 5-10 miles offshore (U. S. Department of the Interior, 1968). A thin band of sand and gravel lines the shoreline with the bottom offshore made up of a mud sand mixture (Thomas et al., 1976). Several small streams of little more than local importance enter the Western Basin here (Table 1). The largest of these, the River Raisin, is used extensively as a water source for industrial purposes and electrical generation.

Maumee Bay Maumee Bay lies at the western-most end of Lake Erie between 41 0 41'N and 41 0 45'N latitude and 83 0 20'W and 83 0 29'W longitude.

It is separated from Lake Erie by two spits (Figure 1): (1) Woodtick Penninsula, with North Cape at its southern tip, extends southerly from the Michigan shoreline; and (2) Little Cedar Point projecting northwesterly from the Ohio shore (Herdendorf et al., 1978). At the mouth of the Maumee River, Maumee Bay is very important as a nursery area for different species and many fish reside there throughout their first summer before moving out into the lake (Herdendorf and Cooper, 1975; Fraleigh et al., 1974).Bathymetrically, Maumee Bay is a broad shallow shelf sloping gently downward toward the northeast.

The maximum depth is 3 meters below low water atum and mean depth is 1.5 meters. Bisecting Maumee Bay in a northest-southwest direction is a. navigation channel maintained annually to a 'depth of 10 meters. Adjacent to the channel, about 2000 feet from either side, is a series of linearly arranged dredge spoil islands and shoals, composed of sandy material, creating possible spawning sites for walleye, yellow perch and white bass.The shoreline of Maumee Bay is characterized by low clay bluffs, is highly developed as a residential/industrial area to the west and grading through a less intense development on the south to marsh on the northeast.

Bottom material is lacustrine clay with a thin overburden of recently deposited silt, except near Little Cedar Point where a relatively thick overburden of sand exists (Herdendorf, 1975).Ohio Shoreline The 21-mile shoreline between Little Cedar Point and Port Clinton, Ohio is characterized by a northwest drift. Elongated, dominately sandy bodies of low relief, their long axes lying essentially parallel to the trend of lake bottom contours, dominate much of the area east of Little Cedar Point. These features lie lakeward of extensive marshy areas and lowlands, most of which have been diked. The sandy bodies are composed mostly of fine, well-sorted sand. Coarser sand and fine gravel are dominant fractions in surf zone.The nearshore bottom slopes very gently lakeward.

As distance is increased offshore the sand particles gradually become smaller in size. A short distance offshore a band of fine lacustrine clay lies parallel to the shoreline.

Northeast of this band of clay, between Wards Canal and Marblehead Penninsula lie extensive areas of sand, gravel and rocky shoals (Pincus, 1960). These areas provide perhaps the best spawning I habitat in the study area.

CENTRAL BASIN Along the Ohio reach of the Central Basin the predominate feature is a complex of residential, commercial and industrial development extending almost continuously from the low lake planes near Sandusky to the high bluffs at Painesville, Ashtabula, and Conneaute.

Few if any natural areas remain. Overall the impression is a relative homogenous environment characterized by extensive development.

Water use in the Central Basin is largely limited to shipping and heavy industry; recreational uses are confined to tributaries and the immediate nearshore zone. Recreational fishing is largely limited to the tributaries, piers, and breakwalls.

Commercial fishermen, however, catch more yellow, perch annually in the Central Basin than in the Western Basin (Davies et al., 1979).The Central Basin is separated from the Western Basin by the rock escarpment previously described and from the Eastern. Basin by a rela-tively shallow sand and gravelbar of glacial moraine origin extending between Erie, Pennsyl-vania and Long Ontario (Figure 1) (Upch rch, 1976). With a surface area of 16,177 km and...a, volume of 299.2 km the Central Basin is. the largest of the lake.'s three basins (63% of both surface area and volume of.the entire lake). The Central Basin has a maximum depth of 25.6 meters and a mean depth *of 18.5 meters (Hartman, 1972)..Several environmental conditions are r-adically different here than in the Western Basin. Because of the larger size and the fact that streams entering.the Central Basin do not carry siltloads comparable to those of the Detroit and Maumee Rivers, turbidity is.generally much lower here than in the Western Basin. By June most of the waters in the Basin are thermally stratified, with percent oxygen saturation in much of the hypolimnion approaching zero by August (Burno, .1976). Perhaps of most interest for of commercial and sport fish is. the fact that the bottom s slopes away from the shoreline at a much greater rate here than in the Western Basin, limiting potential spawning areas to a narrow band along the shoreline.

Rivers flowing into the Central Basin are small when compared to the Detroit and Maumee Rivers (Table 1). Industrial development here is extensive and most of the rivers are utilized for industrial source water.All of these rivers except for the Vermilion, Rocky and Chagrin Rivers, have extensively dredged bottoms and are used as lake front ports..The effect of wind dominant currents in the Central Basin. With its long axis essentially parallel to the prevailing southwesterly wind, this effect is especially important (United States Department of the Interior, 1968). However the dominant summer surface flow as depicted in Figure 1 shows a definite flow of Western Basin water through Pelee Passage and subsequently southward to move parallel.

along the southern shore of the lake. Bottomcurrents, (Figure 2) on the Central Basin are not similar to surface flow. Because surface currents are generally moving water in much greater quantities than can be removed from the Basin, the balancing movement must be subsurface and essentially a return flow over most of the basin (U. S. Department of Interior,.

1968), in opposition to the surface flow.

Mud covers more than two-thirds of the bottom of the Central Basin.A very narrow strip of sand and gravel can be found along most of the Ohio shoreline.

This strip reaches its greatest width of 5 miles or more between Cleveland and Fairport, Ohio (U. S. Department of Interior, 1968). Sand-deposits can also be found on the bottom of the eastern sides of breakwalls at the Huron, Vermilion, Grand, and Ashtabula Rivers, and Beaver and Conneaut Creeks (Herdendorf, 1963). For many species of fish, spawning habitat in the Central Basin is limited to man-made structures and estuarine environments of streams entering the area.

SECTION 4 METHODS SAMPLING The open lake portion of the study area in 1975 and 1976 encompassed approximately 1740 sq. km of Ohio and Ontario waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie (Figure 3). This portion of the lake was subdivided for study purposes into six depth zones, referenced to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, navigation chart 39 of Lake Erie. A two-meter contour interval was used to delineate each depth zone, each zone consisting of a vertical column of water bounded by two depth contours.Sampling stations were established in a stratified random pattern.A total of 56 stations were sampled during 1975 and 60 stations were sampled during 1976. A total of nine cruises were made between May 12 and September 3 during 1975 and fourteen cruises between April 12 and September 3 during 1976.Collections in the open lake were made during the daylight hours with conventional plankton nets (0.75 m diameter, 0.760 mm mesh, conical design). Flow rates through the nets were measured with calibrated General Oceanic flowmeters located slightly off-center.in the nets. The meters were calibrated by multiple tows of the meter suspended in a bridle over a.known distance.

During the sampling period, the nets were towed in a circular pattern to avoid propwash.

Tows were conducted at speeds of 2-5 knots from a 21-foot Boston Whaler. A single surface and bottom tow was made at each station. A single tow was made at stations where water was less than one meter deep. Stations were located with the aid of landmarks and a variety of stationary navigational aids.The Maumee River portion of the study area encompassed a 14 sq km zone extending from the river mouth to the riffles above the head of the estuary at Perrysburg, Ohio, a distance of 28.2 km (Figure 3). Sampling stations were located at the river mouth and at points in the lower estuary at 8.4 km upstream, approximately mid-estuary at a distance 14.8 km upstream and at the head of the estuary 25.4 km upstream.

Stations at the lower three locations were sampled in 1975 and 1977. In 1976, a station at the head of the estuary as well as one in the riffle above the estuary was sampled. Stations were sampled bimonthly between May 15 and October 3 in 1975, twice weekly between April 7 and June 8 in 1976, and weekly or twice weekly between March 16 and September 1 in 1977.The Sandusky River portion of the study area encompassed a 2 sq km zone extending from the river mouth at the head of Sandusky Bay to the upper limit of the estuary at the Fremont, Ohio riffle, a distance of 24.9 km (Figure 3). Four stations, including one within the riffle, were sampled twice weekly between April 12 and June 7, 1976. Sampling stations were located at the river mouth and at points 8.9 km, 15.1 km and 24.9 km upstream.-! 1.5 -

Collections in the estuaries were made during the daylight hours with conventional plankton nets (0.75 m diameter, 0.760 mm mesh, conical design). A limited number of samples were collected during the night-time hours in 1976. Plankton nets with 0.571 mm mesh netting were used in 1977. Flow rates through the nets were measured with calibrated General Oceanic flowmeters located slightly off-center in the nets. The meters were calibrated by multiple tows of the meter suspended in a bridle over a known distance.

During the sampling periods, the nets were towed in a circular pattern from an outboard motor powered boat. Samples in the riffles were taken by walking a hand-held net over a known distance.

A single surface and bottom sample was collectedat each station in 1975 and 1976. Triplicate surface and bottom samples were colelcted at stations in the lower portion of the estuary in 1977.A total of ten transects in the nearshore portion of the Western Basin (five located along the Michigan shore, two within Maumee Bay and three along the Ohio shore) were sampled during eight cruises between April 13 and July 8, 1977 (Figure 4). Five replicate samples were col-lected at each of three stations composing each transect.

The mean density of the five replicates was calculated and standardized to the number of larvae per 100 cubic meters based upon the volume filtered.Along the Ohio and Michigan shores, stations were located immediately nearshore at the 1 to 1.5 meter depth contour and further offshore at the 3 and 5 meter depth contours.

Transects ran perpendicular to the shoreline.

Within Maumee Bay, the two transects were located east and west of the navigation channel and ran parallel to the channel. Maumee Bay stations were located in water two to three meters deep. All stations were located with the aid of lighted, landmarks, a variety of lighted aids to navigation and a lead line. Oblique full stratum tows were made during the night with conventinal plankton nets (0.75 m diameter, 0.571 mm mesh, conical design). Tows were conducted at speeds of 2-5 knots from a 21-foot Boston Whaler.A total of ten transects in the nearshore zone of the Central Basin portion of Lake Eriewere sampled during eight cruise periods between May 2 and August 9, 1978 (Table 5). In addition, three river mouth locations (Grand River, Black River, and Huron River) were sampled during the eight intervals.

Four replicate samples were collected at three stations composing each transect.

The mean density of each species of fish was calculated and standardized to report the number of larvae per 100 cubic meters of water. Stations were located immediately nearshore at the one to two meter depth contour (this contour depth was absent and samples were not colelcted at this station for a transect in the vicinity of Cleveland) and offshore at the five and ten meter depth contours.

Transects ran perpendicular to the shoreline.

All stations were located with the aid of lighted landmarks and depth meters or lead lines. Oblique full stratum tows were made during the night with conventional plankton nets (0.75 m, 0.571 mm mesh, conical design).Field collections were preserved in buffered 5 percent formaldehyde solution.

Larvae from each sample were identified to the lowest taxon possible, counted, measured for total length and transferred to a 70 percent ethanol solution.

Several species, which are morphologically similar during their early developmental stages, could not be efficiently 0 0 FIGURE 3. STATION LOCATION AND DELINEATION OF STUDY AREA DURING 1975-1976 STUDY PERIOD 83'30'k-.

N T A R 1 0:.." '0'-'oo ,, .;:J- " .:.; .

> -.X: .'.,IL, 4::.; "_)

Ii.

I Bas Is.

0 Figure 5. LOCATION OF THE SAMPLWI3G STATIONS IN THE CENTRAL. BASIN OF LAKE ERIE 1978., Stanley 42' 30'LAKE ST. CLAIR odaRondeau H r'42'000=~ ,nr nneauthtabula, ol -,Grand River!%/ ? Chagrin River LEGEND: 0 Foss'lI fuel Cleveland ONuc] ar fuel (under 41301 I construction) 410001 separated in large samples. Gizzard shad and alewife were grouped and reported as gizzard shad/alewife.

Carp and goldfish larvae and their hybrids were similarly groups and are reported by carp/goldfish.

White bass and white perch larvae were groups and reported as white bass/white perch. Black crappie and white crappie are reported as crappie. All sunfish specimens are reported as sunfish. This study included both prolarval and postlarval developmental stages which were determined according to the definitions of Hubs (1943). Developmental stages of selected species were also determined according to the definitions of Snyder and Snyder (1978). Common and scientific names used in the text are listed in Table 2. The data was punched onto computer cards and all calculations and statistical procedures were performed using either an IBM 360 or an Amdahl 470 computer housed at the Instructional and Research Computer' Center of The Ohio State University (Barr, 1976; Hollander and Wolf, 1973).For purposes of analyzing onshore-offshore distribution along near-shore transects sampled during 1977 and 1978 the study area was divided into three depth zones: depth zone I contained all was 0-1 meter deep;depth zone 2 contained all water 1-3 meters deep in the Western Basin and 1-5 meters deep in the Central Basin, and depth zone 3 contained water 3-5 meters deep in the Western Basin and 5-10 meters deep in the Central Basin.Volume weighted estimates of the total number of larvae in each of these depth zones were calculated.

To do this it was necessary to make two assumptions:

(1) concentrations of larvae changed linearly from one station to another; and (2) the catch at each station was representative of larvae concentrations of a volume of water extending to a point mid-way between stations along the transect.Characteristics of power plants located along the Western Basin are summarized in Table 3 and the characteristics of power plants located along the Central Basin are summarized in Table 4. Open lake samples were used to estimate the number of larvae entrained at each power plant along the shoreline of our study site. These were calculated by multiplying the density of larvae at our station closest to the power plant water intake by the average flow rate for that power plant per day. No stations were sampled in close proximity to the intakes of the Toledo Edison Bayshore plant as a part of this study or Consumers Power's Whiting plant. For these power plants average larvae concentrations in Maumee Bay were used.It was assumed that concentrations of larvae change linearly with time, and coolingwater flow rates remained constant through the study period.Finally, at six power plants along the shoreline of the Central Basin: Edgewater, (Lorain), Avon Lake, Eastlake, Ashtabula A, B and C, in-plant ichthyoplankton samples were collected weekly with the cooperation of the respective utility companies.

These samples were taken to provide an estimate of the impact of power generation on fish populations in the lake. Samples for the Edgewater Plant were collected and identified by Geo-Marine, Inc. Collections at the other five plants were collected and identified by Applied Biology, Inc. Necessary infor-mation regarding collection techniques is presented in Table 5.-20 9 TABLE 2. COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC MENTIONED IN THE TEXT NAMES OF FISH SPECIES COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME Lake Sturgeon Alewife Gizzard Shad Lake Trout Lake Herring or Cisco Whitefish Rainbow Smelt Quillback Carpsucker White Sucker Carp Goldfish Cyprinids Golden Shiner Striped Shiner Emerald Shiner Spottail Shiner Bluntnose Minnow Channel Catfish Burbot Trout Perch White Bass White Perch Rock Bass White Crappie Black Crappie Smallmouth Bass Sauger Walleye Blue Pike Yellow Perch Log Perch Johnny Darter Greenside Darter Freshwater Drum Mottled Sculpin Acipenser fulvescens Alose pseudoharengus Dorosoma cepedianum Salvelinus namaycush Coregonus artedii Coregonus clupeaformis Osmerus mordax Caprodes cyprinus Catostomus commersoni Cyprinus carpio Carassius auratus Cyprinidae Notemigonus crysoleucas Notropis cornutus Notropis atherinoides NotropisT hudsonius Pmhas notatus talurus punctatus Lota lota Percops-s omiscomaycus Morone chrysops Morone americana Ambloplites rupestris Pomoxis annulris Pomoxis nigromaculatus Micropterus do.lomieui Stizostedion canadense Stizostedion vitreum vitreum Stizostedion vitreum glaucum Perca flavescens Percina caprodes Etheostoma nigrum Etheostoma blennoides Aplodinotus grunniens Cottus bairdi TABLE 3. CHARACTERISTICS OF WESTERN BASIN POWER PLANTS.Characteristic Monroe Whitting Bay.-Shore Davis-Besse Location Western Shore Western Shore Southwest Corner South Shore Western Lake Erie, Lake Erie of Maumee Bay, Basin, Locust Point Monroe, Michigan Toledo, Ohio Maximum 3,150 Megawatts 345 Megawatts

.623 Megawatts 906 Megawatts Generating Capacity Average Flow 7.3 x 106 m 3/day 1.17 x 106 m 3/day 2.83 x 10 6 m 3/day 8.18 x 10 4 m 3/day Intake Location Raisin River North Maumee Bay Maumee River 914..metersoffshore, Mile 0.1 Mile 0.1 Water Depth 4 meters Special Features Draws water from Draws water from Intake Channel Only operational power the Raisin River Maumee River 914 m drawing plant in study area with Estuary Estuary water from. cooling tower.Maumee River Estuary I 0 0 -

0 0 0 TABLE 4. CHARACTERISTICS OF CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS CHARACTERISTIC PLANT NAME Avon Point Edgewater Lake Shore Eastlake Ashtabula Ashtabula A &B. C Location Avon, Ohio Southwest Cleveland Immediately Immediately Immediately Avon Point Cornefof West of the East of the East of the Lorain Harbor Mouth of Ashtabula Ashtabula at mouth of Chagrin River River River Black River No. Electric 9 units 3 units 5 units 5 units 5 units 4 units Units Gross 1344 MW 175 MW 554 MW 1372.MW 499 MW 200 MW Generating Capacity Average Flow 832 Million 146,000 gal/ 406 million 754 million 286 million 223 million gil/day dly;-3.1 mil gal/day; 1.5 gal/day gal/day gal/day m m million m 238 million 1 31 million 0 38 million m m3 m3 Distance 375 m 350 m 375 m 40 m 425 m 1200 m Offshore Depth of 5 m 5 m 5 m 4.6 m 4.6 m 9 m Intake I I!N TABLE 5. IN-PLANT COLLECTION METHODS CHARACTERISTIC PLANT NAME Avon Point Edgewater Lake Shore Eastlake Ashtabula Ashtabula A & B C Data Collected Applied Geo-Marine Inc. Applied Applied Applied Applied Biology Inc. Samples were Biology Inc. Biology Inc. Biology Inc. Biology Inc.6-hour pump obtained by 6-hour pump 6-hour pump 6-hour pump 6-hour pump at surface, tapping a at surface, at surface, at surface,-

at surface, midchannel line off one midchannel midchannel midchannel midchannel and bottom of two of and bottom and bottom and bottom of intake Unit #3* of intake of intake of intake channel circulating channel channel channel channel behind water lines behind behind behind behind traveling Water filtered traveling traveling.

traveling traveling screens. through 505- screens, screens. screens, screens.Day and micron mesh Day and Day and Day and Day and night samples plankton net night samples night samples night samples. night samples.Special Intake curved Intake pro- Intake curved Intake curved Intaked cur~ved Subsurface Features NE to reduce tected by NE to reduce to W to mini- north intake well effects of breakwalls effects of mize inflow offshore storms-drive storms-drive of debris and debris into debris warm water intake canal into canal from Chagrin 0 0 0Q SECTION 5 RESULTS OVERVIEW In 1975 and 1976, the study area encompassed the U.S. waters of the Western Basin, a limited portion of adjacent Ontario waters and the water of the Maumee River estuary and Sandusky River estuary. Personnel from The Ohio State University collecied samples in Ohio and Ontario waters while personnel from Michigan State University and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources collected samples in Michigan and Ontario waters. -The overall purpose of the effort was to gain a first-order approximation of the distribution and abundance of larval fish species in the U.S. and adjacent Ontario waters of the Western Basin. The study focused, in particular, on yellow perch larvae and the impact of entrainment of yellow perch larvae at the Monroe, Michigan electrical generating plant operated by Detroit Edison Company. An analysis of the impact of entrainment at this facility during the 1975 and 1976 period was reported by Patterson (1979). This study reports analyses of samples collected by Ohio State University personnel.

Subsequently, an intensive sampling effort was conducted in a portion of the nearshore zone of the Western Basin and the Maumee estuary in 1977 and in.the nearshore zone of the south shore of the Central Basin in 1978. Independent analyses of the impact of entrainment at selected power plants were performed for selected species during each year of the study, 1975-1978.

SOURCES OF ERROR AND VARIABILITY IN SAMPLING Inherent to all ichthyoplankton sampling programs are multiple sources of sample variability.

This variability limits the reliability of the data, applicable statistical treatments and discussion of observed results. Therefore sample variability must be an important consideration when discussing ichthyoplankton investigations.

Several methods for collection of ichthyoplankton are available, each having special applications and each contributing to variability in a different way. Three different collection techniques were used in this study. Metered nets were used in the open lake survey and either submer-Sible pumps or plant line taps were used to collect in-plant samples.When comparing results obtained using a variety of sampling gear, the limitations of each sampling method must be an integral part of the analysis.,Sources of sample variability have been identified as arising from three sources: (1) non-random spatial distributions of larvae; (2)mechanical problems inherent to the particular sampling gear used and (3)active avoidance of the sampling device (Weibe and Hollander, 1968). A brief discussion of these sources of variability, how they influence results of this particular study, and our efforts to control each follows.

The non-random distribution of larval fishes can affect the validity of assumptions upon which statistical treatments are based and limit the confidence that can be placed on data interpretation.

Thus variation in the distribution (patchiness) are of primary concern and efforts must be made to keep variability to a minimum. The effects of patchy distri-butions can be minimized.by collecting replicate samples and filtering large volumes of vWater during each sample collection (Weibe, 1978). The use of replicate samples to overcome patchiness is not a panacea. To detect a change in five species from day to night or location to location would require at least seven replicates.

To detect a ten percent dif-ference in numbers of individuals would require. ten replicates in a densely populated area and 15 or more in sparsely populated area (Roessler, 1965). Cole (1978b) analyzed catch results from three lake stations along the Michigan shoreline of Lake Erie. He-cohcluded that the intensity of sampling on a given date must be increased.at least 100 times (depending on species and time) to reduce permissible error from 50 per-cent to ten percent of. the mean with a 95 percent confidence interval.When collecting samples with a metered net, as in our lake survey, long oblique tows through the water column .are best for reducing the effects of patchiness (McGowan, and Fraundorf, .1966). By making long oblique tows. the probability of the net passing through a patch of larvae suspended in the water column is increased.

Replicate samples collected by towing a net introduce problems of their own by disturbing the study area by repeated passage of the boat motor and net (Brown and Langford, 1975). In a summary of 13 studies, Weibe and Hollander (1968) demon-strated that a 95 percent confidence interval for a single: net tow exceeded one half to two times the observed value.Pump samplers, generally, can not sample and adequate.

volume of water to overcome the effects of patchiness.

When Kenco pump rates provided by Reutter, et al. (1978) are compared with volumes- filtered during this survey, one co5ncludes that it would require operating pump samplers three hours to sample the same volume of water as a single three minute net tow.Sources of variability associated with mechanical problems of metered nets include extrusion of larvae through the mesh, clogging of mesh (Aron, et al., 1965; Taylor, 1953; Winsor and Clark, 1940) and".subtle changes in c6Tlection technique (Aron and Collard, 1969). Towed nets are selective.

Retention of various size larvae and eggs is.'lar~gely a function of the size and the distortion of the mesh (Vannucci,:

1968). A single mesh size can not sample the entire size eange of an.Aimportant species with 100% efficiency (Bowels et al., 1978). For example the size range for rainbow smelt that may be sampled at the same time ranges from 5mm to 20 mm long. Very early life stages are frequently under sampled because of mesh selection due to extrusion of small larvae, through the net (Ahlstrom, 1954; Saville, 1959; Lenarz, 1972).. Escape of organ-isms larger than the mesh is aided by the compressibility of the organisms and the flexibility of the net (Vannucci, 1968). Extrusions of. larvae through the net can be reduced by decreasing towing speed or reducing mesh size (Quirk, Lawler and Matuskey, 1974). However, if'one decreases towing speed active avoidance may.increase; finer meshes are more susceptible to clogging.

As a sample tow progresses, organisms and debris become trapped in the meshes of the net, decreasing the amount of water passing through the net. As the tow continues and the degree of clogging increases, the filtering efficiency of the net, i.e. the ability of the net to represen-tatively sample species distribution and composition, continually decreases (Bowles et al., 1978). As the net becomes clogged water passing through the mouth W-TIT not be able to pass through the mesh, creating a backwell and pressure wave at the net mouth. This pressure wave at the mouth of the net can sweep larvae not exhibiting an escape response away from the mouth of the net, stimulate active avoidance, and decrease the performance of the flow meter.Accurate estimates of the amount of water filtered are essential for quantitative ichthyoplankton measurements.

Center mounted flow meters tend to register a lower volume of water than is actually filtered (Taylor, 1953). Theoretical calculations of water filtered based on center mounted flow meter are low and generally unreliable (Aron et al., 1965; Taylor, 1953; and:Winsor and Clark, 1940).Changes in net speed and towing depth can produce relatively large changes in the number and size distribution of larvae captured (Aron, 1969). Relatively small changes in boat speed, in spite of careful control of the throttle setting, can introduce a considerable variability in actual net speed and depth, significantly affecting the length fre-quency distributions of some species in the catch (Aron and Collard, 1969). Nobel (1970) noted this effect to be extreme for yellow perch.Pump samples have several advantages over metered nets. The effects of clogging and avoidance are greatly reduced. Pumps can provide a more accurate measure of the water volume filtered.

However, pumps can not provide adequate sample volumes (unless high volume pumps are used) to overcome variance associated with patchy distribution (Bowles, et al., 1978). Generally, pump sampling in areas such as power plant intke--and discharge structures is more quantitative than net sampling because tur-bulence does not interfere as much as with net performance (Icanberry and Richardson, 1973; Davies and Jensen,.1974).

A major disadvantage of using pumps to sample is that a high percentage of larvae become damaged and are then unidentifiable.

No results from successful pipe tap samplers or in-li-ne filters have been reported in the literature (Bowles et al., 1978). Several utilities have discontinued within-plant sampling-hecause of the large number of damaged and extruded organisms.

In addition to these problems water velocity through the pipes, even under turbulent conditions, decreases at the boundary near the pipe wall. The particle distribution of larvae within the pipe is affected by the water velocity profile. Thus samples representative of a cross-section of a pipe are difficult to obtain.Active avoidance of a net is a problem particularly with older, more developed larvae. Hydraulic characteristics of the gear and flow condi-tions in the vicinity of the gear are the most important factors influ-encing the accuracy of metered nets (Bowles et al., 1978). Fish are highly sensitive to pressure stimuli (Knighft-_o-6es and Qasin, 1955).Hydrostatic pressure ques from the sampling gear, i.e., turbulence caused by the towing line and bridles moving through the water or to a pressure ,wave at the mouth of the net, can stimulate active avoidance in larvae which have developed limited swimming capabilities (Bary et al., 1958;Flemminger and Cluttler, 1965). Brown and Langford (1975) reported that turbulence caused by the movement of the boat motor and the net can decrease the accuracy of replicate samples taken in a single area.Water turbulance created by pump samplers is much less than that created by moving nets. Therefore active avoidance of pump samplers is much less than that for meter nets, resulting in a more representative length frequency distribution of larvae..In-summary, three sampling methods were used in this study (metered nets, pump samplers, and in-plant line taps). In-plant line taps have never been demonstrated to provide accurate samples. Pump samplers are a good sampling method for areas difficult to sample using nets. If large volumes of water are filtered, pump samples are believed to be more quantitative than those obtained using nets because turbulance does not interfere as much with pump performance (Icanberry and Richardsont, ..1973).However, a large proportion of larvae obtained using pump s.amplers are damaged and left unidentifiable.

Sampling large volumes of water. is relatively easy with metered nets. However active avoidance

ýof... older larvae stimulated by water turbulance in front of the net results :in, an, underestimation.of density of larger larvae..", WESTERN. BASINi 1975-1976 A total of 19 taxa of larval fish was, collected in Ohio and Ontario waters of the Western Basin in 1975 and 1976 (Table 6). The raw data, consisting of the number of larvae at each station for each sampling-date can be found in Herdendorf, et al. (1976, 1977), as well as in Heniken, 1977. Yellow perch larvae wei-e i-entified in samples from four cruises in.1975 and four cruises in 1976. Analysis of yellow perch data indicates concentrations in bottom samples were significantly higher than in surface samples during three of the four sampling periods in:1975 'and.during two of the, four periods in 1976 (Wilcoxin signed rank test, p <0.05). During the period of peak abundance in 1975 and 1976, average yellow perch concentrations were significantly higher in the inshore*depth zones than 'in the shallow offshore reef areas (Wilcoxin rank sum test, p <0.05). With the exception of the first cruise encountering perch:!;, larvae in 1975 and the last one in 1976, concentrations of yellow perch inshore samples were higher than concentratio nsin all offshore samples Ahroughout the period of capture during both years (Wilcoxin rank sum:test, p <0.20). For the most part, mean densities were not significantly different in series arbitrarily drawn sectors (A-G) of the study area.(Kruskal-Wallis test, p <0.05). An in-depth presentation of perch con-centrations within the study area is provided by Patterson (1979).Emerald shiner and gizzard shad were the most abundant larvae'collected.

Pro-larval stages of gizzard shad and emerald shiner were rare, post-larvae predominated.

The greatest gizzard shad numbers con-sistently occurred in the highly turbid waters of Maumee estuary and bay and in the Sandusky estuary and bay. Emerald shiner numbers were greatest in the less turbid, open water portions of the areas sampled. The relative abundance of emerald shiner was different in each of the two years of the study. The large difference served to alter the relative abundance of other species even though estimates of their respective numbers did not change appreciably.

No simple explanation of this differ-ence in abundance is apparent at this time. Differential mortality, differential susceptibility to the sampling gear and attendant age factors could affect the relative rankings of the species collected.

Pro-larval smelt were almost entirely lacking in collections.

Smelt larvae densities were greatest at open water, offshore sampling stations.Inspection of smelt concentrations and water mass movements lead to the conclusion that smelt in the Western Basin are dispersed by the Detroit River discharge and smelt in the Central Basin are dispersed into the Ohio nearshore zone from spawning areas at Point Pelee and Pelee Island by currents passing through Pelee Passage. Smelt larvae were rarely collected at nearshore sampling points. Walleye larvae were collected at shalalow nearshore stations and on offshore reefs. Nearshore distri-butions of walleye and yellow perch were quite similar. Logperch and white sucker larvae were collected in greatest numbers at nearshore rather than offshore stations.

Of particular interest is the finding of larval whitefish on the reefs and in the nearshore area near Locust Point and larval sculpin on the reefs of the island area. Formerly abundant (Trautman, 1957), this study confirms a relict breeding populations of each is extant in the Western Basin.It is likely that some species with very small pro-larval stages were not colelcted and the abundance of others with relativey small larval stages were underestimated due to the relatively large mesh nets used to collect samples in 1975 and 1976. It is reasonable to assume that post-larval stages were effectively samples. Larval stages were determined using the definitions of Hubbs (1942). Selected species were also deter-mined using the definitions of Snyder and Snyder (1978). Lengths and stages are provided in Appendix A.MAUMEE AND SANDUSKY RIVER ESTUARIES, 1975-1977 The results of this three-year sampling effort are summarized in Tables 7 and 8. A total of 17 taxa of larval fish are reported from the Maumee River estuary and 11 taxa from the Sandusky estuary. The raw data consisting of number of larvae at each station for each sampling date can be found in Bartholomew (1979); Herdendorf (1977); Herdendorf and Cooper (1975 and 1976); Herdendorf, Cooper, Heniken and Snyder (1976 and 1977);Reutter, Herdendorf and Sturm (1978a and 1978b and Snyder (1978). Gizzard shad, white bass and freshwater drum composed 98 percent of the fish larvae collected each year in the Maumee River estuary. These species constituted approximately 91 percent of the larvae collected during the study of the Sandusky River estuary. Snyder's (1978) investigation of larvae in the riffle areas above the estuaries proper indicated a greater abundance of carp larvae in the riffle areas. This indicated greater carp larvae densities in littoral areas and may have resulted in an overall underestimate of their abundance in the study areas. The abundance and period of occurrence of larval fish species distributed predominantly i6 the littoral zone, e.g., sunfish, crappie, catfish, madtoms, were similarly underestimated.

The abbreviated sampling period in 1976 probably resulted in an underestimate of the relative abundance of species, freshwater drum in particular, exhibiting period of peak abundance which extend beyond the limits of the sampling periods in 1976.During periods of high densities ( >100 larvae/100 m 3), Snyder found significantly (ANOVA, p <0.05) more larval gizzard shad and white bass in sheltered low flow portions than in the mid-channel portion of the mid-estuary sampling location.

The predominate number of rainbow smelt and yellow perch larvae were collected at the Maumee River mouth location.Very limited numbers of yellow perch and no rainbow smelt were collected further upstream; neither species were colected in the Sandusky River*estuary.

It is suggested that lake water intruding into the lower portion of. the estuary carried lake spawned yellow perch and rainbow smelt larvae to the river mouth location (Bartholomew, 1979; Reutter, et al., 1978a, b;,.Snyder, 1978).Larval walleyes were of particular interest.

Walleye larvae ranked fourth, fifth and sixth in each respective year of the study in the Maumee River estuary and ranked sixth among all larvae captured in the Sandusky River estuary. The average density of larvae throughout the study ranged from less than 1.0 to 3.5/100 m .Snyder analyzed egg and larvae counts.-from-samples taken in the riffle areas. Thq results indicate a patchy, or i,.nonrandom, distribution of walleye eggs (7 dispersion test) while larvae...were randomly (Poisson).

distributed.

Bartholomew found no significant differences (Wilcoxin signed rank tests, p <0.05) between numbers of larval yellow perch and walleye in surface and bottom samples collected at the mid-estuary and lower estuary locations.

Similar analyses at the river mouth location revealed significant (p <0.05) differences in larval walleye but no in yellow perch numbers. Larval walleye were apparently located in near-bottom areas at this location.

The effect of lake water intrusionon walleye distribution at the river mouth location was not-determined.

Overall, larval walleye densities decrease from relatively high densities upsteream to relatively low densities downstream.

Calculations by Snyder (1978) indicated that the Maumee estuary produced larger numbers of individuals of all larval species than did the Sandusky estuary although higher densities of walleye and logperch larvae were recorded in the Sandusky estuary. Approximately 100 times more gizzard shad larvae were estimated in the Maumee than the Sandusky estuary. White bass larvae were collected almost exclusively in the estuaries, at river mouths and in Maumee and Sandusky bays. The tribu-taries of the Western and Central Basins seem to be the primary white bass spawning areas. The bays may serve as nursery grounds for post-larvae and juveniles.

The greatest numbers of freshwater drum were collected in the same, highly turbid areas.The combined volumes of the Maumee and Sandusky estuaries are less than two percent of the Western Basin study area. Comparison of similar sampling dates indicates the estimated number of larvae in the Maumee estuary was equal to that of the Western Basin study area. On a fish per volume basis, the Maumee estuary contained more gizzard shad, white bass, logperch, walleye and freshwater drum than the Western Basin study area on many sampling dates.

-r TABLE 6. PERIOD OF CAPTURE AND RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FIS4 IN THE OHIO WATERS OF THE WESTERN BASIN OF LAKf ERIE DURING 1975 AND 1976 SPECIES FIRST CAPTURE LAST CAPTURE PEAK ABUNDANCE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE' 1975 1976 1975 1976 1975 1976 Gizzard Shad/Alewife 24 Hay 30 April 3 Sept. 3 Sept. June -Aid-July 40%(1) 171(2)Lake Whitefish

-- 12 April -- 30 April Late April -- 0.1%Rainbow Smelt 13 May .10 May 13 July 21 June Mid -:Late May 7%(5) 7%(3) " Mooneye 22 May 22 May -Late May I D0.11%Carp/Goldfish 23 May 30 May 4 Aug. 28 July Mid- Late June 27 0.6%(8)Emerald Shiner 22 Nay 22 June. 3 Sept. 3 Sept. Mid-June -Early Aug. 16%(3) 621(1)Spottail Shiner 22 Hay 23 May 2 July 2 July Early -Mid-June 21(B, 2.7%(6)Quillback Carpsucker 1 June 23 May 17 June 23 May .Early.- Mid-June .0.1% -O.1%White Sucker 22 May 30 April 22 May 30 May Mid -Late May .0.11% X0.1%Troutperch

-- 23 May -- 23 May Late Maj .0.1%White Bass/White Perch 22 May 23 April 15 July 4 Aug. Early -Mid-June 2%(6) 0.30(10)Sunfish (Lepomis spp.) 21 June 22 June 25 July 28 July Early -Mid-July -CD.11 O.21 Smallmouth .s 11 June -- 11 June Early June ,D.1 -Crappie (PoR xis sppe) 1 June 7 June 4 Aug.- 3 Sept. Late June -Early July <0.1% ,0.1%Yellow Perch 12 Hay 23 April 23 June 7 July Early May -Early June 12%(4) 5.,B(4)Logperch Darter 11 June 7 June 3 July 16 July. N Midc.June

<0.11 40.1%9 Walleye 22 May 21 AprIl 22 May 22 May Late April .Early May <0.1% 0.8%(7)Freshwater Drum 22 May 7 June 4 Aug. 5 Aug. Early -Late June 19%(2) 4%(5)Sculpin (Cottus sp.) -- 30 April -- 22 May Early May -- 40.1%aNumbers enclosed parenthetically indicate relative rank N)TABLE 7. LIMNETIC FISH LARVAE FROM THE MAUMEE RIVER ESTUARY, 1975-1977.

First Capture Last Capture ..Period of Avg. DensJt7 Relative AbundanceZ Avg. Denslty*Peak Abundance No./] ce 197S 1976 1977 SPECIES 1975 1976 1977 1975 1976 1977 3 year Sunmary 1976 i977 Gizzard Shad/Alewife 15 May 23 Apr 7 Pay 25 Aug 8 June 25 Aug Late May-Early June 355 49%(1) 89%(1) 77%(1) 278 Rainbow Smelt 25 June 7 May 7 May 24 July 8 June 28 July --- ,.1 0.61(5) (0.13(9) '0.11(14)

'1 Carp/Goldfish 15 May 21 Apr 24 Apr S Aug 8 June 25 Aug Late May 34 -0.1%(8) 4%(3) 0.21(6) '1 Emerald Shiner 25 June 4 June 25 Aug --- 18 Aug Late-July

--- 0.31(7) --- 0.11(8) ." Spottall Shiner --- M8 May 23 May --.. 11 Aug --- --- <0.11(10) 4-Quillback

.. .. 7 May --. .7 May .......-.

4.1Z(15) '1 White Sucker 15 May 21 Apr 25 Apr 15 May 8 June 11 May Early May 2 -C0.11 0.1%(8) ,0.11(1l)

,1 Channel Catfish 8 July -- 27 Pay 24 July --. 11 Aug .... '0.11(10)i

-'0.11(13)

'L.Madtom (Noturus sp.) 24 July --- 7 July 24 July 14 July .. 0.11 -- -D.11(17) 41 Troutperch

--- 15 may -- 15 May -...... .. -0.11(16) 4 White Bass/White Perch 15 Pay 27 Apr 14 May 24 July B June 4 Aug Late May-Early June 24 3%(3) 6%(Z) 7%(3) 79 Sunfish (Lepomis spp.) a July -- 24 May 25 Aug *-- 28 July -..--- 40.11(9) -1(4) 2 pie amoxis spp.) --- --- 31 May --. .. 11 Aug ...... '-0.11(10)

'.11(9) -1 Yellow Perch 15 May 23 Apr 30 Apr 5 Aug 8 June 25 Aug Mld-May-Early June 3 0.6%(4) 0.1%(6) 0.3%(5) 1 Valleye 15 May 8 Apr 16 Apr 15 My 20 Hay 15 May Mid-Late April .41 0.4%(6) 0.1%(5) 0.21(71 3.5 Logperch 6 June 23 Apr 25 Apr 6 June 27 May 7 July Mid-Late May 1 .0.11 0.1%(7) L.1%(1Z) 41 Freshwater Drum 6 June 25 May 11 May 5 Aug B June I Sept Early June 4 46%(2) 0.4%(4) 14%(Z) 60]Truncated sampling period In 1976 (7 April to S June)2 Relative rank Indicated parenthetically TABLE 8. LIMNETIC FISH LARVAE FROM THE SANDUSKY RIVER ESTUARY. 1976.SPECIES First Capture Last Canture Period of Relative Abundance 2 Avg. Density 1976 1976k -Peak Abundance 1976 No.!loom0 Gizzard Shad/Alewife 26 April 7 June 80%(1) 61 Carp/Goldfish 22 April 7 June --- 3%(4) 36 White Sucker 26 Aptil 31 May Mid-May 0.3%(7) 1 Sucker (Catastomidae sp.) 19 May 19 May Mid-May '0.1 --Troutperch 2 June 2 June --- 0.3%(8) --White Bass/White Perch 26-April 7 June --- 11%(2) 10 Sunfish (Lepomi.s spp.) 3 May. 3 May --- 40.1% --Crappie (Pomoxis spp.) 26 May 26 May --- C0.11 --Walleye 12 April 3 May Late April 0.6%(6) 1 Logperch 22 April 7 June --- 4%(3) 4 Freshwater Drum 26 May 7 June " 0.7%(5) 7 1 Truncated sampling period'(12 April to 7 June)2 Relative rank indicated parenthetically WESTERN BASIN, 1977 An intensive survey of the nearshore zone of the Western Basin in 1977 resulted in the collection of 20 taxa of larval fishes. Sixteen species were identified, representing 10 families and comprising 99.05%of the catch. The other 0.05% of the catch was identified to the genus or family level.Ten species, gizzard shad, yellow perch, emerald shiner, white bass, carp, freshwater drum, log perch, walleye, rainbow smelt and spottail shiner were collected in numbers great enough to be considered abundant (i.e., average basin-wide density 0.10/100 m 3). Four species, gizzard shad, yellow perch, emerald shiner, and white bass made up over 97% of the catch, with gizzard shad alone accounting for 87% of the total catch. The other 10 taxa were represented by a few or sometimes only a single specimen.

Table 9 lists the average density for the entire sampling period and percentage of the total catch represented by each taxon for the entire nearshore zone of the Western Basin.Seventeen taxa of larval fishes were captured along the Michigan shoreline from Stoney Point to Woodtick Peninsula.

Eleven taxa, gizzard shad, emerald shiner, yellow perch, carp, white bass, log perch, rainbow smelt, freshwater drum, walleye, spottail shiner, and sunfish Lepomis spp.were abundant.

Five species, gizzard shad, emerald shiner, yeTlow perch, carp, and white bass made up 98.5% of the catch. Whitefish larvae, although rare, were captured on April 29th along the entire Michigan shoreline.

Whitefish densities were greatest at Station M2 where the average density of larvae was found to be 9103 per 100 m (see Figure 6 for station location).

Table 10 lists the average density for the entire sampling period and the percentage of the total catch represented by each taxon of larvae collected along the Michigan shoreline.

Samples collected in Maumee Bay contained a total of 18 taxa of larval fishes. Gizzard shad, white bass, yellow perch, emerald shiner, fresh-water drum, rainbow smelt, carp, log perch, walleye, and spottail shiner larvae were found to be abundant.

Three species, gizzard shad, white bass, and yellow perch made up over 97.5% of the catch with gizzard shad larvae representing 90.58% of the total larvae catch. Sauger larvae were captured on May 12 and on June 3 at two locations, MB2/2 and MBI/2. Table 11 lists the average density for the entire sampling period and the percentage of the total catch represented by each taxon of larvae collected in Maumee Bay.Fifteen taxa were collected during our sampling effort along the Ohio shoreline of the Western Basin. Again gizzard shad yellow perch, emerald shiner, white bass, walleye, freshwater drum, log 'perch, carp, smelt, and spottail shiner were abundant.

Game fish, yellow perch, white bass and walleye contributed to 13.8% of the total larvae captured.

Whitefish larvae were found in a single sample collected on April 29 at Station 0H3/1 (see Figure 6 for station location).

Table 12 lists the average density for the entire sampling period and the percentage of the total catch represented by each taxon of larvae collected along the Ohio shoreline.

-34 0 lraq, e4l, IC4 r 0 jitj MICHIGAN " .M2/1 ?.R/2 M2/3* M1/2 M1/2 M1/3 Figure-6.

Western Basin Station Numbers and Locations.

%'4.-~, 1* -/OHIO 0 5 miles; : V)

TABLE 9. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED IN THE WESTERN BASIN OF LAKE ERIE IN 1977 SPECIES AVERAGE DENSITX 1 PERCENT 2 (# larvae/lOOm')

OF CATCH Gizzard Shad/Alewife 266.16 82.58 Yellow Perch 21.31 6.61 Emerald Shiner 18.72 5.81 White Bass 7.85 2.44 Carp 2.82 0.88 Freshwater Drum 1.76 0.55 Log Perch 1.43 0.44 Walleye 0.99 0.31 Rainbow Smelt 0.88 0.28 Spottail Shiner 0.18 0.06 Unidentified Sunfish 0.05 0.02 (Lepomis spp.)Whitefish 0.04 0.01 Unidentified Cyprinidae spp. 0.03 0.01 White Sucker 0.02 <0.01 Quillback Carpsucker 0.02 <0.01 Channel Catfish 0.01 <0.01 Trout Perch 0.01 <0.01 Sauger 0.01 <0.01 Unidentified Percidae spp. <0.01 <0.01 Unidentified Crappie <0.01 <0.01 (Pomoxis spp.)TOTAL 322.30 1 Average densities found by dividing the sum of the calculated densities by the number of tows taken during period of larval occurrence.

2 Species ranked according to descending percent of catch.

TABLE 10. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED ALONG THE MICHIGAN SHORELINE FROM STONEY POINT TO WOODTICK PENINSULA IN 1977 SPECIES AVERAGE DENSITY1 PERCENT 2 (# larvae/100 m 3) OF CATCH Gizzard Shad/Alewife 193.82 75.00 Emerald Shiner 31.98 12.38 Yellow Perch 21.07 8.15 Carp 4.77 1.85 White Bass 3..02 1.17 Log Perch 2.00 0.76 Rainbow Smelt 0.63 0.24 Freshwater Drum 0.50 0.19 Walleye 0.21 0.08 Spottail Shiner 0. 12. 0.04 Unidentified Sunfish 0.711 0.04 (Lepomis spp.).Whitefish 0.09 0.04 Unidentified.

Cyprinidae spp. 0.06 0.02 White Sucker 0.01 < 0.01 Trout Perch 0.0.1 < 0.01 Channel Catfish .0.01 < 0.01 Unidentified Crappie 0.o01 < 0.01 (Pomoxis spp.)TOTAL 258.42 1Average density found by dividing the sum of the calculated densities by the number of tows taken during period of larval occurrence.

2Species ranked according to descending percent of catch.

TABLE 11. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED IN MAUMEE BAY IN 1977 SPECIES AVERAGE PERCENT 2 DENSITY 3 OF CATCH (# larvae/lOOm 3)Gizzard Shad/Alewife 541.80 90.58 White Bass 23.32 3.99 Yellow Perch 17.84 2.98 Emerald Shiner 5.57 0.93 Freshwater Drum 5.07 0.85 Rainbow Smelt 2.00 0.34 Carp 1.22 0.21 Log Perch 0.74 0.12 Walleye 0.30 0.05 Spottail Shiner 0.16 0.03 Sauger 0.05 <0.01 Unidentified 0.05 <0.01 Quillback Carpsucker 0.02 <0.01 Unidentified Cyprinidae spp. 0.02 0.01 Channel Catfish 0.01 <0.01 Unidentified Percidae spp. 0.01 <0.01 Unidentified Sunfish 0.01 <0.01 (Lepomis spp.)Trout Perch 0.01 0.01 TOTAL 598.18 1 Average density found by dividing the sum of the calculated densities by the number of tows made during the period of larval occurrence.

2 Species ranked according to descending order of percent of catch.

TABLE 12. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED ALONG THE OHIO SHORELINE BETWEEN LITTLE CEDAR POINT AND LOCUST POINT IN 1977 SPECIES AVERAGE DENSI Y 1 PERCENT (#larvae/lOOmI)

OF CATCH Gizzard Shad/Alewife 183.26 81.27 Yellow Perch 24.19 10.65 Emerald Shiner 6.97 3.07 White Bass 4.50 1.99 Walleye 2.72 1.18 Freshwater Drum 1.35 0.60 Log Perch 1.04 0.45 Carp 0.85 0.37 Smelt 0.54 0.24 Spottail Shiner 0.25 0.11 Whitefish 0.05 0.02 Unidentified Crappie <0.02 -<0.01 (Pomoxis spp.)Channel Catfish <0.01 <0.01 Trout Perch 0.01 <0.01 Quillback Carpsucker 0.01 <0.01 TOTAL 231.20 1Average densities found by dividing the sum of the calculated densities by the number of tows made during the period of larval abundance.

2 Species ranked according to descending percent of catch.

TABLE 13. VOLUME WEIGHTED ESTIMATES OF WESTERN BASIN (1977)LARVAL FISHES IN THE Species Volume Weighted Percent of Total Total Production 1 Gizzard Shad/Alewife 1.03 x 109 79.24 Yellow Perch 1.35 x 108 10.38 Emerald Shiner 5.16 x 108 3.97 White Bass 2.65 x 108 2.04 Carp 1.64 x 108 1.26 Freshwater Drum 1.42 x 10' 1.09 Log Perch 6.82 x 107 0.52 Rainbow Smelt 6.34 x 10' 0.49 Walleye 6.08 x 10' 0.47 Spottail Shiner 1.27 x 106 0.10 Whitefish 2.32 x 106 0.02 Sauger 2.25 x 106 0.02 Pomoxis sp. 1.63 x 10' 0.01 Unidentifiable 1.36 x 10' <0.01 White Sucker 1.28 x 10' <0.01 Lepomis sp. 1.12 x 10' <0.01 Quillback Carpsucker 7.65 x 10' <0.01 Cyprinidae 6.70 x 10' <0.01 Channel Catfish 6.69 x i0' <0.01 Trout Perch 3.83 x 10' <0.01 Percidae 2.66 x i0' <0.01 ZSpecies ranked in descending order of production.

Volume weighted estimates of total species abundance were calculated to give an indication of larvae production in the nearshore zone in 1977.The estimates as presented in Table 13 are believed to be much lower than what is actually true. Based on the assumption that sampling once every ten days assures each larval cohort will be vulnerable to the sampling gear once, it is probable that two or possibly three cohorts were not sampled because of a combination of equipment failure and inclement weather.Volume weighted estimates calculated for each depth zone during each sampling period are available in Appendix B.A detailed description of the spatial and temporal distributions of the ten most abundant larval species captured in the Western Basin follows.Clupeids (Gizzard shad and Alewife)With a basin-wide mean density of 266.16 larvae per 100 m 3 , clupeid larvae were the most abundant larval fish species captured at all stations in the Western Basin in 1977. Clupeid were first collected on May 22 and were found in large numbers in every sample collected during the remainder of the sampling season. Clupeid larvae were most abundant in samples cgllected on June 4 with a mean basin-wide density of 803 larvae ppr 100 m .Figure 7 shows the mean density of gizzard shad larvae on each sampling date summed over all stations.Figure 8 displays the mean number of larvae captured at each station summed over all sampling periods. The Kruskal-Wallace test was used to test for significant differences between the three physiographic areas, i.e. the Michigan shoreine, Maumee Bay, and the Ohio shoreline.

No significant differences in larval densities could be detected (, =.05).Friedman's Rank Sum Test was conducted to test for differences between transects, with stations being replicate samples. Statistical differences (a=.01, df=9) were detected between areas of highest, the M2 and MB1 transects, and lowest densities, the M4, M5 and OH3 transects.

Friedman's test was also used to test for differences between depth zones, with transects being replicate samples. Statistical differences were detectable ( =.01, df=2) between the first and second depth zones. No siginificant differences were detectable between depth zones one and three or depth zones two and three. Highesq densities sampled were on dune 4 at Station MB1/1, 4983 larvae per 100 m , and 2674 larvae per 100 m on June 12 at Station M2/1.Rainbow Smelt With a basin-wide mean density of 0.88 larvae per 100 m 3 , smelt larvae were the ninth most abundant species" collected.

Smelt larvae were first collected on May 22 and were collected during every sampling effort thereafter.

The samples collected indicate smelt densities were highest in the Western on June 6, with a basin-wide mean density of 2.98 larvae per 100 m (Figure 9).No statistical differences in densities of larvae were detectable between the three physiogr-aphic areas (Kruskal-Wallis, a=.05), nor were statistical differences in densities detectable between transects (Friedman's Rank Sum, c=.05, df=9). Statistical differences were keen Larval Density (~,~N~o 0 0.3) -300-150-/.4/25 5/5 5115 5/25 6/4 6/14 6/24 7/4 Date Figure 7. Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.7114 2000 900 700 -60 s'm[400 200 200* *Figure 8. Western Basin.- 1977.Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae at Each Station.

6-5-4-Mean Larval Dens i ty (No./100m 3)3-1"! .., lira I 1 1 4/25 5/5 5/15 I I .I I I I 5/25 6/4 6/14 6/24 7/4 7/14 Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977.represents one standard error of the mean.Figure 9.Mean Density of Smelt Distance between bars 3C-0 0 q3 .'%IV 40.3 Figure 10.Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Smelt Larvae at Each Station.

detectable between larvae densities in the onshore and offshore depth zones. With higher densities of smelt larvae being found offshore, 65% of the total number of smelt were captured offshore.

Generally smelt densities were highest in Maumee Bay and the two northern-most Michigan transects, M4.and M5, where 43% and 27%, respectively, of the total smelt catch was made (Figure 10). Highest density of smelt larvae occurred at Station MB1/3, 54.5 larvae per 100 m Carp/Goldfish and Hybrids With a mean basin-wide density of 2.82 larvae per 100 m 3 , carp larvae were the fifth most abundant species captured in the Western Basin in 1977.Carp larvae were first captured on May 5 and were collected during each sampling effort thereafter.

Carp larvae were most abundant in our samples illected on June 4 with a basin-wide larval density of 9.7 larvae per 100 m(Figure 11).No statistical differences were detectable between densities in Maumee Bay, the Michigan or the Ohio shorelines (Kruskal-Wallis a=.05), nor were statistical differences detectable between transects (Friedman's Rank Sum a=.05, df=9) or between depth. zones (Friedman's Rank Sum a=.05, df=2). Highest densities of carp 3 larvae were captured on June 14 3 at Stations M1/2, (499 larvae per 100 m ), and M3/1, (419 larvae per lOon J).No carp larvae were captured at Stations MB1 and OH3 (Figure 12).Emerald Shiner Emerild shiner, with an average basin-wide density of 18.72 larvae per 100 m were the third most abundant species of larval fish captured.Emerald shiner larvae were first captured on June 4 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated larval emirald shiner reached a maximum basin-wide density of 101. larvae per 100 m on June 22 (Figure 13).Statistical tests indicated there were no differences in densities between physiographic areas, transects, or stations.

However, looking at the distribution of emerald shiner larvae in Figure 14, the majority of larvae were captured along transects M4 (33% of the total catch) and M5 (31% of the total catch), and in the first depth zone where 50% of the total numer'of emerald shineryere captured.

Highest densities of emerald shiner, 1432 larvae per 100 m , occurred at Station M5/1 on June 22.Spottail Shiner With a basin-wide mean density of 0.18 larvae per 100 m 3 spottail shiner were ranked tenth in abundance of larval fishes captured in 1977.Spottail shiner were first captured on June 4 and were captured during each sampling effort for the remainder of the sampling season. Samples indicated larval spottails were in greatest abundance on June 4 with a basin-wide mean density of 0.49 larvae per 100 m (Figure 15).Although 59% of the spottail catch was made along transects M4 and M5, no statistical differences in density could be detected between physio-graphic areas or between transects.

Friedman's Rank Sum Test (w;.05, df=2)

Mean Larval Density 3 (No./lDOm

)5/5 5/15 5/25 6/4 Date 6/24 7/4 7/14 Fi gure 11.Mean Density of Carp Larvae in *the Western Basin During 1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.0 40 ,30Z*20 1(S ^ (~L~Ol~Figure 12.Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Carp Larvae at Each Station.-48 -0 0 110.90 8o'70: 60 Mean Larval Density (No..1O. 3)40 30.zo 10 4/25 5/15 5/25 6/4 Date 6/14 6/24 774 Figure 13.Mean Density During 1977.error of the of Emerald Shiner Distance between mean.Larvae in the Western Basin bars represents one standard E 8.0.C C 3-4 .~3t'~q.~vc'~.-A I.Figure 14.Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Emerald Shiner LarVae at Each Station. *

.6.4 Meaan Larval Density (NO./10f7.k

3) 3~.2.1 4/25 5/5 5/15, 5/25 6/4 -6/14 6/24 714 7/14 Date Figure 15.Mean Density of Spottail Larvae in the Western Basin'During 1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

011 WO Figure l, Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae at Each Station.% lkot indicated significantly higher densities of spottails were found in the nearshore zone than offshore (81.4% of the total spottail catch was made in depth zoni 1). Maximum density of spottail shiner sampled was 5.02 larvae per 100 m at Station M4/1 on June 13 (Figure 16).White Bass With a basin-wide mean density of 7.85 larva per m 3 , white bass were the fourth most abundant species captured in this study. White bass were first collected on May 22 and were collected during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samnles collected indicated peak densities of 29.5 white bass larvae per 100 mi occurred on June 13 (Figure 17).Densities of larval white bass were found to be significantly greater in Maumee Bay than along either the Michigan or Ohio shorelines.

Sixty-three percent of the total white bass catch was found in Maumee Bay (Kruskal-Wallis'a=.05).

Friedman's Rank Sum Test indicated lowest densities of white bass larvae were sampled at OH3 and M5 (Figure 18). No significant differences were detected between depth zones (Friedman's Rank Sum Test 2=.05). Maximum density of white bass sampled was 283.3 larvae per 100 m on June 4 at Station MB1/1.Yellow Perch With a basin-wide mean density of 21.31 larvae per 100 m 3 , yellow perch larvae were the most abundant commercial or sportfish larvae captured in this study. Yellow perch larvae were first captured on April 20 and were collected during every sampling effort thereafter.

Sample§collected indicated peak larval yellow perch densities of 87 per 100 m occurred on May 2 (Figure 19).No significant differences could be detected between larvae densities in Maumee Bay or along the- Ohio and Michigan shoreline (Kruskal Wallis a =.05). Friedman's Rank Sum Test could not detect significant differences between onshore and offshore densities of either pro-larvae or total number of perch larvae (i.e., pro- and post-larvae) but did indicate that larvae (combined pro- and post-larvae) densities were highest along the M2 and OH3 transects and lowest along the M5 and-M3 transects (Figure 20). Pro-larvae densities were highest along transects M2 and M1 and lowest along transects A2, M3 and M5 (Figure 21). Maximum density of persh larvae (combined pro-and post-larvae) sampled was 665 larvae per 100 mi 380 of which were pro-larvae, at Station M2/1 on May 1.Walleye With a mean basin-wide density of 0.99 larvae per 100 mi 3 , walleye were the ninth most abundant larvalspecies captured.

Larval-walleye were first col'lected on April 20 and were captured during the next three cruises. No walleye were found in samples collected after June 4. Samples collected indicated larval walleye densities were highest on May 1 with an average basin density of 4.6 larvae per 100 m (Figure 22).Statistical differences were detected, indicating walleye larvae densities were greater along the Ohio shoreline than in Maumee Bay or along 35-30-20-Larval Density (M./1o0 .3.-',',10-4/30 5/]0 5/20 5/30 649 6/129 6/29 7/9 Date Figure 17. Mean Density.of White Bass Larvae in the Western Basin During .1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

U L.C 0 .* 0.0 0 NO LJ~Figure 18.Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of White Station.Bass Larvae at Each S 100 80 60 Mean Larval Density (No./100 M 3)40-20 4/30 5/10 5/20 5/30 6/9 6/19 6/29 7/9 7/19 Date Figure 19.Mean Density of 1977. Distance mean..Yellow Perch Larvae in the Western Basin During between bars represents one standard error of the 90 80 1.60 C3~40'30-0" ,tC.0 Figure 20.Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Yellow Perch Larvae at Each Station.

£L-3 C 0 K ~ ~:'*v 2 , Figure 21. Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Yellow Perch Pro-Larvae at Each Station.

a Mlean Larval Density 3 (No./4oo0.

3-4/25 Figure 22.S/S 5/15 5/25 614 6/14 6/24 7/4 7/14 DATE Mean Density During 1977.of Walleye Larvae Distance between in the Western Basin bars represents one standard error of the mean.r, 0*1o U 88 C-L-J 2 ~I Q.0 411L.1. -~0 Figure 23.Western Basin -1977..Mean Density of Walleye Larvae at Each Station.

0.I K L4 C 2 ~C! .VRX 1.Figure 24.Western Basin -Mean Density of Station.1977.Walleye Pro-Larvae at Each the Michigan shoreline for both larvae (pro- and post-larvae) and pro-larvae (KruskalWallis q=.05). No statistical differences between onshore and offshore densities were detectable.

Friedman's Rank Sum test (a=.05, df=9) indicated that highest larvae and pro-larvae densities were found along transects OH3 and OH2 and lowest densities were along transects M3 and M5. Maximum densjties of both pro-larvae (31 per 100 m ) and larval walleye (38 per 100 m ) were found at Station 0H3/1. Figure 23 represents spatial distributions of larval walleye and Figure 24 represents spatial distributions of pro-larval walleye in the Western Basin in 1977.Log Perch With a basin-wide mean density of 1.43 larvae per 100 mQ log perch were the seventh most abundant larval species captured in the Western Basin in 1977. Log perch larvae were first collected on April 30 and were collected during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated averagi larval densities in the basin reached a maximum of 4.76 larvae per 100 m on June 3 (Figure 25).No statistical differences in density of logperch larvae were detectable between the three physiographic areas, onshore/offshore or between transects.

Larval log perch densities were highest along transect M4 (40.8% of the total catch) and M5 (12% of the total catch) with a maximum density of 25.1 larvae per 100 m sampled on June 15. Figure 26 represents spatial distributions of larval log perch in the Western Basin in 1977.Freshwater Drum With a basin-wide mean density of 1.76 larvae per 100 mý freshwater drum were the fifth most abundant species collected in the Western Basin in 1977. Drum larvae were first §ollected on June 3, with an average basin density of 3.2 larvae per 100 m ; by June 10 the average basin density had dropped to 1.08 larvae per 100 m. Larval drug densities rose again reaching a maximum density of 5.6 larvae per 100 m on July 7 (Figure 27).Statistical differences in density of larvae were detected for the three physiographic areas (Kruskal Wallis a+/-:.05) with highest densities found in Maumee Bay and lowest densities found along the Michigan shoreline.

Friedman's Rank Sum test (a =.01) detected significant differences between highest densities of larval fishes found along transects MB2 and OH2 and lowest densities along transects M3 and M1. No statistical differences were detectable between onshore and offshore densities (Figure 28). Maximum density of drum sampled was 78.5 larvae per 100 m at Station MB1/1 on July 7.

G.Mean Larval Density (No.o100.

)1Y 4/30 5/10 S/20 S/30 6/9 02ate 6/19 6/29 7/9 7/19 Figure 25.Mean Density of Log Perch Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

0 9*m 0 6-J 3-2 I Figure. 26.- Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Log Perch Larvae at Each Station. 9 Mean Larval Density (No./100 .3)21 5/15 5/25 6/4 6114 5/24 7/4 -7/14 Date Figure 27.Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae in the Western Basin During 1977. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

15 3 12 Figure 28. Western Basin -1977.Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae at Each Station.I1 S Central Basin An intensive survey of the nearshore zone of the Central Basin in 1978 resulted in the collection of 28 taxa of larval fishes. Twenty-two species were identified representing 14 families and comprising 98.89% of the total catch; 1.03% were identified to genus or family level with only 0.08%remaining unidentified.

Nine species, emerald shiner, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, fresh-water drum, rainbow smelt, carp, yellow perch, trout perch, and log perch were collected ip numbers great enough (i.e., average basin-wide density .10/100 m') and occurred in samples often enough to be considered abundant.

Johnny da~ter and mottled sculpin 1ad average basin densities

.10 per 100 m, .84 and .50 larvae per 100 m3 respectively, but since the capture of these larvae was limited to a few stations the author does not consider them to have been abundant in the Central Basin in 1978.Table 14 lists the average densities for the entire sampling period and percentages of the total catch represented by each taxon for the entire Central Basin.Volume weighted estimates of total larval abundance are presented in Table 15. Volume weighted estimates differ from relative abundance of catch. Emerald shiners represent a large percentage of the total larval abundance, 54%, than relative abundance, 34%. Clupeid larvae and spottail shiner, although still ranked second and third each represent a smaller percentage of the total abundance than relative catch. Drum larvae, the fourth most abundant larvae captured, representing 4.21% of the total catch, is ranked eighth in relative abundance, comprising only 1.35% of total larval abundance.

A detailed description of the spatial and temporal distributions of the nine abundant larval species captured in the Central Basin follows.Station locations as referred to in the following can be found in Figure 29.Clupeids (Gizzard Shad/Alewife)

With a mean basin density of 28.42 larvae per 100 m 3 , clupeid larvae were the second most abundant larval species captured.

Larval clupeids were first collected on May 25 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated larval gizzard shad were most abundant on June 19 (Figure 30).The highest densities of larval clupeids were collected west of Cleveland with over 60% of the catch occurring along transects 3 and 4 (Figure 31). Friedman's Rank Sum Test (a =.05, df=9) detected significant differences between transects 3 and 4 and transect 7, where the lowest densities were found, and (a=.05, df=2) identified the mid-depth zone as having the lowest densities of larval gizzard shad and depth zone 1 as having the highest dynsities.

Maximum density of gizzard shad sampled was 437 larvae per 100 m at Station 3/1 on July 17.

Rainow Smelt With an average density of 3.40 larvae per 100 m 3 smelt were the fifth most abundant larvae captured in the Central Basin in 1978. Smelt larvae were first captured on May 20 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated smelt densities reached their 3maximum on July 5 with an average basin density of 14.6 larvae per 100 m (Figure 32).Although 72% of smelt larvae were captured offshore, Friedman's Rank Sum Test (a-.05, df=2) was unable to detect statistical differences between onshore and offshore densities of smelt larvae. The majority of smelt larvae were captured west of Cleveland with transects 1-4 contributing to 68.25% of the smelt catch (Figure 33). No statistical differnces were detectable for differences in densities of larvae bet een transects.

Maximum density of smelt sampled was 100.1 larvae per 100 m at Station 3/2 on July 5.Carp/Goldfish and their Hybrids With a mean basin density of 2.58 larvae per 100 m 3 carp larvae were the sixth most abundant larval fish captured.

Carp larvae were first captured on May 24 and were found in samples collected during each sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated carp densities werg highest on July 6 with a mean basin density of 11.3 larvae per 100 m (Figure 34).Friedman's Rank Sum Test (a =.01, df=2) detected statistical differ-ences between onshore and offshore densities.

89% of the total number of carp larvae captured occurred in depth zone 1 (Figure 35). Although 62% of the carp larvae were captured along transect 9, no statistical differences in densities could be detected between transects.

Maximum density of carp larvae sampled was 269 larvae per 100 m at Station 9/1 on July 8.Emerald Shiner Emerald shiner larvae were the most abundant larval fish species collected in the Central Basin in 1978. Emerald shiner larvae were first captured on June 16 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Emerald shiner larvae were most abundant in samples on July 21, with a calculated basin-wide average of 195 larvae per 100 m (Figure 36).Emerald shiner larvae were most abundant along the shoreline east of Cleveland with 76.5% of the total emerald catch made between transects 1 and 4. Lowest emerald shiner densities were found in the Cleveland area, transects 5 and 6 (Figure 37). Friedman's Rank-Sum Test (a=.05, df=9)detected significant differences between areas of highest densities along transect 3 and areas of lowest larval density along transects 5 and 6. No significant differences were detected between onshore and offshorS densities.

Maximum density of emerald shiner sampled was 2329 per 100 m at Station 3/3 on July 21.

TABLE 14. RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED ALONG THE OHIO SHORELINE OF THE CENTRAL BASIN IN 1978 SPECIES AVERAGE PERCENTAGE OF DENSITY TOTAL CATCH Emerald Shiner 32.30 34.28 Gizzard Shad/Alewife 28.42 30.53 Spottail Shiner 16.37 17.58 Freshwater Drum 3.92 4.21 Rainbow Smelt 3.40 3.66 Carp 2.85 3.06 Yellow Perch 1.25 1.34 Trout Perch 1.00 1.01 Johnny Darter 0.80 0.84 Log Perch 0.74 0.79 Mottled Sculpin 0.47 0.50 Cyprinidae 0.46 0.48 Notropis sp. 0.25 0.26 Percidae 0.20 0.21 Unidentified Larvae 0.07 0.08 Lepomis sp. 0.07 0.06 Striped Shiner 0.06 0.06 White Sucker 0.05 0.04 Walleye 0.04 0.04 White Bass 0.03 0.03 Rock Bass 0.02 0.03 Burbot 0.02 0.03 Golden Shiner 0.02 0.02 Pomoxis sp. 0.01 0.02 Sauger 0.01 0.02 Quillback Carpsucker 0.01 < 0.0.1 Black Crappie 0.01 < 0.01 Smallmouth Bass 0.01 < 0.01'Average density found by dividing the sum of the calculated densities by the number of samples collected during the period of larval occurrence.

Species ranked in descending order of average density.

TABLE 15. VOLUME WEIGHTED ESTIMATES OF TOTAL PRODUCTION OF LARVAL FISHES IN THE NEARSHORE ZONE OF THE CENTRAL BASIN IN 1978 SPECIES VOLUME WEIGHTED % OF TOTAL TOTAL ABUNDANCE' Emerald Shiner Gizzard Shad/Alewife Spottail Shiner Rainbow Smelt Carp Johnny Darter Yellow Perch Freshwater Drum Cyprinidae spp.Trout Perch Mottled Sculpin Log Perch Percidae spp.Black Crappie Pomoxis spp.Striped Shiner Walleye Burbot White Bass Lepomis spp.White Sucker Sauger Quillback Carpsucker Golden Shiner Greenside Darter Total 4.28 x 109 1.51 x 109 8.32 x 108 4.28 x 108 1.26 x 108 1.12 x 108 1.09 x 108 1.07 x 108 1.04 x 10'9.75 x 107 5.89 x 10'5.23 x 107 3.40 x 107 2.16 x 10'1.43 x 106 7.65 x 106 5.69 x 106 2.58 x 106 1.92 x 106 1.89 x 10 6 1.65 x 106 1.14 x 106 5.55 x 10'2.67 x 10'2.59 x 105 7.90 x 10'order of abundance.

54.14 19.07 10.53 5.42 1.59 1.40 1.38 1.36 1.23 1.00 0.68 0.66 0.44 0.27 0.18 0.10 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01<0.01.<0.01<0.01 1 Species ranked in descending a Dl 0 Figure 29.Sampling Stations Basin in 1978.in the Central S 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 Mean Larval Density (No./loom 3)70 60 40 30 20 1D 4/30 5/10 5/20 5/30 6/9 DIth 6/29 , 7/9 7/19 Figure 30.Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

S 276.6 175.03 Figure 31. Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Clupeid Larvae at Each Station.U a a-J C 17 15 14 13 11 10 Mean Larval Density (No./10m 3)Fig.ure 32. 1 9 B 7 1 6/19 6/29 719 7/19 4ean Density of Smelt Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

9 7 9 5 B 1 I22" S 7-Figure 33. Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Rainbow Smelt Larvae at Each Station.

0 Mean Larval Density (Fgo./1rem 3 4 Figure 34.Date Mean Density of Carp Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978.Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

0 0 Dr w 0 q~q..vc1~Figure 35.Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Carp Larvae at Each Station.

Spottail Shiner 4 With a basin-wide average density of 16.37 larvae per 100 mý spottail shiner larvae were the third most abundant species captured in the Central Basin in 1978. Spottails were first captured on July 16 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples indicated maximum density of spottails o curred on June 27 with a basin-wide average density of 54 larvae per 100 m (Figure 38).Friedman's Rank Sum Test ( a=.01, df=2) indicated significantly more larvae wre captured at the nearshore stations than the midway or offshore stations.

Ninety-four percent of the total spottail catch was made in depth zone 1. Significant differences were also detected between areas of highest, along transects 8, 9, and 10, and lowest larval densities along transects 2 and 6 (a=.05, df=9)3 (Figure 39). Maximum larval density sampled was 1168 larvae per 100 m at Station 9/1 on July 21.Trout Perch With an average basin-wide density of 1.0 larvae per 100 mý trout perch were the eighth most abundant larval species captured in the Central Basin in 1978. Larval trout perch were first captured on May 23 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicate larval densities of trout perch were highest nn June 11 with a basin-wide mean larval density of 11.75 larvae per 100 m (Figure 40).Very few larval trout perch were captured west of Cleveland with 83.3%of the total trout perch catch coming from transects 8, 9, and 10 (Figure 41). Friedman's Rank Sum Test ( :=.01, df=9) indicated densities along transects 8, 9, 10 to be significantly greater than those along 1, 4, and 5. Seventy-four percent of the total trout perch were captured in the first depth zone. Friedman's test ( a=.05, df:2) indicated onshore densities were greater than offshore degsities.

Maximum density of trout perch sampled was 45.6 larvae per 100 m at Station 8/1 on May 23.Yellow Perch With an average basin-wide density of 1.25 larvae per 100 m 3 yellow perch were the seventh most abundant species captured in the Central Basin in 1978. Yellow perch larvae were first captured on May 11 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected i~dicated yellow perch larvae densities were highest at 6.2 larvae per 100 m on June 19 (Figure 42).Eighty-seven percent of the total number of yellow perch larvae captured were pro-larvae.

Friedman's Rank Sum Test (a=.01, df=2)indicated significantly higher numbers of yellow perch larvae were captured in depth zone 1 than in depth zones 2 or 3 (77% of the total larvae catch was made in depth zone 1). Although transects 8, 9, and 10 accounted for 19, 20 and 29% of the total pro-larvae captured and 16, 20 and 23% of the total number of. yellow perch larvae captured, no significant differences in larvae densities could be detected between transects (Friedman's Rank Sum, a =.05, df=9). Figures 43 and 44 graphically demonstrate the spatial distributions of pro-larvae and larval yellow 0 260-240-220-200-180-1 Mean Larval Density (No./loomm 3 160-140-120-100-80-60-407" 20-.w ._ .., i I I V I I 1 4/30 5/10 5/20 5/30 6/9 6/19 6/29 7/9 7/19 Date Figure 36.Mean Density During 1978.error of the of Emerald Shiner Larvae in the Central Basin Distance between bars represents one standard mean.

390.43 *0,274.48 0 Z?Figure 37.Central Basin -Mean Density of Station.1978.Emerald Shiner Larvae at Each 80'60-5o0 Mean Larval Density (No-/1o01 3)Figure 38.4/30 5/10 5/20 5/30 6/9 6/19 6/29- 7/9 7/19 Date Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae ih the Central Basin During 1978. Distance between bars represents one standard error of themean.

113.8 70.;-ZO.0 0 Figure 39.Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Spottail Shiner Larvae at Each Station.

154 14.9.8-7-Mean Larval Density (No./1oom 3)Figure 40.Date Mean Densi.ty of Trout Perch Larvae in the Central Basin During 1978. Distance between bars represents one standard error of the mean.

\10 a-T-e 0 Figure 41. Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Trout Perch Larvae at Each Station.

Mean Larval Density (No./100M 3)Figure 42. M D e ean Di uring rror 4/30 5/1. 5/20 5/30 6/9 6119 6/29 719 7/19 Date ensity of Yellow Perch Larvae in the Central Basin 1978. Distance between bars represents one standa of the mean.rd U 0 C S..-J C 0 flD 1.SAL'Figure 43.Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Yellow Perch LarVae at Each Station.-86 -9 0 9-Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of.'Yellow Perch Pro-Larvae at Each Station.Figure. 44.

perch 3 Maximum density of larval yellow perch sampled was 48.5 larvae per 100 m on June 19 at Station 911.Log Perch With a basin-,wide average density of .74 larvae per 100 m3, log perch were the tenth most abundant species captured.

Log perch larvae were first captured on May 19 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated log perch densitieg were highest on May 25 with a mean basin density of 2.01 larvae per 100 m (Figure 45).The distribution of log perch larvae throughout the study area was rather uniform (Figure 46). No statistical differences in densities were detectable between depth zones (Friedman's Rank Sum a=.05, df=2) or between transects (Friedman's a =.O§, df=9). Maximum density of log perch sampled was 14.82 larvae per 100 m at Station 5/1 on June 26.Freshwater Drum With a basin-wide average density of 3.92 larvae per 100 m 3 freshwater drum were the fourth most abundant larval species captured in the Central Basin in 1978. Larval drum were first captured on May 25 and were captured during every sampling effort thereafter.

Samples collected indicated drum larvae were mos1 abundant on July 18 with a mean basin density of 23.8 larvae per 100 m (Figure 47).Thedistribution of drum larvae was almost limited to the area west of Cleveland, with 86.7% of the total drum catch coming from transects 1-4 (Figure 48). Friedman's Rank Sum Test (a =.05, df=8) demonstrated signi-ficant differences between the transects west of and those east of Cleveland.

No significant differences could be detected between onshore and offshore densities.

Maximum density of larval drum sampled was 40.1 larvae per 100 mi at Station 4/3 on July 18.POWER PLANT ENTRAINMENT Western Basin and Estuaries, 1975-1976 The two principal power plants located within the 1975-1976 study area were Toledo Edison's Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant and the Bayshore Power Plant. Sufficient data was developed from the 1975-1976 larval fish collections to permit the use of Goodyear's (1978) equivalent adult approach to estimate the impact of entrainment on yellow perch (Appendix C)and emerald shiner (Appendix C). These calculations estimate the loss of approximately 192,704 three-year old yellow perch due to entrainment (assuming 100 percent mortality:

127,184 assuming 66 percent mortality) at the Bayshore Plant in 1975. Entrainment at this facility in 1976 would result in the loss of 36,306 (23,962, 66% mortality) three-year-old fish.Calculation of entrainment losses at the Davis-Besse facility in 1976 were lower, 949 fish. The small number at Davis-Besse is due to the reduced demand for cooling water at a facility with a large cooling tower. It must be borne in mind that these are undoubtedly underestimates due to daylight/large mesh net sampling methods and the use of an average density 0 4-3-Mea. Larv al Density 4/30. 5/10 5/20 I I I I. 1 1 5/30 6/9 6/19 6/29 7/9 7/19 Date Figure 45.Mean Density of Log Perch in the Distance between bars represents Central Basin During 1978.one standard error of the mean.

6U 4-6 62 48 Cental Bsin 978 Mean~~~~~~~~~

Dest fLgPrhLavea ahSain Figure 46.-90 -O 42 39, 36 33 30 27 24, 21 is'is Mean Larval Density*(No./j10M31 Figure 47.4/3O 5/10 Mean Density During 1978.error of the of Freshwater Drum Larvae in the Central Basin Distance between bars represents one standard mean.

F G S C z 0 0 Figure 48.Central Basin -1978.Mean Density of Freshwater Drum Larvae at Each Station.-92 -0 value which includes data from a considerable number of offshore deep water sampling stations where yellow perch larvae were sparsely distributed or missing entirely.

Calculations of the losses of one-year-old emerald shiner were considerably larger than the estimated losses of three-year-old perch.Western Basin, 1977 In 1977, estimates of the losses of larvae at the Bayshore Power Plant and the Acme Power Plant operated by Toledo Edison Company on the Maumee River estuary were calculated by Reutter, Herdendorf and Sturm (1978a, 1978b). They estimated that approximately 2.8 x 10 8 larval fishes were entrained at the Bayshore Plant with clupeids and white bass representing 78.4 percent and 11.6 percent of the total, respectively.

Of the 19 taxa of larval fishes collected in the Bayshore entrainment samples, only carp, freshwater drum, clupeids and white bass represented more than one percent of the total. Approximately 7.9 x 10 larval fishes were entrained at the Acme Plant with gizzard shad and freshwater drum representing 56.5 percent and 33.4 percent of the total, respectively.

Of the 15 taxa collected in the Acme samples, only carp, freshwater drum, clupeids and white bass represented more than one percent of the total.Entrainment estimates using field samples were made for four power plants along the Western Basin shoreline:

the Monroe, Whiting, Bayshore and The Davis-Besse power plants (see Figure 6 for power plant locations)..

Clupeids were the most abundant larvae entrained, accounting for 90.54% 6f the total estimate of larvae entrained.

Carp larvae were the second most abundant, accounting for 4.48% of the total entrained, and yellow perch were third with 2.15% of the total. Entrainment estimates were highest at the Monroe Plant where 2,965,727,308 larvae, or 60.86% of the total calculated entrainment occurred.

The lowest number entrained was at Davis-Besse, 0.33% of total entrainment.

The Bayshore plant entrained the largest number of yellow perch, 48% of the total number of yellow perch larvae entrained.

Table 16 lists the estimated number of each species entrained at each power plant in the Western Basin. Using Bartholomew's (1979) samples collected in the vicinity of the Bayshore Power Plant intakg canal and his calculated deysity values, we estimate between 2.2 x 10 (100% mortality and 1.4 x 10 (66% mortality) 3-year-old yellow perch were lost due to larval entrainment at this site (Appendix C) in 1977.Central Basin, 1978 In 1978 samples were collected in the immediate area of power plant intake structures (field samples) as well as from inside the plants' screen houses (in-plant samples) at six power plants along the Ohio portion of the Central Basin; they were the Avon Lake, Edgewater, Lake Shore, Eastlake, Ashtabula A & B and Ashtabula C Plants. Paired T-tests were performed to detect differences in species composition between in-plant and field samples. No statistical differences at the cx=.05 level were detectable for any of the power plants. Paired T-tests were also used to test for differences in density of larvae between field and in-plant samples.Significant differences were detectable (a =.01) for samples collected at the Avon Lake, East Lake, and Lake Shore plants. No additional differences were detected at a =.05. --

Entrainment estimates for each power plant were calculated using both in-plant (Table 17) and field collections (Table 18). Estimates using in-plant samples indicated Cyprinidae were the most abundant larvae entrained, accounting for 50.31% of the total (summed over all power plants), with carp (12.0% and rainbow smelt (1.7%) ranking second and third. In-plant samples estimated 3,617,717 yellow perch larvae (0.97% of the total) were entrained.

Samples indicated an estimated 231,543,500 larvae entrained (137,186,000 Cyprinidae) at the Avon Lake Station, accounting for 60.1% of the total entrainment estimate in the Central Basin.Estimates using field samples also indicated Cyprinidae were the most abundant larvae entrained, accounting for 37.21% of total entrainment in the basin. Gizzard shad (25.04%) and rainbow smelt (13.02%) ranked second and third. Samples indicated entrainment was highest at the Ashtabula A &B Plant, which entrained 76,106,800 larvae (31% of total basin entrainment).

The Ashtabula A & B Plant entrained an estimated 1,703,350 yellow perch larvae, which was 37% of the total estimate of yellow perch larvae entrainment.

TABLE 16. ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES FOR WESTERN BASIN POWER PLANTS (CALCULATED FROM FIELD COLLECTIONS)

Species Monroe Whiting Bayshore Davis-Besse Total Clupeids 2.70 x 101 4.90 x 10' 1.20 x 109 1.30 x 107 4.40 x 10'+/-6.53 x 108 +/-8.10 x 106 +/-2.00 x 10i +/-3.21 x 106 +/-5.86 x 10'Whitefish 2.30 x 10. 2.30 x 10'+/-3.83 x 101 +/-5.74 x 104 Rainbow Smelt 3.79 x 105 2.98 x 106 7.24 x 101 1.99 x 105 1.08 x 107+/-1.10 x 105,. +/-4.27 x 105 +/-1.04 x 106 +/-3.32 x 104 +/-1.64 x 106 Quillback 4.53 x 104 1.10 x 105 1.56 x 105 Carpsucker

+/-7.56 x 103 +/-1.84 x 104 +/-2.61 x 104 Carp 2.13 x 108 1.50 x 106 3.65 x 106 2.54 x 104 2.18 x 107+/-1.05 X 10J 7 +/-1.64 x 103, +/-3.99 x 105 +/-4.23 x 10' +/-5.28 x 106 Cyprinidae 2.98 x 105 2.66 x 104 6.46 x 104 3.89 x 101+/-4.86 + 10" -8.79 x 10 +/- +/-2.38 x 10" +/-5.80 x Emerald Shiner 1.53 x 107 4.41 x 106 1.07 x 107 1.14"x 10' 3.05 x 10'+/-2.54 x 106 +/-7.45 x 10' +/-1.81 x 106 +/-1.89 x 104 +/-3.35 x 104 0.cIn TABLE. 16 (continued).

ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES FOR FIELD COLLECTIONS)

WESTERN BASIN POWER PLANS (CALCULATED FROM Species Monroe Whiting Bayshore Davis-Besse Total Spottail Shiner 9.36 x 105 1.10 x 105 2.67 x 105 1.31 x 106+/-1.58 x 10. +/-3.84 x 104 +/-9.32 x 10' +/-1.05 x 105 Channel Catfish 4.90 x 10' 1.19 x 104 1.68 x 104+/-8.12 x 102 +/-1.98 x 10. +/-2.:82 x 10'White Bass 3.31 x 106: 2.05 x 107 4.99 x 10 7 2.63 x 104 7.37 x 10 7+/-4.68 x 10 5 +/-2.51 x 10' +/-6.09 x 106 +/-4,24 x 10 +/-1.14 x 107 Lepomis sp. 3.10 x 10' 3.50 x 103 8.50 x 103 3.22 x 105 5.17 x 10 +/-1.75 x 10' +/-4.25 x 10' +/-7.65 x 104 Percidae 4.44 x 10 1 1.08 x 10' 1.52 x 104+/-7.42 x 102 +/-1.70 x +/-2.55 x 10'Sauger 4.34 x 10' 1.05 Mx 10l.O 1.49 x 106+/-4.89 x 10 4+/-1.19 x 10i +/-2.49 x 10i'0" 0 TABLE 16 (continued).

ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES FOR WESTERN BASIN POWER PLANTS (CALCULATED FROM FIELD COLLECTIONS)

Species Monroe Whiting Bayshore Davis-Besse Total Walleye 5.35 x 105 1.30 x 106 1.22 x 10 1.96 x 106+/-4.79 x 10 ++/-1.16 x 10' +/-1.23 x 104 +/-2.93 x 105 Yellow Perch. 3.10 x 2.09 x 107 5.07 x 2.24 x 106 1.05 x 108+/-4.35 x 106 +/-2.06 x 103 +/-5.01 x 106 +/-6.48 x i0- +/-1.01 x 10 7 Log Perch 1.25 x 106 1.14 x 106 2.78 x 10 1.15 x 10 5.30 x 106+/-6.26 x 105 +/-2.52 x 10 5 +/-6.11 x 10 5 +/-2.95 x 10 +/-5.50 x 105 Freshwater Drum 3.01 x 106 7.32 x 106 1.04 x 104 1.03 x 10"+/-5.76 x 10' +/-1.40 x 106 +/-1.76 x 10i +/-1.73 x 10'Unidentifiable 1.73 x 105 4.21 x i10 5.95 x i0'+/-2.75 x i0 +/-6.68 x 101 +/-9.96 x 10'Total 2.97 x 109 5.49 x 108 1.33 x 109 1.58 x 107 4.87 x 101+/-1.50 x 108. +/-3.09 x i0 +/-6-62 x 107 +/-7.47 x I01 +/-2.43 x 10i I.0 TABLE 17. ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES FOR CENTRAL BASIN. POWER PLANTS (CALCULATED FROM IN-PLANT COLLECTIONS)1 Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A&B C upeid, "5.87 x 10' 2.52 x 107*4.83 x 10' +/-1.66 x 10'Rainbow Smelt 2.58 X 107+/-2.58 x 10'White Sucker 7.66 x 10 8.37 z 10'+/-1.74 x 10 +/-1.39 X 101 Carp 2.78 x 10s 9.13 x'101+/-3.33 x 10 ' ,1.72 x 10'Shiner 4.08 x 107 1.30 x 10'+/-7.84 x 101 +/-1.20 x 107 Minnow 2.57 x 10' 7.66 10xl+/-3.96 x 10' +/-3.49 x 10 Bluntnose 7.17 x 10 Minnow +/-3.31 x 10 Burbot 2.42 x 10 4+/-2.42 x 10'Trout Perch 4.18 x 10 5 3.22 x 10+/-6.97 x 10' +/-6.75 x 10'1.78 x 10'+/-2.37 x 105 5.00 x 10'+/-4.15 x l0s 9.28 x 105+/-9.80 x 10'1.59 x 107+/-1.49 x 10'2.43 x ID+/-+/-2.11 x 10'9.75 x 10'+/-8.07 x 10s 1.42 x 10'13.45 x 10'5.93 x 10g 12.52 x 10'1.14 x 10'+/-1.90 x 10'5.29 x 10'*3.46 x 10'1.02 x 10'+/-1.69 x104 7.79 x 10'+/-5.64 x 10 '2.32 x W0'+/-2.81 x 10'7.83 x 10'17.83 x 10'7.44 x 10'+/-1.24 x 10'1.46 x 107+/-6.23 x 10'1.30 x 107+/-6.20 x 10'1.14 x 107+/-9.97 x 10'7.12 x 1'D+/-1.19 x 10'2.00 x 10'+/-3.32 x 10'3.85 x 105 1.92 x 10s*3.27 x 101 +/-1.75 x 103 White Bass Lepomis sp. 1.96 x 10 s 2.78 x 10't2.45 x 10' +/-2.78 x 10O 2.05 x 10s 3.68 X 107*5.79 x 10' +/-3.90 x 109 8.20 x 10: 3.23 x 10'*5.05 x 10 +/-t4.16 x 10'Z.04 x o10+/-1.73 x 105 4.52 x 107+/-z.81 x 10'1.20 x lo 2.09 x +/-10+/-5.48 x 10 +/-1.83 x 10'5.04 x 10, 3.22 x 10'+/-5.04 +/- 10 :a.98 x 10'7.17 x 10l+/-1.19 x 10s 2.42 x lo0+/-4.03 x 10'.04x 10s 5.03 x 10'+/-1.40 x 10 +/-4.42 x 10'2.00 x 105.3.32 x 10 '6.80 x 10, 2.92 = 10e+/-6.80 x 10 +/-3.14 x 10%1.70 x 10 5 t2.83 x 10 '.8.40 x 10 5+/-8.90 x 10 '2.09 x 10', 13.48 x 10 e 6.35 x 10s 4.34 x 10'-6.35 x 10 +/-6.06 x 10 '2.59 x 10' 3.62 x 10 '*3.47 x 10' *2.48 10 '1.26 +/- 10' 8.15 x 10 '*4.67 x 10 t5.27 x 10 '7.20 x 10 s+/-6.65 x 10 %2.99 x 10 £*3.W0 x 10 '9.17 x 10' 4.93 +/- 10 't9.35 x 10 1 +/-4.19

10 s 3.81 x 10' 4.28 x 10 s 11.22 x 10 : 93.13 x 10 'Micropterus Sp.Percidae Sauger Walleye Yellow Perch Log Perch Freshwater Drum Holtted Sculpin Unidentiflabl Total 1.70 .10s*2.83 x 10%3.85 x 10 5+/-3.27 x 10l 2.09 x 10 *+/-3.48 x 10 1.35 x 10'+1.31" x 10l 3.83 +/- 10' 3.33 x 10'+/-3.12 x 10 +/- +/-2.09 x 10'1.97 x 10' 4.10 x 10'+/-3.69 x 10' +/-8.75 x 101 2.17 X's10+/-3.62 *10'e 2.44 1 107+/-1.79 i lO1 5.06 1 10' 2.33 x 10'+/-3.81 x 10' *6.50 x 10'7.02 x 10'+/-7.61 x 10'2.55 x 10'*1.06 x 10'1.76 x 107+/-1.39 x 10'7.93 X 107+/-1.60 x 10'6.76

10 11.01 x 10'1.14 A 10'+/-1.73 x 10'1.42 x 10'+/- 1.35 x 10'1.09

10 '+/-2.70 x 10s 4.54 x 10 '+/-2.57 x 10" 3.71 x 10 Z+/-6.18 A 10 1.32 x 10 a+/-1.42 x 10 1.08 x 10+/-6.71 x 10 8.21 A 10 '+/-1.37 x 10 *4.97 x 10+/-1.47 x 10 '5.07

10 11.36 x 10 IL~ower nLaor iun each, cell is e ual toone. -tal-.- --.--o I eI 1 0I e~ mean,;*11-98 -0 TABLE 18. ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES FOR CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS (CALCULATED FROM FIELD COLLECTIONS)'

Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A&B C Clupoid 7.91 x l0o 2.38 x 107 9.21 x 106 4.77 x 10, 1.01 X 10i 5.60 X 10, 6.14 x 107+/-2.03 x 10' +/-3.44 x 10' +/-2.60 x 10' +/-8.60 x 10 -2.90 x 10' +/-1.75 x 10 f2.59 x 106 Rainbow Smelt 2.91 x 10' 1.27 x 10' 2.19 x 10' 9.33 x 10' 4.46 x 10' 3.06 x 105 3.19 x 107 A1.54 x 103 t1.53 x 10' 5 3.44 x 10' +/-1.03 x 10 +/- 5 3.40 x 105 t3.88 x 10 t3.08 x 10'Carp 4.78 x 10' 4.17 x 103 2.70 x 10' 1.35 x 10- 1.34 .10, 5.09 .10-+/-1.18 X 10' .1.39 x 10' +/-2.42 X 103 t2.26 x 10' +/-2.24 x 10 t3.81 x 105 Cyprinidae 4.14 x 10' 4.14 x 10'16.90 x 10' +/-6.30 x. 10 Emerald Shiner 9.73 x 10' 7.44 x 10' 1.33 x 10' 2.39 x 10. 3.18 X 10' 3.09 x 10' 8.01 X 10'+/-2.10 x 10' +/-1.65 x 10' +/-2.91 x 10' 07.02 x 10 +/-8.69 x 10' +/-6.76 x 10' +/-5.48 x 10'Spottail 2.48 x 105 1.12 x 10' 5.82 x 106 5.45 x 10s 4.11 X 10: 3,32 x lO 1.12 x 10'Shiner +/-5.52 x 10% +/-2.91 x 10b *5.84 x 10' t7.45 x 10' +/-8.68 x 10' 1 1.50 x 109 +/-9.20 x 10s.Burbot 7.70 x 10' ).20 x 10, 1.49 x 104+/-1.28 x 10' +/-1.20 x 10' i1.43 x 10'Trout Perch 2.20 x 10' 9.44 x 10 2.37 x 10' 3.39 x 10 5.85 X 10'+/-3.56 x 10' +/-1.19 x 10' +/-2.05 x 10' +/-1.55 x 105 +/-4.00 x 1O0'White Bass 9.43 x 10' 9.43 x 10'+/-1.57 x 10 +/-1.40 x 10'Lepomis sp. 2.88 x 10" 2.88 X 10'+/-4.80 x 10' +/-4.38 x 10'Percidae 1.40 x 10' 6.72 X 10' 3.18 x 101 4.24 x 105 3.81 x 101+/-2.35 x 10' +/-1.12 x 10%1' +/-5.29 x 10' *7.07 x 10' *4.68 x 10'Walleye 7.65 x 104 4.05 X 10' 1.17 X 104+/-1.28 x 10% 04.75 X 30l 21.20 x 10'Yellow Perch 4.83 x 10' 9.84 x 10' 8.57 x 10' 1.10 1 104 1.7D x 010 7.94 x 10' 4.60 x 10'+/-8.05 x 10' +/-3.61 x 10' +/-1.59 x 10' +/-1.89 x 10 *1.57 x 10' +/-1.98 x 10' +/-2.33 x 10'Log Perch 2.65 x 10' 2.53 x 10' 2.06 x 10' 2.34 x 10' 1.50 x 10' 5.07 x 10'+/-1.07 x 10' t4.11 x 10' +/-3.82 1 10' 13.57 x 10' 1.97 x 10' +/-3.94 x 110 Johnny Darter 6.08 x 10: 7.92 x 10: 1.40 x 107+/-1.12 X 10 +/-1.35 x 10 +/-1.36 X 10'Freshwater 4.30 x lOs 1.03 x 10' 1.26 x 10' 7.03 x 10o 8.81 X 10' 2.08 x 10,. 1.26 x 10'Drum +/-1.97 x lo +/-5.13 x 10' +/-2.10 x 10' +/-5.25 x 10' 12.37 x 10' +/-2.52 x 10 11.50 x 104 Moltted 7.69 x 10' 1.26 x 101 8.95 x 10'Sculpin 13.64 x 101 1.605 x 10' +/-1.15 x 10'Unidentifiable 1.51 x 10' 1.51 X 10'*2.51 X 10' +/-2.30 x 10'Total 1.18 X 107 3.67 x 107 5.40 X 107 1.62 x 107 7.61 x10' 5.12 X 10' 2.52 x 101*4.21 x 101 *1.36 x 10' +/-11.38x 101 +/-3.00 x 10' *1.71 x 10' 11.68 x 10' +/-8.59 x 10Lower number In. each cell is equal to one standard error of the mean.

SECTION 6 DISCUSSION SPECIES DISTRIBUTION Before one can attempt to predict the effects of power plant entrainment on fish populations, or before intake structures for proposed power plant locations can be located, such that losses due to entrainment are minimized, the spatial and temporal distributions of fish larvae in the area must be accurately described.

Graphical depictions, as well as verbal summaries have been presented to provide insight into the spatial and temporal distributions of fish larvae commonly found in the Western Basin of Lake Erie in 1975-1977 and in the Central Basin in 1978. A discussion of the major distributional findings follows.Western Basin In 1977, 20 taxa of larval fishes were collected along the near-shore zone of the Western Basin. Larval clupeids, principally gizzard shad, were the most abundant species collected, comprising 87% of the total larval catch. Species of sport and/or commercial interest collected were rainbow smelt, whitefish, carp, white bass, yellow perch, sauger, walleye and freshwater drum.Larval whitefish and sauger, although rarely captured, are of significance.

Both whitefish and sauger were abundant and commer-cially fished throughout the 1950's. Populations of these two species were reduced to the point that only rarely were whitefish or sauger captured.

Efforts have been made through stocking programs to re-establish the native sauger population.

The capture of larval sauger in this study indicated these efforts may have been successful.

The capture of whitefish larvae indicated a small population of whitefish still uses spawning sites in the Western Basin.Although rainbow smelt were commonly captured in the Western Basin, very few pro-larval smelt were found. This indicates smelt larvae were carried into the study area by currents, possibly by the Detroit River.Littoral areas, i.e., quiet areas of bays and harbors, or slowly moving rivers and streams, are preferred as spawning habitat by carp.Large numbers of carp larvae were captured with highest densities of carp in samples taken at the intake of the Detroit Edison power plant near the mouth of the River Raisin. The majority of carp found in Lake Erie were probably spawned in tributaries and harbors.Both white bass and freshwater drum larvae were found to be signi-ficantly more abundant in the estuaries and adjacent bays than along either the Michigan or Ohio shorelines or the open water portions of-100 -

the basin. The majority of white bass found in Maumee Bay were probably spawned over the sandy dredge spoil islands on both sides of the Toledo navigation channel or near the Ottawa River mouth in North Maumee Bay. The majority of drum larvae captured in Maumee Bay (87% of species total) were developed beyond the pro-larvae stage. Drum larvae are extremely bouyant and easily carried by currents.

Snyder (1978) reportid drum densities in the Maumee River estuary in excess of 500 per 100 m .Therefore, many of the drum larvae captured in the bay may have been carried there from the lower Maumee River estuary.Densities of yellow perch larvae were higher off Otter Creek, Michigan (transect M2) than anywhere else in the study area. The reason for this high concentration of larvae is not obvious examining the habitat in the area. However, the dominant summer surface currents shown in Figure 1 depict that the intersection of currents from the Maumee and Detroit Rivers results in an eddy in this area. This eddy effect has been demonstrated to concentrate pollutants here (U.S.Dept. of Interior, 1967). Therefore the high concentrations of perch larvae found along transect M2 may have resulted from larvae being transported from Maumee Bay and from along the Michigan shoreline.

Overall, yellow perch and walleye larvae densities were higher along the Ohio shoreline than anywhere in the study area. The spawning habitat found here, consisting of a sand and gravel bottom, and off-shore rock shoals is perhaps the best to be found in the U.S. waters of Lake Erie for walleye and yellow perch.Central Basin In 1978, 21 taxa of larval fishes were captured along the shore-line of the Ohio portion of the Central Basin. The bulk of the catch was made up of cyprinid fishes, with emerald and spottail shiners contributing 32% and 16% of the total catch respectively.

Cleupids, mainly gizzard shad, ranked second, making up 30% of the total. Volume weighted estimates of production indicated 54% of all larvae in the nearshore zone were emerald shiner. Species of commercial and/or sport interest captured were rainbow smelt, carp, white bass, yellow perch, sauger and walleye. The capture of walleye and. sauger was limited to only a few specimens at a limited number of locations.

No rainbow smelt spawning activity has been reported in the study area. Historically it has been believed that any smelt larvae found in the area were probably spawned in the Pelee Island-Long Point area and drifted into the study area with surface currents flowing southward from Pelee Passage to the Ohio shoreline (Figure 1) (MacCallum and Regier, 1969). The fact that 72% of the larvae were captured well offshore and that over 98% of the catch was made up of smelt developed beyond the pro-larval stage indicates that most of the larvae captured were probably carried into the study area by these currents.

On July 17 pro-larvae smelt were captured at Station 3 1/1 near Sandusky at a calculated density of 14.25 larvae per 100 m , suggesting that smelt spawn in the sandy shallows along Cedar Point.-101 -

Sheltered habitat found in the large harbors of the Central Basin are ideal for carp. Large catches of carp larvae were made in these harbors. Although one of the major commercial species in Lake Erie, carp are usually held in low regard and few, if any, management decisions are developed around protecting carp.The vast majority of freshwater drum larvae were collected in the western-third of the Central Basin study area, with 87% of the catch coming from Transects 1-4. Although drum are reported as pelagic spawners, adult drum usually inhabit water less than 12 meters deep.The area west of Cleveland, where most of the drum larvae were captured, contains a larger band of relatively shallow water than the area east of Cleveland.

East of Cleveland, water less than 12 meters deep is limited to a very narrow band along the shoreline.

Yellow perch are the species of main concern in the Central Basin of the lake. Perch larvae were found to be concentrated mostly along the shore, particularly in the eastern-third of the study area. Yellow perch deposit their eggs in ribbon-like tubes in debris, aquatic vege-tation, or on clean gravel or sand. The area where the majority of yellow perch larvae were captured has very limited quantities of clean gravel and sand, and even less aquatic vegetation.

Yellow perch, therefore, appear to be using the harbor breakwalls and the sand accumulated on the lee-side of these structures as spawning habitat.POWER PLANT ENTRAINTMENT Western Basin Numbers of larval fishes entrained were estimated for four power plants along the shoreline of the Western Basin (Table 16). Estimates were obtained by multiplying average larval concentrations at the station(s) most immediately adjacent to the cooling water intake structures by the 9 pumping rates reported by each plant. Calculations indicate 4.4 x 10 clupeid larvae were entrained at the four plants.This represented 90.3% of total larval entrainment.

Carp were the second most frequently entrained larvae, representing 4.4% of the total. Yellow perch (2.2% of total) and walleye (0.04% of total)ranked third and eleventh, respectively, in numbers entrained.

Estimates of larval abundance in -three depth zones of the nearshore zone of the Western Basin were also calculated (see Appendix C). The combined estimated fish entrainment at the four power plants is presented in Table 19. Table 19 shows a comparison of nearshore production vs. entrainment in an effort to quantify the effect of the power plants on larval fish populations in the nearshore zone. This comparison suggests that for several species, entrainment estimates approach, nearshore abundance estimates, indicating sources of larval fish beyond the limits of the study area.-102 -

0 TABLE 19. TOTAL ENTRAINMENT ESTIMATES OF FOUR WESTERN BASIN POWER 1977 SAMPLING PERIOD PLANTS DURING THE C)W Species NEARSHORE ENTRAINMENT PERCENT PRODUCTION ESTIMATE ENTRAINED Clupeid 1.30 x 1010 4.40 x 109 33.85 Whitefish 2.32 x 106 2.30 x 10 5 9.90 Rainbow Smelt 6.34 x 107 1.08 x 10, 17.00 Quillback Carpsucker 7.65 x 10 1.56 x 10 5 20.00 Carp 1.64 x 106 2.18 x 10 7 13.3 Emerald Shiner 5.16 x 108 3.05 x 107 5.90 Spottail Shiner 1.27 x 10 7 1.31 x 106 10.30 Channel Catfish 6.69 x 10 1.68 x 10 ' 2.50 White Bass 2.65 x 10 6 7.37 x 107 27.80 Lepomis sp. 4.12 x 10 6 3.22 x 105 7.82 Percidae 2.66 x 105 1.52 x 10 5.70 Sauger 2.25 x 10 6 1.49 x 106 66.20 Walleye 6.08 x 107 1.96 x 106 3.20 Yellow Perch 1.35 x 10 9 1.05 x 108 7.80 Log Perch 6.82 x 107 5.30 x 106 7.80 Freshwater Drum 1.42 x 10 1.03 x i0 7 7.30 Both entrainment estimates and estimated larval production in the nearshore zone are believed to be accurate within the limits associated with the sampling program. However, no attempt was made to estimate the input of larvae from the tributaries during the 1977 study period. Snyder (1978) estimatec abundance of gizzard shad, freshwater drum, and white bass in a 14 km area extending from the mouth of the Maumee River to the head of the Maumee estuary to riva2 if not exceed the estimate of abundance of these species in a 1740 km portion of the Western Basin proper studied by Heniken (1977) in 1975 and 1976.Reutter et al. (1978a, 1978b) examined larvae abundance in a portion of the lower Maumee River estuary during the 1977 sampling season. Comparison of nearshore production estimates reported herein with Reutter's abundance estimates in the Maumee estuary leads to a conclusion similar to that of Snyder (1978), in that the estuary is a major larvae production area. This conclusion is evident in numbers presented in Table 20. The white bass production estimate at the mouth of the Maumee River was two times greater than that of the nearshore study area. Freshwater drum production in the Maumee estuary clearly exceeded that from the lake. It is suggested that the large number of drum larvae in the Maumee River is partially responsible for the high densities of drum larvae occurring in Maumee Bay. While not exceeding the nearshore production, clupeid, largely gizzard shad larvae were very abundant in the Maumee River. In contrast, estimates of yellow perch and-emerald shiner larvae occur predominantly in nearshore areas of the lake. The latter species are comparatively infrequent in the Maumee River estuary area studied by Reutter.Although comparisons of nearshore production estimates have been made, very clear incongruities are evident. These comparisons can be used only with great care, realizing the inherent bias resulting from unmeasured estuarine inputs.A total of 4.87 x 109 larvae were estimated to have been entrained by the four power stations alyng the shoreline of the Western Basin in 1977. An estimated 2.97 x 10 (61% of the total) larvae were entrained at Detroit Edison's Monroe Plant. Toledo Edison's Bayshore plant ranked second in total entrainment, accounting for 27.3% of the total.Consumers Power Whiting Plant and the Toledo Edison-operated Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant accounted for 11.3 and 0.3%, respectively, of the total entrainment.

Entrainment estimates indicated clupeid larvae were by far the most numerous larvae entrained at all the power plants. Clupeid larvae represented between 91% of the total entrainment at Monroe to 82% at Davis-Besse (Table 21). Carp/Goldfish larvae represented 7.2% of the total entrainment at Monroe. The latter is a far greater percentage than calculated for the three other facilities.

The River Raisin and the immediately adjacent wetland areas undoubtedly contribute the greater proportion of carp larvae entrained at the Monroe facility.-104 -

TABLE 20. COMPARISON OF NEARSHORE AND ESTUARINE PRODUCTION ESTIMATES DURING THE 1977 STUDY PERIOD Species Production Estimates Nearshore/

Nearshore Maumee River Maumee River Estuarine Species Estimate Mouth Estimate Estuary Estimate White Bass 2.65 x 10' 5.6 x 10i 1.15 x 108 Freshwater Drum 1.42 x 10' 1.4 x 108 1.43 x 10 'Gizzard Shad 1.30 x 1 0 1D 6.5 x 10 9 1.30 x 109 Nearshore Species Yellow Perch 1.35 x 10 1.30 x 10 7 4.60 x 106 Emerald Shiner 5.16 x 108 1.20 x 106 1.90 x 105-105 -

TABLE 21.ESTIMATES OF THE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES ENTRAINED AT EACH OF FOUR WESTERN LAKE ERIE POWER PLANTS DURING THE 1977 STUDY PERIOD Species Monroe Whiting Bayshore Davis-Besse All Power Plants Clupeid 90.90 89.31 90.23 82.01 90.31 Whitefish 0.08 0.05 Rainbow Smelt 0.13 0.54 0.54 1.30 0.22 Quillback 0.01 0.01 0.01 Carpsucker Carp/Goldfish 7.20 0.27 0.27 0.16 4.40 Cyprinidae 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.08 Emerald Shiner 0.05 1.20 0.80 0.72 0.63 Spottail Shiner 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.03 Channel Catfish 0.01 0.01 White Bass 0.01 3.73 3.75 0.17 1.50 Lepomis sp. 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 Percidae 0.01 0.01 0.01 Sauger 0.08 0.08 0.03 Walleye 0.10 0.10 0.77 0.04 Yellow Perch 1.04 3.80 3.81 1.41 2.20 Log Perch 0.04 0.21 0.21 0.73 Freshwater 0.55 0.55 0.07 Drum Unidentifiable 0.15 0.03 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00.1 0 0 The number of carp entrained here was larger than the nearshore abundance estimate.

Protected littoral habitat along the River Raisin estuary and the Maumee River estuary provide spawning habitat for fish: species preferring shallow, quiet waters.Although entrainment at the Monroe facility accounted for 61% of the total entrainment, a relatively small percentage of commercial and sport fishes were entrained here. Of the larval yellow perch entrained, 48.3% were entrained at Toledo Edison's Bayshore Plant, while the larger Monroe Plant entrained only 30%. Entrainment of larval sauger and freshwater drum occurred only at the Bayshore and Whiting Plants. Entrainment of larval walleye was largely limited to the Bayshore and Whiting Plants with 6.2% of walleye entrainment occurring at the Davis-Besse Plant. Table 22 provides percentage of the total entrainment estimate for each species at each power plant.Central Basin Entrainment estimates were calculated for six power plants located along the Ohio shoreline of the Central Basin. Separate estimates were developed using in-plant collections as well as field collections of larvae. Basin-wide entrainment estimates derived from in-plant and field collections did not differ statistically when summed over all species (Wilcoxon's Signed-Rank Test; a = .05).However, when species-by-species or plant-by-plant comparisons were made, statistical differences between field and in-plant estimates were often found. Statistical differences were found between entrain-ment estimates, summed over all power plants, for clupeids, white suckers, carp, and freshwater drum (Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test; a =.05) (Table 23). Entrainment estimates derived from field samples for carp, and drum were significantly higher than estimates derived from in-plant samples. Clupeid and white sucker estimates were statistically higher when derived from in-plant samples. Estimates of entrainment derived from field. and in-plant collections, summed over all species, were significantly different for the Avon Lake Plant and the Ashtabula C Plant (Wilcoxon's Signed Rank Test; a= .05). Estimates of entrainment were higher for in-plant samples at the Avon Lake Plant and from field samples at the Ashtabula C Plant.Entrainment estipates developed from field collections indicated a total of 2.52 x 10 larvae were entrained by Central Basin power plants in 1978 (Table 18). Emerald shiner larvae were the most frequently entrained species (31.79% of the total). Clupeid and rainbow smelt larvae ranked second and third representing 24.36 ang 12.66% of the total entrainment, respectively.

A tottl of 4.60 x 10 yellow perch larvae (1.83% of the total) and 1.17 x 10 walleye larvae (.05% of the total) were calculated to have been entrained.

Entrainment estimates derived from field collections were compared with estimated larval abundance in the Central Basin near-shore zone. Table 24 contains the percentage of the estimated-107 -

0 TABLE 122. ESTIMATE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ENTRAINMENT.BY SPECIES AT EACH OF FOUR LAKE ERIE WESTERN BASIN POWER PLANTS DURING THE 1977 STUDY PERIOD...Species Monroe Whitting Bayshore Davis-Besse Total Clupeid 61.0 11.0 27.0 1.00 4.40 x 109 Whitefish 100.0 2.30 x 10 3 Rainbow Smelt 3.5 27.6 67.0 1.80 1.08 x 10 7 Quillback 27.0 73.0 1.56 x 10s Carpsucker Carp 97.7 0.7 1.6 0.01 2.18 x 10"7 Emerald Shiner 50.0 14.0 35.0 1.00 3.05 x i0 7 Spottail 71.0 8.4 20.4 0.20 .1.31 x 106.Shiner White Bass 4.5 27.8 67.7 0.01 7.37 x 10 7 Lepomis sp. 96.3 1.1 2.6. 3.22 x 10 s Percidae 29.2 70.8 1.52 x 10'Sauger 29.1 70.9 1.49 x 10 6 Walleye 27.3 66.3 6.20 1.96 x 10 6 Yellow Perch 29.5 19.9 48.3 2.10 1.05 x 10 8 Log Perch 23.6 21.5 52.50 2.2 5.30 x 10 6 Freshwater 29.0 71.0 1.03 x 10 7 Drum-108 -

TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF ESTIMATED ENTRAINED SPECIES, IN-PLANT VS. FIELD SURVEYS IN-PLANT ESTIMATES FIELD ESTIMATES DIFFERENCE' SPECIES NUMBER % OF NUMBER % OF ENTRAINED TOTAL ENTRAINED TOTAL Clupeid 3.68 x 107 11.30 6.14 x 107 24.36 -2.46 x 107 Rainbow Smelt 3.23 x 107 9.92 3.19 x 107 12.66 4.00 x 10 5 White Sucker 2.03 x 106 0.62 0 0 2.03 x 106 Carp/Goldfish 4.52 x 107 13.88 5.09 x 106 2.01 4.01 x 107 Shiner & Minnow 1.88 x 108 57.74' 9.13 x 107 36.23 9.67 x 107 Emerald & Spottail Shiner Bluntnose Minnow 7.17 x 10i 0.22 0 0 7.17 x 10 Burbot 2.42 x 10s 0.07 1.49 x 105 0.06 9.30 x 10 4 Trout Perch 4.66 x 106 1.43 5.85 x 10 2.32 -1.19 x 106 White Bass 2.00 x 10s 0.06 9.43 x 10 4 0.04 1.06 x 10 Lepomis sp. 2.92 x 10s 0.09 2.88 x 10 ', 0.01 2.6.3 x 10 5 Micropterus sp. 1.70 x 10 s 0.05 0 0 1.70 x 10 5 Percidae 1.40 x 10 s 0.26 3.81 x 10 6 1.51 -2.97 x 10 6 Sauger 2.09 x 10 4 0.01 0 0 2.09 x 10 4 Walleye 4.34 x 10 0.14 1.16 x 10 0.05 3.18 x 10 Yellow Perch 3.62 x 10 1.11 4.60 x 10 1.83 -9.80 x 10 Log Perch 4.85 x 106 1.49 5.07 x 106 2.01 -2.20 x 10*'Johnny Darter 0 0 1.40 x 10 7 5.56 -1.40.x 10 7 Freshwater Drum 7.20 x Ids 0.22 1.27 x 10 7 5.04 -1.20 x 10 7 Mottled Sculpin 2.99 x 10 0.09 8.95 x 10 6 .3.55 -8.61! x 10 Unidentifiable 4.19 x 10 r 1.29 1.51 x 10 0.06 4.04- x 10 6 (Damaged)

Larvae Total 3.26 x 10 8 2.52 x 108 7.40 x 10 7'Negative values indicate larger estimates from field samples.Positive values indicate larger estimates from in-plant samples.:-109 -

TABLE 24. ESTIMATE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ENTRAINMENT BY SPECIES PLANTS (Estimated from Field Collections)

AT EACH OF SIX CENTRAL BASIN POWER I-Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A & B C Clupeid 12.88 38.76 15.00 7.77 16.44 9.12 6.14 x 107 Rainbow Smelt 0.91 3.98 68.65 2.92 13.98 9.59 3.19 x 107 Carp/Goldfish 9.39 8.19 53.04 26.72 2.60 5.09 x 106 Cyprinidae 100.00 4.14 x 104, Emerald Shiner 1.21 0.93 16.60 2.99 39.70 38.58 8.01 x 107 Spottail 2.20 1.09 51.20 4.87 36.70 2.96 1.12 x 107 Shiner Burbot 51.67 48.32 1.49 x 10i Trout Perch 37.61 16.14 40.51 5.79 5.85 x 105 White Bass 100.00 9.43 x 105 Lepomis sp. 100.00 2.88 x 104 TABLE 24 (continued).

ESTIMATE OF THE PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ENTRAINMENT 1Y SPECIES BASIN POWER PLANTS (Estimated from Field Collections)

AT EACH OF SIX CENTRAL I-.I-.I-.Species Edgewater Avon Lake .Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A & B C (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%)Percidae 3.67 1.76 83.46 11.13 3.81 x 106 Walleye 65.38 34.62 1.17 x 105 Yellow Perch 1.05 2.14 18.63 23.91 36.96 17.26 4.60 x 106 Log Perch 5.23 4.99 40.63 46.15 2.96 5.07 x 106 Johnny Darter 43.43 56.57 1.40 x 107 Freshwater 3.41 81.75 1.00 5.58 6.99 1.65 1.26 x 107 Drum.Mottled 86.00 14.00 8.95 x 106 Sculpin Unidentifiable 100.00 1.51 x 10, All Species 4.68 14.56 21.43 6.43 30.20 20.32 2.52 x 108 nearshore abundance entrained by power plants in the Central Basin in 1978. Examination of these values indicates a relatively small percentage of larvae of all species except white bass, johnny darter, freshwater drum and mottled sculpin were entrained.

The relatively high entrainment estimates for white bass and freshwater drum can be explained using the estuary context developed in the preceding Western Basin discussion, i.e. preferred spawning habitat of these species was not sampled during this study.Entrainment losses estimated from field collections were greatest at Ashtabula A & B Plant. An estimated 7.61 x 10 larvae representing 30.8% of the total were entrained here. Emerald shiner larvae were the most abundant larvae entrained at this plant (3.09 x 107 larvae, 41.'79%of the total). Clupeid larvae were second (13.2% of the total).Yellow perch larvae represented 2.23% of the total entrainment at the Ashtabula A & B Plant. Field estimates indicated 21.43% of the total entrainment occurred at the Eastlake Plant and 20.32% at the Ashtabula C Plant. Estimated fntrainment was lowest at the Lorain Edgewater Plant where 1.18 x 10 larvae were entrained.

The latter represented 4.68% of the entrainment estimated at power plants located along the south shore of the Central Basin. The percentage of total entrainment at each power plant represented by each species is presented in Table 25.In the Central Basin a species of major interest is yellow perch.Entrainment estimates based on field samples indicated yellow perch entrainment was highest as the Ashtabula A & B Plant where an estimated 7.61 x 10 larval yellow perch were entrained (30.80% of total yellow perch entrainment).

The Ashtabula C Plant ranked second in yellow perch entrainment with 20.32% of the total. Calculated yel5w perch entrainment was lowest at the Edgewater.

Plant where 1.18 x 10 (4.68%of the total) were entrained.

A complete list of the percentage of the total entrainment estimate for each species entrained at each power plant is available in Table 26.Entrainment estimates caVcualted using in-plant data (Table 17)indicate a total of 4.28 x 10 larvae were entrained by Central Basin power plants in 1978. Of these, 1.88 x 10 were cyprinids which comprised 54.7% of the total estimate.

Carp larvae were the second most fre V ently entrained species (13.88% of the total). A total of 3.62 x 10 larval yellow perch, representing 1.11% of the total, ranked as the seventh most frequently entrained species (Table 27).Comparison of entrainment estimates developed from in-plant samples with nearshore production estimates (Table 27) leads to the conclusion that a relatively small percentage of each fish species was entrained.

Exceptions to this conclusion are the estimates for carp, white bass and log perch. It has been noted that our sampling program did not sample carp and white bass spawning habitat in estuarine areas.The inconsistency of the log perch estimate has no obvious explanation

-112 -

0 S TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF NEARSHORE PRODUCTION ESTIMATES ANDTOTAL ESTIMATES OF SIX CENTRAL-BASIN POWER PLANTS DURING THE PERIOD (CALCULATED FROM FIELD SAMPLES ')/ENTRAINMENT 1978 SAMPLING I-..I-.Species Nearshore Entrainment Percent Production Estimate.

Entrained Clupeid 1.51 x 1010 6.14 x 10 0.41 Rainbow Smelt 4.28 x 100 3.19 x 107 7.50 Carp/Goldfish 1.26 x 108 5.09 x 106 11.32 Emerald Shiner 4.28 x 101 8.01 x 107 1.87 Spottail Shiner 8.38 x 108 1.12 x 107 1.34 Burbot 2.58 x 106 1.49 x 101 5.78 Trout Perch 1.04 x 108 5.05 x 106 5.62 White Bass 1.92 x 106 9.43 x 10' 49.08 Percidae 3.50 x 107 3.81 x 106 1.11 Walleye 5.69 x 106 1.17 x 10i 2.10 Yellow Perch 1.09 x 108 4.60 x 106 4.23 Log Perch 5.23 x 107 5.07 x 106 9.69 Johnny Darter 1.12 x 108 1.40 x 107 12.50 Freshwater Drum 1.07 x 101 1.26 x 107 11.00 Mot-.led Sculpin 5.39 x 8.95 x 106 16.62.

TABLE 26. TOTAL ENTRAINMENT AT CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS (ESTIMATED FROM FIELD COLLECTIONS)

Species I.I-.Clupeid Rainbow Smelt Carp/Goldfish Cyprinidae Emerald Shiner Spottail Shiner Edgewater (M)67.03 2.47 4.05 0.35 8.20 2.10 Avon Lake (%)64.85 3.46 2.02 0.31 Eastlake (%)17.06 40.56 0.72 24.63 10.77 Lake Shore (%)29.44 5.76 16.67 14.75 3.36 Ashtabula A & B (%)13.20 5.86 1.79 41.79 5.40 AshtabuI a C (%)10.9,4 5.98 0.26.60.42 0.65 Burbot Trout Perch White Bass Lepomis sp.0.10 3.10 0.14 0.66 4.07 5-.83 7.99 0.01 S TABLE 26 (continued).

TOTAL ENTRAINMENT COLLECTIONS)

AT CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS (ESTIMATED FROM FIELD ILn Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula A & B C (M) (%) (M) (W) (M) (W)Percidae 0.38 0.12 4.18 0.83 Walleye 0.14 0.25 Yellow Perch 0.41 0.27 1.59 6.79 2.23 1.55 Log Perch 2.25 0.69 12.72 3.07 0.29 Johnny Darter 7.99 15.47 Freshwater 3.64 28.07 0.23 4.33 1.16 0.41 Drum Mottled 10.00 2.46 Sculpin Unidentifiable 1.28 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 TABLE 27. ESTIMATES OF THE RELATIVE BASIN POWER PLANTS ABUNDANCE OF FISH SPECIES ENTRAINED AT EACH OF SIX CENTRAL Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A & B C Clupeid 15.95 68.43 4.84 3.86 6.30 0.56 3.68 x 107 Rainbow Smelt 79.88 15.48 1.80 0.24 2.54 3.23 x 107 White Sucker 3.74 41.03 45.49 5.59 3.65 2.04 x 106 Carp/Goldfish 0.61 20.20 35.18 11.70 32.30 4.52 x 107 Shiners 19.53 62.20 11.63 0.05 6.22 0.57 4.52 x 107 Minnows 7.98 23.79 30.28 2.42 35.40 0.16 2.09 x 108 Bluntnose 100.00 3.22 x 107 Minnow Burbot 100.00 2.42 x 105 Trout Perch 8.31 64.02 7.65 3.81 14.15 2.06 5.03 X 106 0 0 0 TABLE 27 (continued).

ESTIMATES OF THE RELATIVE ABUNDANCE OF SIX CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS FISH SPECIES ENTRAINED AT EACH OF I-.Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula Total A & B C White Bass 100.0 2.00 x 105 Lepomis sp. 67.12 9.52 23.29 2.92 x 101 Micropterus 100.00 1.70 x 105 sp.Percidae 45.83 54.05 8.40 x 105 Sauger 100.0 2.09 x 104 Walleye 85.48 14.52 4.34 x 105 Yellow Perch 37.29 19.39 36.46 7A15 3.62 x 106 Freshwater 27.36 56.94 15.83 7.20 x 105 Drum Mottled 72.58 27.42 2.99 x 109 Sculpin Unidentifiable 49.49 35.70 2.88 10.08 1.86 4.93 x 107 All Species 11.82 54.44 18.53 2.55 11.85 0.89 4.28 x 108 except that problems in the study design as discussed in the section W"Sources of Sample Variability" may be operating in this instance.In-plant estimates of losses due to entrainment are greatest at the Avon Lake Plant where an estimated 2.33 x 100 (54.44% of the total)were entrained.

Shiners were the most frequently entrained species (55.95% of Avon Lake total), followed by rainbgw smelt (11.16%) and gizzard shad (10.87%)..

A total of 1.35 x 10 larval yellow perch (0.58%) were entrained at the Avon Lake Plant. The second highest entrainment estimates were calculated from in-plant collections at the Eastlake Plant where 7.93 x .10' larvae (18.53% of the total) were entrained.

Entrainment at the Ashtabula A & B Plant ad the Ohio Edison Edgewater Plant was essentially the same (5.06 x 10 and 5.07 x 10 larvae, respectively) with each contributing to 11.8% of the total Central Basin entrainment estimate.

At the Ashtabula C Plant, an estimate of only 3.81 x 10 6 fish. (0.89% of the total) were entrained.

Table 28 gives the percentage of the total entrainment estimate for each species entrained at each plant.Esimates indicated no larval yellow perch were entrained at either the Edgewater or Lake Shore Plants. Highest yellow porch entrainment was estimated at the Avon Lake Plant where 1435 x 10' or 37.3% of the total yellow perch entrainment occurred 6 Entrainment at the Ashtabula A & B Plant was estimated at 1.32 x 10 yellow perch or 36.5% of the total perch entrainment.

The Eastlake and Ashtabula C Plants accounted for the remaining 26.5% (19.7 and 7.1% respectively).

The percentage of the total entrainment estimate for. each species entrained at each power plant is presented in Table 29.In general, the entrainment estimates derived from in-plant collections probably better represent the..actual entrainment numbers than those calculated from field surveys. Not being weather-dependent, the in-plant collections were made on a more-regular basis than field collections.

Avoidance is less of a problem with pump-collected samples. One must use caution when comparing entra-inment estimates derived from in-plant collections to abundance estimates derived from the field survey. The, collection techniques are obviously different.

It should also be noted that the technique used in this study yields the number entrained, but does. not thoroughly address the impact on adult populations.

No mention:has been made of mortality of entrained larvae, of natural'mortality rat'es, or of density dependent mechanisms influencing natural mortality rates as influenced by entrainment.

The state of the art in these areas is poorly developed at best.In general, power plant entrainment.

of larval fishes probably has a rather small impact on Lake Erie fish populations, particularly in the Central Basin. In the Western Basin,..losses due to entrainment of-118 -

S species of commercial and/or sport interest are greatest at Toledo Edison's Bayshore Plant, due to its location at the mouth of the Maumee River estuary. Future power plants can be located to minimize losses due to entrainment.

Power plants located in estuaries result in greater losses due to entrainment than those along the shoreline.

The selection of an appropriate site along the shoreline must be made with care. The results of this study indicate selected areas along the Ohio shoreline contain valuable spawning and nursery areas for species of commercial and sport interest, i.e., the area between Little Cedar Point and Locust Point. Similarly the results of this study indicate the Detroit Edison Plant at Monroe is well located in a relatively depauperate area of the Western Basin. An alternative explanation, of course, is that. the area is relatively devoid of larvl fishes due to the operation of the plant.-119 -

TABLE 27. COMPARISON OF NEARSHORE PRODUCTION ESTIMATES AND TOTAL ESTIMATES OF SIX CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS DURING THE PERIOD (CALCULATED FROM IN-PLANT COLLECTIONS)

ENTRAINMENT 1978 SAMPLING 0 0)Species Nearshore Entrainment Percent Production Estimate Entrained Clupeid 1.51 x 1010 3.68 x 107 0.24 Rainbow Smelt 4.28 x 10' 3.23 x 107 7.51 White Sucker 1.65 x 106 2.04 x 106 124.00 Carp/Goldfish 1.26 x 108 4.52 x 107 35.92 Shiner & Minnow 5.22 x 109 2.41 x 108 4.61 Burbot -2.58 x 106 2.42 x 105 9.42 Trout Perch 1.04 x 108 5.03 x 106 4.84 White Bass 1.92 x 106 2.00x 10' -10.01 Percidae 3.50 x 107 8.40 x 10s 2.42 Sauger 1.14 x 106 2.09.x 1.83 Walleye 5.69 x 106 4.34 x 105 7.61 Yellow Perch 1.09 x 108 3.62 x 106 3.32 Log Perch 5.23 x 10 7 8.15 x 106 15.01 Freshwater Drum 1.07 x 108 7.20 x iO" 0.77 Mottled Sculpin 5.39 x 107 2.99 x 105 0.55 0 0 0 TABLE 28. PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL POWER PLANTS ESTIMATED ENTRAINMENT BY SPECIES AT EACH.OF SIX CENTRAL BASIN I-.Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula A & B C (W) (%) (N) (%) (%) (N)Clupeid 55.42 10.87 2.24 13.07 4.58 5.49 Rainbow Smelt 11.16. 6.29 5.46 0.15 21.92 White Sucker 0.01 0.36 1.17 1.05 0.15 Carp/Goldfish 2.63 3.94 20.01 48.65 28.80 Shiners 3.86 55.94 30.51 0.93 25.64 31.97 Minnows 24.26 3.31 12.26 7.16 22.48 1.30 Bluntnose 6.77 Minnow Burbot 0.10 Trout Perch 0.39 1.30 0.48 1.77 1.40 2.77 White Bass 0.09 TABLE 28 (continued).

PERCENTAGE OF TOTAL ESTIMATED CENTRAL BASIN POWER PLANTS ENTRAINMENT BY SPECIES AT EACH OF SIX I', Species Edgewater Avon Lake Eastlake Lake Shore Ashtabula Ashtabula A & B C (W) (%) (%) (W) (W) (M)Lepomis sp. 0.26 0.25 0.13 Micropterus 0.48 1.56 Percidae 1.01 Sauger 0.20 Walleye 0.78 1.70 Yellow Perch 0.58 0.88 2.60 6.93 Log Perch 3.62 1.14 3.21 6.21 2.89 3.37 Freshwater 1.87 0.18 1.05 Drum Mottled 0.09 0.16 Sculpin Unidentifiable 10.53 22.20 13.06 9.44 24.51 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 REFERENCES Ahlstrom, E.H. 1954. Distribution and abundance of egg and larval populations of the Pacific sardine. Fish. Bull. 56:83-140.

Applied Biology, Inc. 1979(a). Section 316(b) intake monitoring program.Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Eastlake Plant. Final Report.Applied Biology, Inc. 1979(b). Section 316(b) intake monitoring program.Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Avon Lake Plant. Final Report.Applied Biology, Inc. 1979(c). Section 316(b) intake monitoring program.Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Ashtabula A and B Plant.Final Report.Applied Biology, Inc. 1979(d). Section 316(b) intake monitoring program.Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company Ashtabula C Plant. Final Report.Aquatic Ecology Associates, Inc.lakefront plant site, Conneaut Report. Vol. 1 -Aquatic Rept.Assoc., Pittsburgh, Pa. 420 p.1978.Ohio.Part 2 -Ecological study proposed Preliminary Final Draft Appendices.

Aquatic Ecol.Aron, W., E.H. Ahlstrom, B. MckBarry, A.W. H. Be, and W.D. Clark. 1965.Towing characteristics of plankton sampling gear. Limn. and Oceangr.10(3):333-340.

Aron, W. and S. Collard. 1969. A study of the influence of net speed on catch. Limn. and Oceangr. 14(2):242-249.

Barr, J.A., H.J. Goodnight, J.P. Sall, J.T. Helwig. 1976. A user's guide to SAS. SAS Institute, Inc. Raleigh, N. Carolina.

329 p.Bartholomew, W.C. 1979. Investigations of walleye, sauger and perch in Maumee River and Maumee Bay of Lake Erie. Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 167 p.Bary, B.M., J.G. DeStefano, M. Forsyth and J. Von den closing high-speed plankton catcher for use horizontal towing. Pacific Sci. 12:46-59.Kerkhof. 1958. A in vertical and Bowles, R.R., J.V. Merriner and J. Boreman. 1978. Factors affecting accuracy of ichthyoplankton samples used in power plant entrainment studies. Topical Briefs: Fish and Wildlife Resources and Electric Power Generation, No. 7.. 12 p.Boreman, J. .1976. Great Lakes Fish Egg and Larvae Identification Proceedings of a Workshop.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Power Plant Team. Ann Arbor, Michigan.

219 p.-123 -

Brant, RA. and C.E. Herdendorf.

1972. Delineation of Great Lakes Estuaries.

Proc. 15th Conf. Great Lakes Res. p. 710-718.Brown, D.J.A. and T.E. Langford.

1975. An assessment of a net tow to sample coarse fish fry in rivers. J. Fish Biology 7(4):533-538.

Browne, F.X. 1975. Water Pollution Impact: Erie, Pa. area. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency Rept. No. EPA /9-74-015.

Bugbee, S.L. 1977. Implementation of Section 316(b) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. p. 3-6 IN Jensen, L.D. (ed.), Fourth National Workshop on Entrainment and Impingement.

Burns, N.M. 1976. Temperature, oxygen, and nutrient distribution patterns in Lake Erie, 1970. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada. 33:485-511.

Chapman, C.R. 1955. Sandusky Bay Report. Ohio Department of Natural Resources.

Division of Widlife Memo. 84 p.Cole, R.A. 1978a. Larval Fish Distributions in Southwestern Lake Erie near the Monroe Power Plant. EPA-600/3-78-069.

USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.

73 pp.Cole, R.A. 1978b. Entrainment at the Once-Through Cooling System on Western Lake Erie. Vol. 1. EPA 600/3-78-070.

USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.

154 pp.Davies, R.M. and L.D. Jensen. 1974. Entrainment of zooplankton at three 0 mid-Atlantic power plants. in L.D. Jensen, ed. Second Workshop on Entrainment and Intake Screenfing.

Edison Electric Institute Report 15. p. 131-155.Davies, D.H., M.R. Rawson and G.A. Emond. 1979. Lake Erie Fishery Research, Performance Report. Columbus, Ohio Department Natural Resources, Div. of Wildlife.

56 pp.Fay, L.A. 1976. Chlorophyll a and Pheophytin a in the Western and Central Basins of Lake Erie. CLEAR Technical Report No. 55. Center for Lake Erie Area Research, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 177 p.Fish, M.P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of sixty-two species of fish from Lake Erie and its tributary waters. U.S. Bur.Fisheries Bul. 47(10):293-398.

Fleminger, A. and R.I. Clutter. 1965. Avoidance of towed nets by zooplankton.

Limnol. Oceanog. 10(1):96-104.

Flittner, G.A. 1964. Morphometry and life history of the emerald shiner, (Notropis antherinoides)

Rafinesque.

Ph.D. dissertation.

University of Michigan.

213 p.-124 -

Fraleigh, P.C., J.C. Burnham, G.H. Gronau, P.L. Kovacik, 1975. Maumee Bay Environmental Study Final Report.Co. Port Authority.

Toledo, Ohio. 253 p.and E.J. Tramer.The Toledo-Lucas Goodyear, C.P. 1978.adult approach.Services -78/65.Entrainment impact estimates using the equivalent U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service/Office of Biological 14 p.Great Lakes Basin Commission.

Communicator 9(8):2-3.1979.Hackney, P.A. and J.C. Webb. 1978. A method mortality rates of ichthyoplankton.

Entrainment and Impingement.

Melville, 115-124.Hartley, R.P., C.E. Herdendorf, and M. Keller.water properties in the Western Basin of Department of Natural Resources, Division of Investigations No. 58.The Industrial Crescent.for determining growth and Fourth Natl. Workshop N.Y.: EA Communications.

1966. Synoptic survey of-Lake Erie. State of Ohio of Geological Survey Report 0.Hartley, S.M. and Herdendorf, C.E. 1976. Abundance and population trends of Sandusky Bay fishes. Proceedings, Sandusky River Basin Symposium, May 2-3, 1975. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office 653-346. p. 381-422.Hartman, W.L. 1970. Resource crisis in Lake Erie. The Explorer 12(1):6-11.Hartman, W.L. 1972. Lake Erie: effects of exploitation, environmental changes, and new species on the fishery resources.

J. Fish. Res. Bd.Canada 29:899-912.

Heniken, M.R. 1977. Distribution and abundance of larval fish in a portion of the western basin of Lake Erie. Master's Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 95 p.Herdendorf, C.E. 1973. Shoreline changes of Lakes Erie and Ontario -with special references to currents, sediments, transport, and shore erosion. p. 43-76 IN Sweeney, R. A. (ed.) 1975. Proceedings of the Conference on Chantgs in the Physical Aspects of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Resources.

Vol.25, No. 3. 93 p.Herdendorf, C.E. 1977. Assessment of the larval fish populations in Maumee River estuary and Maumee Bay of Lake Erie. Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 75. Columbus, The Ohio State University.

136 p.Herdendorf, C.E. and C.L. Cooper. 1975. Environmental impact assessment of commercial sand and gravel dredging in Maumee River and Maumee Bay.Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 41.Columbus, The Ohio State University.

381 p.-125 -

Herdendorf, C.E. and C.L. Cooper. 1976.populations in Maumee River estuary impact of commercial sand and gravel Center for Lake Erie Area Research Columbus, The Ohio State University.

Investigation of larval fish and bay and assessment of the dredging on these populations.(CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 49.85 p.Herdendorf, C.E., C.L. Cooper, M.R. Heniken and F.L. Snyder. 1976.Western Lake Erie larval fish survey, 1975 preliminary data report.Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 47.Columbus, The Ohio State University.

126 p.Herdendorf, C.E., C.L. Cooper, M.R. Heniken and F.L. Snyder.Western Lake Erie fish larvae survey, 1976 preliminary data Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Reprt.Columbus, The Ohio State University.

256 p.1977.report.No. 63.Hollander, M. and D.A. Wolfe. 1973. Nonparametric Methods. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York, New York. 503 p.Houde, E.D. 1969. Sustained swimming ability of larval walleyes, Stizostedion vitreum vitreum, and yellow perch Perca flavescens.

J.Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 26(6):1647-1659.

Hubbs, C.L.culture.1934. Some experiences and suggestions on forage fish Trans. Amer. Fish. Soc. 63(133):53-63.

Hubbs, C.L. 1943. Terminology of the early stages of fishes.1943:260.Copeia 0 Johnson, F.H.types of waters.1961.bottom Trans.Walleye egg survival during incubation on several in Lake Winnibogoshish, Minnesota, and conncecting Amer. Fish. Soc. 90:312-322.

Kelso, J.R.M. and G.S. Milburn. 1979. Entrainment and impingement of fish by power plants in the Great Lakes which use the once-through cooling process. J. Great Lakes Res. 5(2):182-194.

Knight-Jones, plankton 942.E.W. and S.Z. Quasim. 1955. Response of some marine animals to changes in hydrostatic pressure.

Nature 175:941-Lenarz, W.H.. 1972. Mesh retention of larvae of Sardinops caerulea and Engraulis mordax by plankton nets. Fish. Bull. 70(3):839-848.

Lewis, T.L. and C.E. Herdendorf.

1976.Appendix 4. Limnology of Lakes and Framework Study.Sedimentology.

p. 323-349 IN Embayments.

Great Lakes Basin MacCallum, W.R. and H.A. Regier. 1969. Distribution of smelts, (Osmerus mordax) and the smelt fishery in Lake Erie in the early 1960's. J.Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27:1823-1846.

-126 -

McGowan, J.A. and V.J. Fraundorf.

1966. The relationship between size of net used and estimates of zooplankton diversity.

Limnol. Oceangr.11(4):456-469.

Mizera, J.J. 1981. Distribution and entrainment of larval fish in Western and Central Lake Erie. CLEAR Tech. Rept. No. 215. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.Murray, C.R. and E.B. Reeves. 1977. Estimated use of water in the United States in 1975. U.S. Geol. Serv. Cir. 765.Nelson, D.D. and R.A. Cole. 1975. The distribution and abundance of larval fishes along the western shore of Lake Erie at Monroe, Michigan.

Institute of Water Research Tech. Rept. No. 32.4. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan 66 p.Noble, R.L. 1970. Evaluation of the Miller high-speed sampler for sampling yellow perch and walleye fry. J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada 27(6):1033-1044.

Patterson, R.L. 1979. Production, mortality and power plant entrainment of larval yellow perch in western Lake Erie. EPA-600/3-79-087.

199 pp.Pautzke, C.F. 1967. Fish and wildlife as related to water quality of the Lake Erie Basin. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.Pincus, H.J. 1960. Engineering geology of the Ohio'shoreline of Lake Erie. Technical Report No. 7. Ohio State Department of Natural Resources, Division of Shore Erosion.Public Law 92-500. 92nd Congress, S. 2770. October 18, 1972. Office of Public Affairs. U.S.E.P.A.

Washington, D.C.Quirk, Lawler and Matusky, Consulting Engineers.

1974. Cornwall gear evaluation study. Quirk, Lawler and Matusky Laboratories Project 115-29. Tappan, New York. 96 p.Reutter, J.M. 1978(a). Fish and larvae entrainment at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1977. CLEAR Technical Report No. 84.The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 2 p.Reutter, J.M. 1978(b). Ichthyoplankton studies from Lake Erie near the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1977. CLEAR Technical Report No. 88. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 8 p.Reutter, J.M. 1979(a). Ichthyoplankton studies from Lake Erie near the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1978. CLEAR Technical Report No. 108. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 8 p.Reutter, J.M. 1979(b). Fish egg and larvae entrainment at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during 1978. CLEAR Tech. Report No. 104. The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 7 p.-127 -

Reutter, J.M. 1980(a). Fish egg and larvae entrainment at the Davs-Besse Nuclear power Station during 1979. CLEAR Technical Report No. 164.The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 7 p.Reutter, J.M. 1980(b).Davis-Besse Nuclear Report No. 163. The Ichthyoplankton studies from Lake Erie near the Power Station during 1979. CLEAR Technical Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. 14 p.Reutter, J.M., and C.E. Herdendorf.

1975.nuclear power plant on Lake Erie.Columbus.

Project F-41-R-6, Study 1.Environmental evaluation of a The Ohio State University, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Report.Reutter, J.M., C.E. Herdendorf, and G.W. Sturm. 1978a. Impingement and entrainment studies at the Toledo Edison Company. 316(b) program.Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 78(a).Columbus, The Ohio State University.

161 pp.Reutter, J.M., C.E. Herdendorf, and G.W. Sturm. 1978b. Impingement and entrainment studies at the Toledo Edison Company. 316(b) program.Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 78b.Columbus, The Ohio State University.

121 p.Roessler, M. 1965. An analysis of the variability of fish populations taken by otter trawl in Biscayne Bay, Florida. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc.94(4):311-318.

Saville, A. 1959. Mesh selection in plankton nets. J. Cons. Pern. Int.Explor. Mir. 23:192-201.

Snyder, D.E. 1976. Terminologies development, in J. Boreman, ed.Identification:

Proceedings of a U.S.F & W.S. 220 p.for intervals of larval fish Great Lakes Fish Egg and Larvae Workshop.

Nat. Power Plant Team, Snyder, F.L. 1978. Ichthyoplankton studies in the Maumee and Sandusky River estuaries of Lake Erie. Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) Tech. Rept. No. 92. 140 p&Taylor, C.C. 1953. Nature of the variability in trawl catches. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. Fish. Bull. 54(83):145-166.

Thomas, R.L., J.-M. Jaquet, A.L.W.Surficial sediments of Lake Erie.403.Kemp, and C.F.M. Lewis.J. Fish. Res. Bd. Canada.1976.33:385-Trautman, M.B. 1957.University Press.The Fishes of Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State 263 p.United States Department of Interior.Control Administration Great Lakes Program for Water Pollution Control-128 -1967. Federal Water Pollution-Illinois River Basins Project.Lake Erie. 365 p.

United States Department of Interior.Control Admnistration Great Lakes Summary 1963-1964.

170 p.1968.Region.Federal Water Pollution Lake Erie Environmental U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1977. Draft Environmental related to the construction of Erie Nuclear Plant, Units Ohio Edison Company, Docket Nos. STN 50-580 and STN 50-581 Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

Washington, D.C. 257 p.Statement 1 and 2.Office of Upchurch, S.B. 1973. Impact of coastal dynamics on man in Lake Erie and Ontario. IN Sweeney, R.A. (ed.), Proceedings of the conference on changes in the physical aspects of Lakes Erie and Ontario. Bulletin of the Buffalo Society of Natural Sciences 25(3).Van Meter, H.D., and M.B. Trautman.

1970. An annotated list of the fishes of Lake Erie and its tributary waters exclusive of the Detroit River.Ohio J. Sci. 70:65-78.Vannucci, M. 1968. Loss of organisms through the meshes. p. 77-86 IN D.J. Tranter (ed.). Zooplankton Sampling.

UNESCO Press, Paris.Waybrant, R.C and J.M. Shauver. 1979. Survey of larval fish in the Michiganwaters of Lake Erie, 1975 and 1976. EPA-600/3-79-095.

USEPA Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth.

96 pp.Wickliff, E.L. 1931. Fishery research by the Ohio Conservation.

Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 61(l):199-207.

Division of Wiebe, P.H. and W.R. Holland. 1968. Plankton patchiness:

effects of repeated net tows. Limnol. Oceanog. 13(2):315-321.

Wiebe, P.H. 1971. A computer model study of zooplankton patchiness and its effects on sampling error. Limnol. Oceangr. 16(l):29-38.

Winsor, C.P. and G.L. Clarke. 1940. A statistical study of variation in the catch of plankton nets. J. Mar. Res. 3(1):1-34.

-129 -

APPENDIX A TABLE A-I. DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES AND RANGE OF LENGTHS OF LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED IN THE NEARSHORE ZONE AND THE MAUMEE AND SANDUSKY ESTUARIES OF THE WESTERN BASIN OF LAKE ERIE, 1975-1977 SPECIES DEVELOPM NTAL MAUMEE AND NEARSHORE ZONESANDUSKY RIVER OF WESTERN BASIN ESTUARIES-1975/1976 1977 (mm) (mm)Gizzard Shad/Alewife Lake Whitefish Rainbow Smelt Carp/Goldfish Emerald Shiner Spottail Shiner Quillback White Sucker Channel Catfish Trout Perch White Bass/White Perch Sunfish Crappie Yellow Perch Sauger Walleye Logperch Freshwater Drum Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Post-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae Pro-Larvae Post-Larvae 3.0 -6.5 4.0 -18.0 4.5 6.5 4.7 5.0 7.0 14.0 6.0 15.0 5.0 12.0 6.5 4.5 6.0 6.0 5.0 6.0 8.5 12.0 12.5 13.0 5.0 6.8 -8.0 8.0 -17.0 6.0 7.0 2.5 3.5 4.0 5.5 2.5 4.0 4.1 7.0 6.0 9.5 4.5 5.5 2.0 4.4 7.0 10.0 3.5 14.0 5.5 9.0 5.0 16.0 7.0 13.0 10.0 15.0 6.2 14.0 4.4 15.0 25.0 19.5 23.0 6.0 17.0 14.0 6.0 17.0 12.0 13.0 21.0 17.0 7.Q 7.0 20.0 10.0 8.0 6.0 21.0 8.5 9.0 22.0 21.0 6.5 15.0 4.0 -7.0 -6.0 7.0 -7.0 -4.0 -6.0 -6.5 -9.0 6.0 -9.0 -6.0 6.5 -4.0 7.0 -1 Developmental stages as defined by Hubbs (1944)-130 -

APPENDIX A TABLE A-2.DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES 1 AND RANGE OF LENGTHS OF-SELECTED LARVAL FISH CAPTURED IN THE WESTERN BASIN DURING 1975 AND 1976 SPECIES DEVELOPMENTAL RANGE STAGE (mm)Gizzard Shad/Alewife Emerald Shiner White Bass/White Perch Yellow Perch Freshwater Drum Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Juveniles Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Juveniles Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Protolarvae Mesolarvae 3.0 -9.0 -15.0 -22+4.0 -8.0 -11.0 -13.0+3.0 -8.0 -10.0 -4.0 -10.0 -13.0 -3.0 -6.0 -10.0 15.0 20.0 8.0 10.0 14.0 8.0 11.0 23.0 10.0 13.0 17.0 5.5 7.0 iDevelopmental stages as defined by Snyder (1977).-131 -

TABLE A-3.DEVELOPMENTAL STAGES 1 AND RANGE OF LENGTHS OF SELECTED LARVAL FISHES CAPTURED IN THE NEARSHORE ZONE OF WESTERN LAKE ERIE DURING 1977 SPECIES DEVELOPMENTAL RANGE STAGE (mm)Gizzard Shad/Alewife White Bass/White Perch Walleye Logperch Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Protolarvae Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae Protolarvae Mesolarvae Metalarvae 4.0 10.0 14.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 8.0 12.0 20.0 6.0 -11.0-10.0-16.0-22.0 5.0 11.0 15.0 5.0 7.0 9.0-8.0-.15.0-21.0-6.0-13.0-22.0 0 Freshwater Drum 1 Developmental stages as defined by Snyder (1977).-132 -

APPENDIX B TABLE B-1.VOLUME WEIGHTED ESTIMATES OF LARVAL ZONES OF THE _WESTERN BASIN (1977)ABUNDANCE IN THREE NEARSHORE DEPTH SPECIES 0-1 Meter 1-3 Meter 3-5 Meter Western Basin Depth Zone Depth Zone Depth Zone Nearshore Total Gizzard Shad 3.12 x 109 2.64 x 109 4.52 x 109 1.03 x 1010 3.91 x 10 2.83 x 109 3.96 x 108 4.62 x 108 Whitefish 4.99 x 10' 4.80 x 105 7.47 x 105 2.32 x 106 1.73 x 10 1.78 x 105 2.11 x 105 4.71 x 105 Rainbow Smelt 1.89 x 107 1.63 x 107 2.81 x 10 6.34 x I0D 2.21 x 10 2.26 x 106 3.51 x 106 2.92 x 106 Quilback 2.13 x 105 3.08 x 105 2.44 x 105 7.65 x 104 Carpsucker 1.06 x 105 1.16 x 10i 7.13 x 104 2.28 x 104 White Sucker 4.99 x 10 4.80 x 10i 7.47 x 10' 1.28 x 10'1.73 x 104 1.78 x 105 2.11 x 10' 1.66 x 10'Carp 8.76 x 106 3.59 x 10 1.20 x 108 1.64 x 108 7.22 x 10' 3.02 x 106 1.67 x 107 2.73 x 10 7 I-.

TABLE B-1 (continued).

SPECIES 0-1 Meter 1-3 Meter 3-5 Meter Western Basin Depth Zone Depth Zone Depth Zone Nearshore Total Cyprinidae 2.42 x i0s 3.51 x 101 7.70 x 104 6.70 x 105 8.89 x 104 4.21 x 104 6.50 x 104 Emerald Shiner 5.58 x 107 1.81 x 108 2.78 x 108 5.16 x 108 6.75 x 106 3.62 x 107 5.24 x 107 5.22 x 107 Spottail Shiner 2.01 x 106 5.10 x 106 5.59 x 106 1.27 x 107 2.87 x 105 9.27 x 101 1.11 x 0.6 9.16 x.10 5 Channel Catfish 3.13 x 10s 9.38 x 104 2.62 x 105 6.69 x 105 1.04 x 105 8.01 x 103 2.24 x 104 5.41 x 104 Trout Perch 1.22 x 104 1.45 x 105 2.27 x 105 3.83 x 105 2.10 x 101 2.20 x 104 7.55 x 104 5.10 x 104 White Bass 1.31 x 106 5.21 x 107 8.26 x 107 2.65 x 108 1.55 x 107 4.86 x 106 1.04 x 107 1.87 x 107 Pomoxis sp. 3.41 x 105 1.29 x 106 1.63 x 106 3.16 x 105!-.

0 TABLE B-1i (continued)'..

SPECIES 0-1 Meter 1-3 Meter 3-5 Meter Western Basin Depth Zone Depth Zone Depth Zone Nearshore Total Lepomis sp. 2.21 x i0' 2.52 x 105 6.43 x 105 4.12 x.10 6 9.95 x 104 1.12 x 10. 1.53 x 10s 1.11 x 10.Percidae 2.66 x 105 2.66 x 105 7.24 x 104 Sauger 7.56 x 105 1.49 x 10G 2.25 x 106 2.59 x 10O Walleye 4.63 x 106, 2.27 x 107 3.35.x 107. 6.08 x 107 4.12 x 105 2.12 x 106 4.14 x 106 6.87 x 106 Yellow Perch 1.41 x 108 4.46 x 108 7.58 x 108 1.35 x 109O 1.23 x 107 3.85 x 107 6.99 x 107 1.46 x 108 Log Perch 6.65 x 106 2.95 x 107 3.20 x 107 6.82 x 10 7 7.44 x 10s 3.77 x 106 2.51 x 106 6.59 x 106 u-i TABLE B-1 (continued).

SPECIES 0-1 Meter 1-3 Meter 3-5 Meter Western Basin Depth Zone Depth Zone Depth Zone Nearshore Total Freshwater Drum 2.52 x 107 9.41 x 107 2.24 x 107 1.42 x 108 4.11 x 106 1.64 x 107 1.93 x 108 1.91 x 107 Unidentifiable 1.03 x 106 3.33 x 105 1.36 x 106 4.48 x 104 2.48 x 105 Total 3.52 x 10' 3.53 x 109 5.88 x 109 1.30 x 1010 2.04 x 108 1.23 x 108 2.06 x 108 4.77 x 108 0 0 APPENDIX B TABLE B-2.VOLUME WEIGHTED ESTIMATES (FOR ENTIRE SAMPLING PERIOD)IN THE NEARSHORE ZONE OF THE CENTRAL BASIN IN 1978 OF LARVAL FISHES"I)SPECIES 0-1 METER 3-5 METERS 5-10 METERS CENTRAL BASIN DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE NEARSHORE TOTAL Gizzard Shad 1.09 x 106 5.06 x 108 1.00 x 1010 1.51 x 1011 9.05 x 104 3.85 x 10' 7.36 x 108 2.88 x 101 Rainbow Smelt 8.30 x 104 7.48 x 107 3.53 x 10' 4.28 x 108 1.02 x 104 6.38 x 106 2.56 x 107 1.07 x 108 Quillback 1.32 x 103 5.54 x 109 5.55 x 101 Carpsucker 7.20 x 102 3.97 x 104 1.84 x 105 White Sucker 2.74 x 103 1.34 x 106 3.12 x 10' 1.65 x 106 1.93 x 10 3 1.09 x 105 7.11 x 104 4.03 x 105 Carp 2.47 x 105 1.00 x 108 2.53 x 107 1.26 x 101 2.17 x 104 8.51 x 106 2.18 x 106 3.00 x 107 Cyprinidae sp. 1.80 x 105 8.00 x 107 1.73 x 107 9.75 x 107 2.10 x 104 9.01 x 10 1.49 x 106 2.43 x 107 Golden Shiner 1.49 x 102 2.24 x 101 4.27 x 104 2.67 x 105 7.40 x 10 3.85 x 104 4.20 x 101 6.18 x 104 TABLE B-2. (continued)

SPECIES 0-1 METER 3-5 METERS 5-10 METERS CENTRAL BASIN DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE NEARSHORE TOTAL Striped Shiner 7.14 x 103 4.00 x 106 3.64 x 106 7.65 x 106 7.14 x 102 1.22 x 106 1.04 x 106 1.28 x 106 Emerald Shiner 4.83 x 105 7.43 x 108 3.53 x 10' 4.28 x 109 6.51 x 104 1.09 x 108 6.80 x 108 1.08 x 109 Spottail Shiner 1.77 x 106 7.26 x 108 1.04 x 108 8.38 x 108 1.93 x 105 8.18 x 107 4.43 x 107 2.26 x 101 Burbot 3.26 x 10' 1.80 x 106 7.86 x 105 2.58 x 106 3.40 x 102 9.58 x 105 7.86 x 104 5.19 x 105 Trout Perch 1.07 x 10 5 6.00 x 10' 4.42 x 10 7 1.04 x 108 6.51 x 10 3 3.64 x 106 2.20 x 106 1.79 x 107 White Bass 1.74 x 10' 2.31 x 10- 1.69 x 106 1.92 x 106 1.93 x 102 6.36 x 10 4 6.79 x 105 5.28 x 10i Pomoxis sp. 6.41 x 102 3.24 x 10 1 i,11 x 106 1.43 x 106 1.42 x 102 4.81 x 10 4 2.25 x 10i 3.28 x 10'0O 0 TABLE B-2. (continued)

SPECIES 0-1 METER 3-5 METERS 5-10 METERS CENTRAL BASIN DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE DEPTH ZONE NEARSHORE TOTAL Black Crappie 1.86 x 102 9.35 x 104 2.15 x 107 2.16 x 10 7 1.86 x 10 2 9.35 x 10 4 3.15 x 10 6 7.14 x 106 Lepomis sp. 1.46 x 10 1.22 x 106 6.72 x 10 5 1.89 x 10 6 2.98 x 10 1.52 x 105 1.12 x 10 5 3.52 x 10 5 Percidae sp. 7.13 x 103 1.35 x 10 7 2.15 x 10 7 3.50 x 10 7 1.56 x 10 2 1.64 x 10 6 3.15 x 106 6.27 x 10 6 Sauger 2.16 x 103 1.14 x 106 1.14 x 10 6 2.16 x 10 1.28 x 10i 3.80 x 101 Walleye 2.39 x 103 2.55 x 106 3.14 x 106 5.69 x 10 6 3.14 x 10 2 3.47 x 10 s 6.69 x 10 i 9.63 x 10 5 Yellow Perch 1.24 x 10 5 6.50 x 10 6 4.40 x 107 1.09 x 10 8 1.15 x 10 4 5.84 x 10 5 3.50 x 106 1.91 x 10 7'.0 APPENDIX C TABLE C-1.Determination of the Average Lifetime Fecundity (Fa)of a Three Year-Old Recruit to the Yellow Perch Population of the Ohio Waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie.°AGE Si Pi 2 Ei 3 P S Ei4 2 1.00 0.14 3 0.94 0.85 15,000 13564 4 0.62 0.95 17,500 10308 5 0.06 1.00 20,000 1200 6 0.001 1.00 20,000 20 6 Fa = -Pi SEi = 25092 1=3 1 From Davies, D. H., M. R. Rawson and G. A. Emond.1979.. Performance Report. Lake Erie Fishery Research, Fed. Aid Proj. F-35-R-17, Study II. 56 p.2 Preliminary data from M. R. Rawson. Pers. comm.3 Van Meter, H. 1966. Yellow Perch Fecundity.

Unpublished memo.4 The survival fraction (S 1)of females and the fraction of mature females within each age class (P.) and the fecundity of mature females within each age class (E.)are estimated from published and unpublished sources.-140 -

APPENDIX C TABLE C-2.Seasonal Length Frequency Distribution of Larval Yellow Perch Needed to Estimate the Instantaneous Rate of Mortality on Length (d).LENGTH CLASS LENGTH NUMBER COLLECTED (I) (mm) (1975) (1976)1 6.0- 6.9 833 836 2 7.0- 7.9 389 160 3 8.0- 8.9 220 68 4 9.0- 9.9 212 41 5 10.0-10.9 234 60 6 11.0-11.9 36 37 7 12.0-12.9 11 22 8 13.0-13.9 8 12 9 14.0-14.9 7 3 9 2- N1 1=2 d = -1n /9 9=I 1 d1975 = 0.5568 d1976 = 1.1231-141 -

APPENDIX C TABLE C-3.Estimates of Se', and 5I, for Each Length Class of Larval Yellow Perch.1 SURVIVAL PROBABI LITY FROM SURVIVAL PROBABILITY FROM LENGTH LENGTH EGG TO LENGTH CLASS I (S LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE 3 CLASS (m)1975 1976 1975 1976 1 6.0- 6.9 0.0749 0.0752 0.0016 0.0016 2 7.0- 7.9 0.0350 0.0144 0.0034 0.0083 3 8.0- 8.9 0.0199 0.0061 o.o060 0.0196 4 9.0-' 9.9 0.0191 0.0037 0.0063 .0.0323 5 10.0-10.9 0.0211 0.0054 0.0057 " 0.022'6 11.0-1.1.9 0.0032 0.0033 0.0374. 0.0362 7 12.0-12.9 0.0010 0.0020 0.1196 .0.0598 8 13.0-13.9 0.0007 0.0011 0.1708 0.1087 9 14.0-14.9 0.0006 0.0003 0.1993 0.3984 S e3~* -H -fraction of eggs that hatch Ne -number of larvae of length class I No -estimated initial number of larvae .IParameter estimates are 0.135,2 d 1 9 7 5 -0.5568. d 1 9 7 6 = 1.1231, F, = 25092 andh = 4mm 2 Estimated by averaging fractions of eggs that hatch on various substrates reported by Johnson (1961) for walleye (Stizostedion

v. vitreum) in Lake Winnibogoshigh, Minnesota.

3 Note that length at hatching (h) is 4 mm:which is 2-mnm less than the first length class for which data are available.

In performing the calculations of SeI, the value of d was assumed to be correct for these smaller length. classes.-142 -

APPENDIX C TABLE C-4. Estimate of the Loss of Three Year-Old Yellow P rch Recruits as at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1976.1 a Result of Entrainment Mortality SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS GE 3)CLASS LENGTH DENS 15Y SLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE 3 PERIOD OF V (rn) No./nr m /day 1.00 N SI PER DAY CAPTURE 1 6.0- 6.9 0.065 8x10 4 1.00 5200 0.0016 8.32 215.3 2 7.0' 7.9 0.012 8x104 1.00 960 0.0083 7.97 207.2 3 8.0- 8.9 0.003 8x1O 4 1.00 240 0.0196 4.70 150.5 4 9.0- 9.9 0.001 8x10 4 1.00 80 0.0323 2.58 82.7 5 10.0-10.9 0.002 8x1O 4 1.00 160 0.0221 3.54 148.5 6 11.0-11.9 0.001 8x10 4 1.00 80 .0.0352 2.90 57.9 7 12.0-12.9 0.0007 8x1O 4 1.00 56 0.0598 3.35 67.0 8 13.0-13.9 0.0006 8x1O 4 1.00 48 0.1087 5.22 15.7 9 14.0-14.9 0.00003 8xlO 4 1.00 2.4 0.3984 0.96 2.9 TOTAL 1.00 39.54 948.7 IDavis-Besse did not operate during 1975 APPENDIX C TABLE C-5. Estimate of the Loss of Three Year Old Yellow Perch Recruits as a Result of Entrainment

ýbrtallty at the Bayshore Power Plant in 1975.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS 'AGE 3)CLASS LENGTH DENSIY 3 FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS/ TO AGE 3 PERIODOF (I) (mm) No./m m /day NI SI NO./DAY CAPTURE 6.0- 6.9 0.081 2.8x10 6 1.00 ..6BxO5 0.0016 362.88 13063.7 2' 7.0- 7.9 0.038 2.Bx1O 6 1.00 1.64x105 0.0034 361.75 13023.4 11.6400 5 40 3.20 ]515.3 8.0- 8.9 0.024 2.8x10 6 1.00 6.72x10 4 0.000 403.20 14515.2 T.0 405.O.060766 95805.0 9.0- 9.9 0.023 2.BxO 6 1.00 6.44104 0.0063 405.72 14605.9 6.44i10 767-79 .W 5 10.0-10.9 0.021 2.8x106 6.88x10 4 0.0057335.16 12065.8 2.T16 5 .88l40 0.00374 tr1 6 11.0-11.9 0.004 2.8x1O6 1.00 0.0374 418.88 15079.7 12.0-12.9 0.0036 1.00 0.1196 1205.57 32550.3" 73.Bx10 95.07 74.7 13.0-13.9 0.003 2.8x106 1 8.4x10 3 0.1708 1434.72 38737.4 2x1 6 1.00 1160 25662.7 9 14.0-14.9 0.002 2.Bx10 6 1.00 "5.6x103 0.1993 1116.08 39062.8 T.66- -7Y6TT .ff TOTAL 1.00 6043.96 192704.2 0.66 3989.014.8

-143 -

APPENDIX C TABLEC-6.

Estimate of the Loss of Three Year-old Yellow Perch Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Bayshore Power Plant in 1976.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I. ADULTS (AGE 3)CLASS LENGTH DENSI 3 FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE 3 NO.AY PERIOD OF (I) (Mn) No./55Y /day NI SN CAPTURE 1 6.0- 6.9 0.065 2.8x10 6 1.00 1.82x10 5 0.0016 291.20 7571.2 2 7.0- 7.9 0.012 2.8x10 6 1 3.36x10 4 0.0083 278.88 75.9 1.00 164.64 5268.5 8.0- 8.9 0.003 2.8x10 6 1 8.40x0 3 164.64 5 4 9.0- 9.9 0.001 2.8x10 6 1.00 00323 90.44 2894.1 2.80103 .032 0.4 1940.1 5 10.0-10.9 0.002 2.8x10 6 1. 5.60x10 3 0.0221 123.76 5197.9 1.00 i 11.36 2027.11.0-11.9 0.001 2.8x106 .D 2.8003 101.36 2027.2 T 12.0-12.9 0.0007 2.8x10 6 1.00 1.96x173 17.20 2344.2 0.09 182.40 005.3 13.0-13.9 0.0006 2.8x106 0 .31 182.62 3652.3 0 1.00 3.4x10 .4120.53 1Trio.4 14.0-14.9 0.00003 2.8x10 6 1.00 .2 33.50 100.4 TOTAL 1.00 1383.6 36306.7_91-3.18 2TM7 0 APPENDIX C TABLE C-7. ESTIMATE OF THE LOSS OF THREE-YEAR-OLD YELLOW PERCH RECRUITS AS A RESULT OF ENTRAINMENT MORTALITY AT THE BAYSHORE POWER PLANT IN 1977.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY ADULTS (AGE 3 LENGTH .MEAN PLANT LNUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH GLASS L. PERIOD OF CLASS LENGTH DENSITY FLOW FRACTION OF LENGTH CLASS t TO AGE 3 CAPTURE (W) (On) No./1m m 3/day .KILLED Nx St NO./DAY (33 DAYS)1 6.0-6.9 .3117 2.Mx1O- 1 6f 8 nj nnr A ^ 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7.0-7.9 8.0-8.9.9.0-9.9 10.0-10.9 11.0-11.9 12.0-12.9 13.0-13.9.3158.1646.0647.0399.0564.0582.0789 2 .8x101 2.8xlO'2.8x10'2.8xlO'2. 840'2.8X10'2 .84010 1.00 ,0.6 1.00 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.66 1.00 0.56 1.00 0.66 8.8424X105

4. 6DBux 10 1.8116xI1O

1. 1172x 10 5 I .5792xIc10 1.6296x i0l 2.2092X10 5 0.0083 0.0196 0.0323 0.0221 0.0362 0.0598 0.1087 7.3xI10 9.0x10 3 5.qx10'2.5x10'5.7xIO'9.7xI0 3 2.4xI10 6. 5x 11)3.Ox U" 2.4xlO'3.Ox10'1.9x10, 8.1x101 T. _4x l1os 3.2x10s 3.2x 1O'7.9x10 5 2.2x10'I.4x-T1-144 -

APPENDIX D TABLE D-1. Determination of the Average Lifetime Fecundity (Fa) of a One Year-old Recruit ty the Western Basin Emerald Shiner Population.

AGE S. P., E. P. S.E.i Pi I i I 0 1.00 0.00 --- 0 1 0..655 0.296 1800 349 2 0.345 0.561 4000 774 3 0.170 0.092 8000 125 4 0.019 0.051 8000 8 4 Fa = L-P1S1El = 1256 i=0 1 The survival fraction (S.) of females, the fraction (P 1) of females within Wach age class and the fecundity of mature females (El ) are known (Flittner, 1964).-145 -

APPENDIX D TABLE D7 2.Seasonal Length Frequency Distribution of Emerald Shiner Larvae Needed to Estimate the Instantaneous Rate of Mortality on Length (d).LENGTH CLASS LENGTH NUMBER COLLECTED (1) (mm) 1975 1976 7.0- 7.9 340 2 8.0- 8.9 167 ---3 9.0- 9.9 176 1054 4 10.0-10.9 114 475 5 11.0-11.9 45 367 6 12.0-12.9 22 245 7 13.0-13.9 12 97 8 14.0-14.9 6 5 9 15.0-15.9 2 1 d 1 9 7 5 9-in = -in 0.61538 = 0.4855 9 T_ N 1=11 d,,,, = -In 0.53030 = 0.6343-146 -0 APPENDIX D TABLE D-3. Estimates of Sell and S for Each Length Class of Larval Emerald Shiner.1 SURVIVAL PROBABILITY FROM 2 SURVIVAL PROBABILITY FROM LENGTH LENGTH EGG TO LENGTH CLASS I(Se,!) LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE 1 CLASS (ra)1975 1976 1975 1976 1 7.0- 7.9 0.0531 0.0199 ---2 8.0- 6.9 0.0261 --- 0.0305 ---3 9.0- 9.9 0.0275 0.1647 0.0289 0.0048 4 10.0-10.9 0.0178 0.0742 0.0447 0.0107 5 11.0-11.9 0.0070 0.0573 0.1137 0.0139 6 1U.0-12.9 0.0034 0.0383 0.2342 0.0208 7 13.0-13.9 0.0019 0.0152 0.4191 0.0524 8 14.0-14.9 0.0009 0.0008 0.8849 0.9950 9 15.0-15.9 0.0003 0.0002 2.6539 3.9891 SeI -K -" I -s " H.- fraction of eggs that hatch Ne -number of larvae of length class No -estimated initial number of larvae 1 Parameter estimates are 0.25, d 1 9 7 5 -0.486, d 1 9 7 6 -0.634, -a 1256 and h -5 mm 2 Note that length at hatching (h) is 5 mm which is 2-4 mm less than the first length class for which adequate data are available.

In performing the calculations of S,, the value of d was assumed to be correct for these smaller length classes.-147 -

APPENDIX D TABLE D-4.Estimate of the Loss of One Year-old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Toledo Edison Bayshore Power Plant in 1975.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS (AGE 1)CLASS LENGTH DENSIJY FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE I PERIOD OF (I) (nm) No./m' m 3/day N 1 PER DAY CAPTURE 7.0- 7.9 0.0333 2.8x10 6 100 93,240 0.0199 1,855.48 179 981 2 2- 8.0- 8.9 0.0111 2.8x10 6 1.00 31,080 0.0305 947.94 91 950 2 3 9.0- 9.9 0.0097 2.8x1O6 1.00 27,160 0.0289 7.92 65 148 7 4 10.0-10.9 0.0068 2.8x10 6 1.00 19,040 0.0447 851.09 70 640 3 5 11.0-11.9 0.0028 2.8x106 1.00 7,840 0.1137 891.41 57 941 5 6 12.0-12.9 0.0022 2.8x1O 6 1.00 6,160 0.2342 144267 937737 7 13.0-13.9 0.0013 2.BxIO 6 1.00 3,080 0,4191 129083 83903 8 8 14.0-14.9 0.0005 2.8x10 6 1.00 1.400 0.8849 123886 80525 9 9 15.0-15.9 0.0002 2.8x106 1.00 560 2.6539 148618 14861 8~980..88 9:08!8 1.00 .07938 738,727.1 TOTAL 4870590.3 APPENDIX 0 TABLE D-5.Estimate of the Loss of One Year-old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Toledo Edison Bayshore Power Plant in 1976.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS (AGE 1)CLASS LENGTH DENSIXY 3 FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE I PERID1 F (1) (mm) No./mr m /day NI SI PER DAY CAPTURE 1 9.0- 9.9 0.320 2.840 6 1.00 896,000 0.004 430080 206.438.4 2 10.0-10.9 0.166 2.8x10 6 464,800 0.0107 2387213 46,00.00170 00 3 11.0-11.9 0.131 2.8x10 6 1.0D 366,800 0.0139 509852 244729 0 12.0-12.9 0.072 2.8x1o 6 1.00 4 193 28 201 277 4 6 1.00 2 54 3278651 5 13.0-13.9 0.029 2.Bx16 1 81,200 0.0524 4 2 6 14.0-14.9 0.012 2.8xi0 6 1.00 33,600 0.9950 33 4320 5683440 7 15.0-15.9 0.0002 2.8x10 6 1.00 52233 90 17 871 2 5M 3.89 .4I74:37* 1179 TOTAL 1.00 58 486 74 1,805 007 1 1,191,304.7 0-148 -

APPENDIX 0 TABLE D-6.Estimate of the Loss of One Year-old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Assumed Entrainment Mortality at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1975.1 SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS (AGE I CLASS LENGTH DENSI! T FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE I PEROD OF (I) (mm) No./m" m3/day NJ PER DAY CAPTURE 1 7.0- 7.9 0.0333 8x10 4 1.00 2,664 0.0199 53.01 5,142.3 2 8.0- 8.9 0.0111 8x10 4 1.00 888 0.0305 27.08 2,627.1 3 9.0- 9.9 0.0097 Bx1O 4 1.00 776 0.0289 22.43 1,861.4 4 10.0-10.9 0.0068 8x40 4 1.00 544 0.0447 '24.32 2,018.3 5 11.0-11.9 0.0028 8x1O4 1.00 224 0.1137 25.47 1,655.5 6 12.0-12.9 0.0022 8x10 4 1.00 176 0.2342 41.22 2,679.2 7 13.0-13.9 0.0011 8x304 1.00 88 0.4191 36.88 2,397.3 8 14.0-14.9 0.0005 Bx1O 4 1.00 40 0.8849 35.40 2,300.7 9 15.0-15.9 0.0002 8x10 4 1.00 16 2.6539 42.46 424.6 TOTAL 1.00 308.27 21,106.4 1 Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant did not operate during 1975 APPENDIX D TABLED-7.

Estimate of the Loss of One Year-old Emerald Shiner Recruits as a Result of Entrainment Mortality at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant in 1976.SURVIVAL PROBABILITY LENGTH MEAN PLANT FRACTION NUMBER OF LARVAE FROM LENGTH CLASS I ADULTS (AGE 1)CLASS LENGTH DENSIJY 3 FLOW KILLED OF LENGTH CLASS I TO AGE 1 PERIOD OF (/) (mm) No./me m /day NI S, PER DAY CAPTURE 1 9.0- 9.9 0.320 8X10 4 1.QO 25,600 0.0048 122.88 5,898.2 2 10.0-10.9 0.166 8x10 4 1.00 13,280 0.0107 142.10 6,820.8 3 11.0-11.9 0.131 8x10 4 1.00 10,480 0.0139 145.67 6,992.3 4 12.0-12.9 0.072 Bx10 4 1.00 5,760 0.0208 119.81 5,750.9 5 13.0-13.9 0.029 8x10 4 1.00 2,320 0.0524 121.57 9,360.7 6 14.0-14.9 0.012 8x10 4 1.00 960 0.9950 955.20 16,238.4 7 15.0-15.9 0.0002 8xl0 4 1.00 16 3.9891 63.82 510.6 TOTAL 1.00 1,671.05 51,571.9-149 -

-J CLEAR TECHNICAL REPORT NO. 181 ENVI RONMENTAL EVALUATION OF A NUCLEAR POWER.PLANT ON LAKE ERIE PROJECT NO. F-41-R FINAL REPORT STUDY I Prepared by Jeffrey M. Reutter, Ph.D.Charles E. Herdendorf,'

Ph.D,.Mark D. Barnes, Ph.D.and Walter E. Carey, Ph.D.Prepared for Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife THE OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY CENTER FOR LAKE ERIE AREA RESEARCH COLUMBUS, OHIO September 1980 0Ohio Department of Natural Resources Division of Wildlife RESPONSE OF FISH AND INVERTEBRATES TO THE HEATED DISCHARGE FROM THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION, LAKE ERIE, OHIO Jeffrey M. Reutter Ph.D.Charles E. Herdendorf, Ph.D.Mark D. Barnes, Ph.D.and Walter E. Carey, Ph.D.Center for Lake Erie Area Research The Ohio State University Columbus, Ohio September 1980 ABSTRACT The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is located in Ottawa County, Ohio, at Locust Point on the southwest shore of Lake Erie, about 21 miles east of Toledo. Unit 1 has a net electrical capacity of 906 MWe and a* closed cycle cooling system which dissipates heat to the atmosphere by means of a natural-draft cooling tower, 493 feet high and 415 feet in diameter at its base. Make-up water for cooling purposes is drawn from Lake Erie from a submerged intake crib 3000 feet offshore through a buried eight-foot diameter conduit to a closed, but uncovered, intake canal. The canal is approximately 2950 feet long and terminates at the trash racks of the intake structure.

Water is drawn through the intake crib and conduit by gravity. Design capacity for Unit 1 is 42,000 gpm with a resultant approach velocity through the crib ports of 0.25 ft/sec. Cooling tower*Final Report of research conducted for the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife, under Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project F-41-R-1 through R-11, Study 1 (1 June 1969 through 30 June 1980).

blowdown is discharged at a point approximately 1200 feet offshore through a six-foot diameter buried conduit which terminates in a high velocity nozzle to promote rapid mixing. The maximum allowable AT is 20 0 F.Studies of the aquatic environment in Lake Erie in the vicinity of the intake and discharge of this station were initiated in 1969. From 1973 to 1979, with few exceptions, the following parameters were sampled, during ice-free times, at approximately monthly intervals:

water quality, phyto-plankton, zooplankton, benthic macroinvertebrates (60-day intervals in 1977, 1978, and 1979), fish, and ichthyoplankton (approximately 10-day intervals during the spring spawning season). As is to be expected when a new unit first goes "on line", Unit 1 was operated sporadically from August 1977 through December 1979. It is the purpose of this report to summarize the information collected since 1969 and to define the changes in the aquatic environment (impact) caused by the thermal discharge from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station.Phytoplankton.

Quantitative estimates of phytoplankton densities at Locust Point were obtained at approximately monthly intervals from 1974 through 1979. Operational phytoplankton densities were larger during the spring and fall than pre-operational densities.

This was a natural phenomenon occurring throughout the nearshore waters of western Lake Erie and not caused by the thermal discharge.

Zooplankton.

Quantitative estimates of zooplankton densities in Lake Erie at Locust Point were obtained at approximately monthly intervals from 1973 through 1979. With the exception of cladoceran densities, which were very similar during the pre-operational and operational

studies, zooplankton operational densities, though generally similar to pre-operational densities, were somewhat lower than the corresponding pre-operational monthly density. However, these differences appeared to be due to natural phenomena occurring along the south shore of the Western Basin and not related to the thermal discharge.

Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

Benthic macroinvertebrate densities in Lake Erie at Locust Point were observed at approximately 30-day intervals from 1973-1976 and 60-day intervals from 1977-1979.

Operational densities were within the ranges established during the pre-operational study for every month except September.

Differences were attributable to natural variation.

Fish. Monthly gill net catches from Lake Erie near Locust Point from 1973-1979 were used to evaluate the impact of unit operation.

Fish popu-lations for each of the eight major species at Locust Point, alewife, channel catfish, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, walleye, white bass, and yellow perch, and the density of all species combined showed little or no variation between pre-operational and operational results.Ichthyoplankton.

Ichthyoplankton densities from Lake Erie in the vicinity of the intake and discharge were monitored at approximately 10-day intervals from 1974 through 1979. Tremendous variability was observed from year to year. However, due to the similarity in densities observed at the intake and discharge and control stations, there is indication that the thermal discharge has not significantly altered these populations.

Water Quality. Eighteen water quality parameters were monitored at approximately monthly intervals beginning in April 1974. In general the quality of Lake Erie water in the vicinity of the Station's discharge TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ABSTRACT ........................................................

.1 BACKGROUND

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

20 STUDY OBJECTIVE

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

21 PROCEDURES

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

22 Sampling Station Location ..................................

22 Plankton ...................................................

23 Benthos ....................................................

24 Fish .......................................................

25 Ichthyoplankton

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

26 Water Quality -. ...........................................

27 Primary Productivity

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

28 FINDINGS ........................................................

31 Plankton ...................................................

31 1979 Phytoplankton Data ...............................

31 1979 Zooplankton Data .................................

33 1974-1979 Phytoplankton Data Summary ..................

35 1972 -1979 Zooplankton Data Summary ..................

36 Benthos ....................................................

38 1979 Data .............................................

38 1972-1979 Data Summary. ..............................

39 Fish ......................................................

40 1979 Data .............................................

40 1973-1979 Data Summary ................................

43 Ichthyoplankton

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

47 1979 Data .............................................

47 1974-1979 Data Summary ................................

48 Water Quality ..............................................

49 1979 Data ...........................................

49 1974-1979 Data Summary .. ...........................

49 Primary Productivity

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

54 ANALYSIS ........................................................

56 Plankton ...................................................

57 Analysis of 1979 Results ..............................

57 Thermal Impact Assessment

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

62 Benthos ....................................................

64 Analysis of 1979 Results ..............................

64 Thermal Impact Assessment

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

65 Fish .......................................................

66 Analysis of 1979 Results ..............................

66 Thermal Impact Assessment

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

.. 70 Ichthyoplankton

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

71 Thermal Impact Assessment

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

71 TABLE OF CONTENTS Water Quality ..............................................

.72 Analysis of 1979 Results ...............................

72 Thermal Impact Assessment

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

75 Primary Productivity

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

77 Summary ....................................................

78 RECOMMENDATIONS

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

79 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

81 LITERATURE CITED ................................................

84 TABLES ..........................................................

87 FIGURES ...........

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

226 01 LIST OF TABLES Page 1. Plankton and Water Quality Sampling Pates ...........

.... 88 2. Phytoplankton and Zooplankton Sampling Structure, 1973-1979

.........

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

.... 89 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Dates .. .........

.... 90 4. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling Structure, 1973-1979

.91 5. Gill Net Sampling Dates ...... ..................

.... 92 6. Shore Seine Sampling Dates ....... ...............

.... 93 7. Trawl Sampling Dates ..... ... ...................

.... 93 8. Ichthyoplankton Sampling Dates ...............

94 9. Procedures for Water Quality Determination

.. ....... ... 95 10. Monthly Mean Densities of Individual Phytoplankton Taxa at Locust Point -1979 ....... ...............

..... 96 11. Monthly Mean Phytoplankton.

Densities From Sampling Stations at Locust Point, Lake Erie -1979 ...... ..... 99 12. Monthly Mean Densities of Individual Zooplankton Taxa at Locust Point -1979 ..... ..... ..... ...............

100 13. Monthly Mean Zooplankton Densities from Sampling Stations at Locust Point, Lake Erie -1979 .. ........ ... 103 14. Pre-operational and Operational Phytoplankton Data From Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station .........

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

... 104 15. Pre-operational and Operational Phytoplankton Data From the Vicinity of the Intake and Discharge Structures and a Control Station ................

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

106 16. Pre-operational and Operational Zooplankton Data From the Locust Point Area ...... ...................

... 107 17. Pre-operational and Operational Zooplankton Data in the Vicinity of the Intake and Discharge Structures and a Control Station ....................

... ........ 109 18. Monthly Mean Densities of Individual Benthic Macroinvertebrate Taxa at Locust Point -1979 ..... ..... 110

19. Pre-operational and Operational Benthic*Macroinvertebrate Densities From Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station 20. Pre-operational and Operational Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data From the Vicinity of the Intake and Discharge Structures and a Control Station ....21. Species Found in the Locust Point Area 1963 -1979 22. Numbers of Fish Collected at Locust Point, April -November 1979, at Locust Point Using Equal Monthly Effort With Each Type of Fishing Gear ............

23. Monthly Catch in Numbers of Individuals of Fish by Species at Locust Point During 1979 Using Equal Effort With Each Type of Gear ................

112 D O[..114 S. 115* .117* .118*. 119 24. Summary of Gil During 1979 .25. Gill Net Catch 30 April -1 M 26. Gill Net Catch 30-31 May 1979 27. Gill Net Catch 20-21 June 197 28. Gill Net Catch 28-29 July 197 29. Gill Net Catch 28-29 August 1 30. Gill Net Catch 29-30 Septembe 31. Gill Net Catch 27-28 October 32. Gill Net Catch I-.A Mnromhnr I I Net Catch Results at Locust Point................*per Unit Effort at Locust Point 1ay 1979 ..... ..............

per Unit Effort at Locust Point per Unit Effort at Locust Point 9 ..... ............

.......per Unit Effort at Locust Point 9 ...... .................

per Unit Effort at Locust Point 979 ...... ................

per Unit Effort at Locust Point r 1979 .............per Unit Effort at Locust Point 1979 ............per Unit Effort at Locust Point 070 0 120.... .123.... .127 129......136 141 145 I.33. Summary of Trawling Results at Locust Point During 1979 34. Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 30 April 1979 ...... ... .....................

35. Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 24 May 1979 .........

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

148..151 152* .153 36.37.38.39.40.41.42.43.44.45.46.47.48.49.50.Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 22 June 1979 ...... ....................

Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 31 July 1979 ...... ....................

Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 31 August 1979 ...... ..................

Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 25 September 1979 ................

Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 30 October 1979 ..............

...Trawl Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 6 November 1979 ................

Summary of Shore Seine Results at Locust Point During 1979 ...................Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 1 May 1979 ...... ..... ........ ........Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 30 May 1979 .................Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 20 June 1979 ...... ... ................

Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 28 July 1979 ........ ..................

Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 28 August 1979 ....... .................

Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 29 September 1979 ................

Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point 27 October 1979 .................

Shore Seine Catch per Unit Effort at Locust Point Page 154* ...155* .* 156 157* ...157* ...158*

159*. ..160.... 161*. ..162.... 163.... 164.... 165.... 166... .167 3 November 1979.....................168 51.52.Summary of Food Habits.Data of Fish Collected at Locust Point With a 16-ft Trawl 30 April 1979 ... ........ ... 169 Summary of Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at Locust Point With a 16-ft Trawl 24 May 1979 ..........

..... 170 0 Page 53. Summary of Point With 54. Summary of Point With 55. Summary of Point With 56. Summary of Point With 57. Summary of Point With 58. Summary of Point With Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 22 June 1979 .......Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 31 July 1979......

Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 31 August 1979 .Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 25 September 1979 ..Food Habits Data of Fish'Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 30 October 1979 ..Food Habits Data of Fish Collected at a 16-ft Trawl 6 November 1979 ...Locust Locust Locust Locust Locust Locust* 171* 172* 173* 174 175 176 59. Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Catches of Selected Species from Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ........ ...................

60. Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Data From the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Intake, Discharge, and Four Control Stations .....61. Ichthyoplankton Densities at Locust Point -1979 ....62. Results of Ichthyoplankton Collections at Toussaint Reef -1979 ....................e 6 63.64.65.66.67.68.69.70.71.Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Lake Erie Water Quality Analyses Mean Values and Ranges for Water Tested in 1979 ............

for April 1979 for May 1979 ......for June 1979 .........for July 1979 ........for August 1979 .......for September 1979 ...for October 1979 ....for November 1979 ...Quality Parameters

..........*177 180 183 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 P age 72. Dissolved Oxygen Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

201 73. Hydrogen-Ions (pH) Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

.... 202 74. Transparency Data for Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

.... 203 75. Turbidity Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

.......... 204 76. Suspended Solids Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

205 77. Conductivity Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

206 78. Dissolved Solids Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

....... ....... 207 79. Calcium Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

.... 208 80. Chloride Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

209 81. Sulfate Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

210 82. Sodium Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake" Intake and Discharge Structures

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

.... 211 83. Magnesium Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

... ........ .... 212 84. Total Alkalinity Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

........ .. .... 213 85. Nitrate Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

.........

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

214 86. Phosphorus Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

... .215 87. Silica Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

..... 216 88. Biochemical Oxygen Demand Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

..217

89. Temperature Data for Bottom Water in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

.... 218 90. Locust Point Primary Productivity (mgC/m 3/hr) for 1979 Field Season ...... ...................

..... 219 91. 1979 Ratios of Primary Productivity at Stations 8, 13, and 14 to Productivity at Station 3 (Mean of 0.5-Meter and 1-Meter Depths) .... .............

.... 220 92. 1979 Ratios of Primary Productivity at Station 13 to Productivity at Station 14 ....... ..........

..... 221 93. Summary of 1979 Illumination vs. Depth Profiles at Locust Point (Illumination is Given in Foot-Candles)

..222 94. Summary of 1979 Secchi Depths (in Meters) at Locust Point ..... .......................

.... ..223 95. Operational Water Quality Parameters Falling Outside of the Range of Pre-operational Values at Station 13 ...... .......................

...... 224 96. Mean Water Quality Values for Pre-operational and Operational Periods in the Vicinity of Lake Intake and Discharge Structures

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

..225 LIST OF FIGURES Page 1. Biological Sampling Stations at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Prior to 1976 ...........

.....227 2. Revised Sampling Stations at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ........ ....................

...... 228 3. Reefs Near Locust Point ...... .................

.... 229 4. Monthly Mean Phytoplankton Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1974 -1979 ....... .........

...... 230 5. Monthly Mean Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1979 ........ ..... ..........................

... 231 6. Monthly Mean Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point -1974 ........ ....... ..... ....................

.... 232 7. Monthly Mean Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point -1975 ..... ..... ..... ... ..........................

233 8. Monthly Mean Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1976 ..... ....... ...... ... .................

.... 234 9. Monthly Mean Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1977 ..... ..... ... ......................

...... 235 10. Monthly Mean*Bacillariophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1978 ..... ....... ........................

..... 236 11. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Diatom Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station .... ..........

...... 237 12. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Green Algae Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station .................

238 13. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Blue-green Algae Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ..... .........

239 5 Page 14.' Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Phytoplankton Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ........ .....240 15. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Phytoplankton Densities at the Station Intake (Sta. No. 8) ...........

...........

........ 241 16. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Phytoplankton Densities at the Station Discharge (Sta. No. 13) ..... ..... ..... ....................

242 17. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Phytoplankton Densities at a Control Station (Sta. No. 3) ........ .....................

...... 243 18. Monthly Mean Zooplankton Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1972 -1979 ...... ................

.... 244 19. Monthly Mean Rotifer Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1972 -1979 ..... ................

..... 245 20. Monthly Mean Copepod Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1972 -1979 ...... ..............

.... 246 21. Monthly Mean Cladoceran Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1972 -1979 ...... ................

.... 247 22. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ...... ........ 248 23. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Rotifer Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ...249 24. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Copepod Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ....250 25. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operat-ional Data for Zooplankton Cladoceran Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station , .251 26. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Densities-at the Station Intake-(Sta. No, 8) ........ .......................

..... 252 27. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Densities at the Station Discharge (Sta. No. 13) ..... ....... ....................

.... 253 Page 28. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Zooplankton Densities at a Control Station (Sta. No. 3) .........

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

254 29. Monthly Mean Benthic Macroinvertebrate Populations for Lake Erie at Locust Point, 1972 -1979 .. ... ...255 30. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ..... ..... ..... ... .......................

256 31. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Coelenterate Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ..... ....... ....................

....... 257 32. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Annelid Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ...258 33. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Arthropod Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ..259 34. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Mollusc Densities in Lake Erie in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ...260 35. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities at the Station Intake (Sta. No. 8) .... .............

....261 36. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities at the Station Discharge (Sta. No. 13) ..... ... ............

262 37. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Benthic Macroinvertebrate Densities at a Control Station.(Sta.

No. 3) .........

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

..263 38. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Alewife Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ....... ..................

........264 39. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Channel Catfish Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ..... ...............

...... 265 Page.40. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Freshwater Drum Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ...... ................

..... 266 41. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gizzard Shad Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ..... ................

.....267 42. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Spottail Shiner Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) .........

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

268 43. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Walleye Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) .........

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

..... 269 44. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational White Bass Catches in Gill Nets Set in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) ....... .......................

.... 270 45. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Yellow Perch Catches in Gill NetsSet in the Vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station Discharge (Station 13) .........

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

...... 271 46. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at the Station Intake (Sta. No. 8) 272 47. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at the Station Discharge (Sta. No. 13) ...273 48. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at an In-shore Control Station (Sta. No. 3) ....... .....................

...... 274 49. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at an Off-shore Control Station (Sta. No. 26) ........ .....................

..... 275 50. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at an Off-Shore Control Station (Sta. No. 28) ....... ...................

.......276 51. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Gill Net Results at an In-shore Control Station (Sta. No. 29) ....... ...............

........ 277 Page 52. Sampling Stations at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station ..........

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

.... 278 53., Mean Monthly Hydrogen Ion, Temperature and Dissolved Oxygen Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for 1979 ........ ... ........................

.... 279 54. Mean Monthly Turbidity, Suspended Solids and Transparency Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for 1979 ..... ... ... ....................

.... 280 55. Mean Monthly Calcium, Chloride and Sulfate Concentrations in Lake Erie at Locust Point for 1979 ..281 56. Mean Monthly Alkalinity, Dissolved Solids and Conductivity Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for 1979 ..... ..... ... ..... ..................

282 57. Mean Monthly Nitrate, Phosphorus and Silica Concentrations in Lake Erie at Locust Point for 1979 ...283 58. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Dissolved Oxygen in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ....... ................

.... 284 59. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data of Hydrogen Ion Concentration (pH) in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..............

.... 285 60. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Transparency (Secchi Disk) of Water at Station Discharge (Station 13) ..... ..... ... ................

286 61. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Turbidity of Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... .....................

.... 287 62. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Suspended Solids in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ............

...... 288 63. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Conductivity of Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... ..................

......289 64. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Dissolved Solids in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ...............

..... 290 65. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Calcium in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ..... ...................

.... 291

66. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Chloride in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... ....................

..... 292 67. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data of Sulfate in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..........

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

..... 293 68. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Sodium in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... .................

...... 294 69. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Magnesium in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... ....................

..... 295 70. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Total Alkalinity of Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) .............

...........

296 71. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Nitrate in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ..... .................

..... 297 72. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Phosphorus in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ...... .................

...... .298 73. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Silica in Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... ....................

..... 299 74. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data of Biochemical Oxygen Demand of Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ..... ... .........

300 75. Comparison of Pre-operational and Operational Data for Temperature of Bottom Water at Station Discharge (Station No. 13) ................

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

301 76. Productivity and Illumination as a Function of Depth on October 12, 1979...Mean of Four Stations ........302 77. Productivity and Illumination as a Function of Depth at Station 3 on July 28, 1977 .... .............

..... 303 78. Trends in Mean Monthly Temperature, Dissolved Oxygen, and Hydrogen Ion Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for the Period 1972-1979

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

304-18 -mwý__

P age 79. Trends in Mean Monthly Conductivity, Alkalinity and Turbidity Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for the Period 1972-1979

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

...... ..... 305 80. Trends in Mean Monthly Transparency and Phosphorus Measurements for Lake Erie at Locust Point for the Period 1972-1979

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

306 81. Mean Monthly Power Generation for the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1 (1977 -1979) ....... ... 307 BACKGROUND The Toledo Edison Company and The Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company have constructed Unit I of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station on the south shore of Lake Erie at Locust Point (Figure 1). This plant utilizes a closed condenser cooling water system to dissipate heat from the steam condenser to the atmosphere by means of a natural draft cooling tower. Water from Lake Erie is used to replenish the supply and dilute the cooling tower blowdown water which is returned to the lake at a maximum of 11.1 0 C above ambient lake temperature (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 1975). The area of the 0.56°C isotherm should be less than 1.6 hectares and the area of the 1.67 C isotherm should be approximately 0.3 hectares.The effluent is discharged from the lake bottom, through a high velocity nozzle, over a rockfill approximately 305 meters offshore.

According to Eugene C. Novak, Chief Mechanical Engineer for Toledo Edison (personal communication, January 1974), under adverse high lake level conditions the discharge structure can hydraulically handle a maximum flow of 190,000 I/min. It is designed with 2 slots 137 cm long which could each discharge 76,000 1/min at 200 cm/sec. Initially, one slot will be closed resulting in a velocity of 113 cm/sec at the average flow rate of 41,800 1/min for the first unit.Two additional units are planned on the Davis-Besse site in addition to a new nuclear plant under construction in Perry, Ohio. In addition to these plants there are 14 fossil-fueled plants currently operating on the shores or tributaries of Lake Erie. Most of these older plants do not possess cooling towers and often utilize water from the lake at rates exceeding 500,000 gpm.

This study was initiated in June 1969 to characterize the aquatic environment in the Locust Point vicinity prior to the operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Unit 1 began operating in August of 1977. Results obtained since that date have been compared to previous results in an effort to determine changes brought about by the thermal discharge and unit operation.

Data obtained prior to 1972 are not included in this report as they are not comparable to data collected since 1972 and only a portion of the data collected in 1972 was used. Originally, Davis-Besse was designed without a cooling tower. Consequently, sampling stations visited from 1969 to 1971 covered a much larger area of the lake, since the thermal plume would have been much larger without a cooling tower. Furthermore, sampling methods prior to 1973 were not always directly comparable with* later techniques.

This report serves two purposes.

It presents the results from the 1979 field season which have never been presented before, and it summarizes eight years of sampling effort (1972-1979) and. assesses the impact of unit operation on the aquatic environment.

In this capacity it combines the results of Job 1-a, "Fish, Plankton, and Benthos Populations and Primary Productivity Prior to Operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station," and Job 1-b, "Fish, Plankton and Benthos Populations During Plant Operation." STUDY OBJECTIVE To specify the changes in plankton, benthos, and fish populations caused by thermal discharges from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station into Lake Erie; and to correlate laboratory predictions of the reactions of Lake Erie fish to thermal discharges (F-41-R Study 2), with the final report including recommendations for developing and managing the fishery in discharge plumes.PROCEDURES Sampling Station Location In 1973, 1974 and 1975 field data were collected from 25 stations, 18 along four transects in the open lake, two stations in the intake canal, 2 stations in the marshes, and three stations along the shoreline (Figure 1).Sampling stations in 1972 were similar. Of the four transects, one followed the intake conduit, one the discharge conduit, while control transects were set up on the east and west sides of the entire intake and discharge complex. Control west ran due north from the shore-end of the intake conduit with sampling stations located at 500 ft (150 m) (Station 1), 1000 ft (300 m) (Station 2), 2000 ft (610 m) (Station 3), and 3000 ft (910 m) (Station 4) from the shoreline.

Sampling stations on the intake were located at 500 ft (150 m) (Station 5), 1000 ft (300 m) (Station 6), 2000 ft (610 m) (Station 7), 3000 ft (910 m) (Station 8, proposed intake), and 4000 ft (1,220 m) (Station 9) from shore. Along the discharge transect sampling stations were at distances of 500 ft (150 m) (Station 10), 1000 ft (300 m) (Station 11), 1500 ft (460 m) (Station 12, proposed discharge), 2000 ft (610 m) (Station 13), and 3000 ft (910 m) (Station 14) from shore.Additional stations were placed 500 ft (150 m) due north of Station 12 (Station 15) and 500 ft (150 m) south of Station 12 (Station 16). Control east ran perpendicular to the-shoreline, parallel to the intake, and approximately 2500 ft (760 m) east of the intake. Stations were located-22 ---_WMWMMMý 0 Station 19 was located in the center of the intake canal, 1000 ft (300 m)from the lake shore. Sampling at Station 20 was discontinued when it was drained of all water in 1974. Stations 21 and 22 were located in the northwest and southeast marshes, respectively.

Stations 23-25 were on the shoreline at the intersection of the intake conduit and 1500 ft (460 m) to either side.In 1976 this sampling format was altered slightly to provide control stations on either side of the intake and plume area and to sample the plume area more thoroughly (Figure 2). Stations 2, 4, 5, 10, 19, and 20 were eliminated and Station 26 to 29 were added. In 1977 it was indicated that Stations 7, 11, 12, 16, and 27 could be eliminated without jeopard-izing results. Station 26 is on the control west transect and located 3800 ft (1170 m) from its intersection with the shoreline.

Station 26 serves as a control station 3000 ft (910 m) northwest of Station 8 (intake) and the same distance offshore as Station 8 (3000 ft). Station 28 is on the discharge transect 4500 ft (1,380 m) from its intersection with the shoreline.

Station 28 also serves as a control station for Station 8 as it is 3000 ft (910 m) southeast of Station 8 and equidistant offshore.Station 29 provides a control 3000 ft (910 m) southeast of Station 13 (plume area). Station 3 is the control to the northwest of Station 13.Stations 3, 13, and 29 are approximately equidistant from shore. Sampling stations in 1978 and 1979 were the same as those in 1977.Plankton Plankton monitoring at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station has been completed approximately monthly during ice-free periods since 1973 (Table 1). The stations at which samples were collected each year are listed in Table 2 and shown on Figures 1 and 2. In 1973 only quantitative zooplankton samples were collected, while both quantitative zooplankton 41 and phytoplankton samples were collected in all other years. The preservation techniques have been modified occasionally as new techniques to make specimen identification easier appeared in the literature.

However, no modifications which would have quantitatively affected the results were made, and formalin was always the final preservative.

Two vertical tows, bottom to surface, were collected at each station for phytoplankton and zooplankton with a Wisconsin plankton net (12 cm mouth;0.064 mm mesh in 1973 and 1974 and 0.080 mm mesh from 1975-1979).

Each sample was concentrated to 50 ml and preserved.

The volume of water sampled was computed by multiplying the depth of the tow by the area of the net mouth. Three 1-ml aliquots were withdrawn from each 50-ml sample and placed in counting cells.Whole organism counts of the phytoplankton were made from 25 random Whipple Disk fields in each of the three 1-ml aliquots from each of the 2 samples. When filamentous forms numbered 100 or more in 10 Whipple fields, they were not counted in the remaining 15 fields. Identification was carried as far as practicable, usually to the genus or species level.All zooplankters within each of the three 1-ml aliquots from each of the 2 samples were counted by scanning the entire counting cell with a microscope.

Identification was carried as far as practicable, usually to the genus or species level.Benthos Benthic macroinvertebrate densities in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station were monitored at approximately monthly intervals during ice-free periods (normally April through November) from 1973 through 1976, and at invervals of approximately 60 days during the ice-free periods of 1977, 1978, and 1979 (Table 3). The stations at which samples were collected each year are listed in Table 4 and shown on Figures 1 and 2. Population densities were sampled with a Ponar dredge (Area=0.052 m 2). Three replicate grabs were collected at each station on each date from 1974 through 1979, whereas one sample was collected at each station on each date during 1973. Samples Were sieved on the boat through a U.S. #40 soil sieve, preserved in 10% formalin, and returned to the laboratory for identification and enumeration.

Individuals were identified as far as practicable (usually to genus; to species when possible).

Results were 2 reported as the number of organisms per m2 Fish Fish populations in Lake Erie at Locust Point in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station were monitored at approximately monthly intervals during ice-free periods (normally April -November) from 1973 through 1979. Fish were collected by three sampling techniques, experi-mental gill nets, shore seines, and trawls.Experimental gill nets (125 feet long, consisting of five 25-ft contiguous panels of 1/2, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bar mesh) were set parallel to the intake pipeline at Station 8 (intake) and parallel to the discharge pipeline at Station 13 (discharge or plume area) from 1973 through 1979 (Table 5). During 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979, nets were also placed at Stations 3, 26, 28 and 29 to serve as controls (Figure 2). Starting in 1976, the direction of fish entry into the nets was also monitored.

Each net was fished at the lake bottom for approximately 24 hours2.777778e-4 days 0.00667 hours 3.968254e-5 weeks 9.132e-6 months . Results were reported as catch per unit effort (CPE), where one unit of effort was equal to one 24-hour set with one net.

Shore seining was conducted at Stations 23, 24, and 25 with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-inch bar mesh) (Table 6). The seine was stretched perpen-dicular to the shoreline until the shore brail was at the water's edge.The far brail was then dragged through a 900 arc back to shore. Two hauls were made at each station in opposite directions.

Four 5-minute bottom tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-inch mesh bag) were conducted on a transect between Stations 8 (intake) and 13 (plume area) at a speed of 3 -4 knots. Starting in 1977, tows were also made on transects between Stations 3 and 26 and Stations 28 and 29 for comparative purposes (Table 7). Stomach analyses were conducted on fish from these collections.

All fish captured by each technique were identified, enumerated, weighed, and measured (Trautman, 1957; Bailey, et al., 1970). All results were keypunched and stored on magnetic tape at The Ohio State University Computer Center. 0 Ichthyopl ankton Ichthyoplankton was sampled at Locust Point in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station from 1974 through 1979 with a 0.75-meter diameter oceanographic plankton net (No.00, 0.75 mm mesh). Each sample consisted of a 5-minute circular tow at 3 to 4 knots. Samples were collected at the surface and bottom of each station.Sampling was conducted at the following stations during the following years: 1974, Stations 8 and 12; 1975, Stations 8, 12, and Toussaint Reef (Figure 3); 1976-1979, Stations 3, 8, 13, 26, 28, 29, and Toussaint Reef.Toussaint Reef was used for comparisons since the Ohio Division of Wildlife considers it a spawning location.

Each sample was preserved in 5 percent formalin and returned to the laboratory for sorting and analysis.

Samples were generally collected at approximately 10-day intervals from April through August. Sampling was terminated at the end of August to add a 0 margin of safety to the USEPA (Grosse lie Office) sampling program for the Western Basin of Lake Erie which terminated each year in July (Table 8).From 1974 to 1976, a single sample was collected at each depth of each station, and results were reported as the number of individuals per 5-minute tow. In 1977, 1978 and 1979, duplicate samples were collected at the surface and bottom of each station, and the net was equipped with a calibrated General Oceanics flowmeter to allow presentation of the results as the number of individuals per 100 m 3 of water. All specimens were identified and enumerated using the works of Fish (1932), Norden (1961a and b), and Nelson and Cole (1975).Water Quality Field Measurements.

Water quality measurements were made approximately every 30 days at Stations 1, 8 and 13 from 1974 to 1979 during ice-free periods (Figure 2). Measurements of temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, transparency and solar radiation were made in the field at the surface and approximately 50 cm above the bottom.Temperature and dissolved oxygen were measured with a YSI model 54A meter, conductivity with a Beckman RB3-3341 solubridge temperature-compensated meter, transparency with a 30-cm diameter Secchi disk and solar radiation with a Protomatic underwater photometer (Table 9).Laboratory Determinations.

Water samples were collected at the surface and approximately 50 cm above the bottom using a three-liter Kemmerer sampler and were placed in one-gallon collapsible polyethlene containers.

These containers, supplied by the Toledo Edison Company Chemistry Laboratory, were filled completely, labelled with station number, date and depth and delivered to the laboratory.

Laboratory determinations of 15 water quality parameters (Table 9) were performed at the Toledo Edison Company Chemistry Laboratory, normally within 24-48 hours after sampling.Primary Productivity The procedures developed and used for the primary productivity studies can be summarized as follows. They are similar to those used by many other investigators who have utilized the 1 4 C technique for measuring primary productivity, but vary in some details that represent modifications required by site characteristics.

For example, the 1 4C-tagged sodium bicarbonate, NaH 1 4 CO used to innoculate the incubation bottles was prepared with a concentration of 1 microcurie/ml.

Prior studies have reported using higher concentrations, up to 10 microcuries/ml.

However the productivity at the Locust Point study site is usually so high that the use of lesser 14C concentrations is possible.

It is axiomatic in radiotracer work that no more radioactivity be used than is necessary.

Typically, when a sampling station was reached, two clear and two black bottles for each depth to be sampled were innoculated.

The innocu-lation consisted of one milliliter of the NaH 1 4 C03 solution.

Innoculation was performed at the site rather than enroute or prior to leaving the Put-in-Bay Research Building.

This was to prevent prolonged evaporation prior to the addition of lake water. Prolonged evaporation could result in loss of radioactivity and produce erroneous measurements of productivity.

At the first station to be reached, a 1/20 dilution of the NaH1 4 C0 3 was prepared by adding one milliter from the stock solution to 20 milli-liters of distilled water. This dilution provides an indication of the amount of radioactivity added to each bottle, and is used in the computa-tional procedure for determining productivity.

Water samples were taken from each depth to be investigated and were used to fill the previously-innoculated, 300-milliliter incubation bottles. Depths of 0.5 and one meter were sampled at each station. An additional depth of either two or three meters was also sampled, depending upon the depth of the water column at each station.After the incubation bottles were filled, stoppered, and lowered to the appropriate depths, a vertical illumination profile was obtained by taking readings at half-meter intervals with a Protomatic photometer.

Concurrently, Secchi depth measurements were made with a 20-cm disc. Other parameters measured at that time included temperature, pH, and alkalinity.

Nominal incubation times of two hours were used. Experiments conducted at the F.T. Stone Laboratory indicated that incubation times ranging from one to five hours were appropriate, but a two-hour incubation time was convenient when measuring four stations per cruise.After this in-situ incubation, the bottles were recovered and placed in a light-proof box until filtration could be initiated.

Filtration was begun as soon as possible after the bottles were recovered, usually within 15 minutes after recovery.

One hundred-milliliter aliquots were taken from each bottle and vacuum filtered through a 0.45-micron filter. Prior studies have used varying volumes. The 100-milliliter volume was chosen to provide a more representative sample than might be provided by a smaller volume. Volumes larger than 100 milliliters frequently caused problems of filter clogging.

The vacuum was maintained at less than 15 inches of mercury. After filtration, the filters were rinsed with a dilute, 0.003N, hydrochloric acid solution followed by distilled water.The United States Environmental Protection Agency (Prater, 1976) has recommended that the hydrochloric acid rinse not be utilized.

The report expresses concern that the acid rinse may damage cell walls and membranes, cause loss of cell contents, and thus produce erroneous data. The same report also recommends that the filtration vacuum not exceed six to eight inches of mercury, again to prevent cell damage.Unfortunately, these recommendations were not published until after this project had started. Since one of the main objectives of the study was to compare productivity at the study site before and after the plant went into operation, the initial procedures were continued to maintain uniformity of baseline data. Recent experiments at the F.T. Stone Laboratory indicate that the dilute hydrochloric acid rinse has no significant effect on measured values of productivity.

After filtration was completed, the filters were placed in locking Petri dishes for transportation to the CLEAR Radiological Laboratory at the South Bass Island Lighthouse.

The filters were dried and then placed in ten milliliters of RPI 3a7OB scintillation cocktail in a 20-milliliter scintillation vial. The vials were counted with an Intertechnique Model SL-30 liquid scintillation spectrometer.

Productivity values, in mgC/m 3/hr, were computed using the equation: P 3(r)C(I.06)10 3 P = 20(R)t where "3" is a correction factor for the 100-ml aliquot from the 300-ml incubation bottle."r" is the count rate from the filter."C" is available carbon in mg/l and is calculated by Saunders' method (1962), involving temperature, pH, and alkalinity.

"1.06" is a correction factor for the "isotope effect", the slower diffusion of the 14C isotope compared to the more abundant isotope, 12C.11103 is a factor for converting liters to cubic meters."20" is a correction factor for the 1:20 dilution described earlier."R" is the count rate from a one-milliliter aliquot of the 1/20 dilution made at the time of innoculation 1"t" is the incubation time in hours.FINDINGS Plankton 1979 Phytoplankton Data Phytoplankters collected from May through November 1979 were divided into 50 taxa, generally to the genus level (Table 10). Twenty one taxa were grouped in Bacillariophyceae, 18 in Chlorophyceae, 2 in Dinophyceae, and 9 in Myxophyceae.

Monthly mean phytoplankton populations ranged from 4,595/1 in June to 734,777/1 on May 1 (Table 10). The mean density from all samples collected in 1979 was 224,008/1.

Phytoplankton densities at individual sampling stations ranged from 1,945/1 at Station 8 in June to 889,947/1 at Station 13 on May 1 (Table 11). Population pulses were observed in the spring and the summer (Figure 4). The spring pulse was caused by diatoms while the summer pulse was caused by blue-green algae (Figure 5).Monthly mean bacillariophycean densities ranged from 1,628/1 in June to 733,663/1 on May 1 (Table 10). The annual mean bacillariophycean density from all samples collected during 1979 was 109,293/1 or 49 percent of the entire phytoplankton density. The dominant diatom taxa were Asterionella formosa in May, October and November; Melosira spp. in June;and Fragilaria spp. in July, August and September.

A. formosa had the largest annual mean population, 91,912/1.

Diatoms were the dominant phytoplankton group on May 1 and May 23 and in June, October and November when they constituted 99.8, 90.8, 35.4, 47.4, and 92.3 percent, respectively, of the total phytoplankton density.Monthly mean chlorophycean densities ranged from 261/1 on May 1 to 70,992/1 in September with an annual mean population from all samples collected during 1979 of 12,932/1 or 6 percent of the total phytoplankton population (Table 10). The dominant green algae taxa were Mugeotia sp. on both dates in May and in November, Pediastrum duplex in June, Botryococcus sudeticus in July and August, and Binuclearia tatrana in September and October. Binuclearia tatrana had the largest annual mean population, 8,631/1. Chlorophyceae peaked in September but was never the dominant phytoplankton group.Monthly mean myxophycean densities ranged from 842/1 on May 1 to 418,298/1 in September with an annual mean density from all samples collected in 1979 of 97,417/1, or 43 percent of the total phytoplankton mean (Table 10). The dominant myxophycean taxa were Oscillatoria spp. on both dates in May and in June, October and November, and Aphanizomenon flos-aguae from July through September.

Myxophyceae was the dominant phytoplankton group in July, August and September representing 81.4, 91.0, and 83.4 percent, respectively, of the total phytoplankton density.Dinophyceans were represented by 2 taxa, Ceratium hirundinella and Peridinium sp. Ceratium was more abundant than Peridinium and reached its greatest density in July at 34,372/1 (Table 10).

All raw data were keypunched and are stored in Columbus, Ohio at the offices of the Center for Lake Erie Area Research on the campus of The Ohio State University.

1979 Zooplankton Data Zooplankters collected May through November 1979 were grouped in 47 taxa generally to the species level (Table 12). Eighteen taxa were grouped under Rotifera, 17 under Copepoda, 9 under Cladocera, I under Protozoa, 1 under Ostracoda and 1 under Tardigrada.

Monthly mean densities ranged from 22/1 in November to 1,252/1 in July. The mean density from all samples collected in 1979 was 475/1. Zooplankton densities at individual sampling stations ranged from 10/1 at Station 13 in November to 1,597/1 at Station 18 in July (Table 13).Monthly mean rotifer densities ranged from 11/1 in November to 346/1 in September (Table 12). The annual mean rotifer density for all samples collected in 1979 was 131/1 or 27.6 percent of the entire zooplankton density. The dominant rotifer taxa during 1979 were Synchaeta spp. on May 1 and in October and November; Keratella quadrata on May 23; Polyarthra vulgaris in June, August and September; and Keratella cochlearis in July.Polyarthra vulgaris had the largest annual mean density, 41/1. Rotifera was the dominant zooplankton group on May 1 and in collections from September and November representing 81.3, 60.3 and 49.1 percent, respectively, of the total zooplankton density. In contrast to this, rotifers represented only 8.1 percent of the July zooplankton density.Monthly mean copepod densities ranged from 10/1 in November to 262/1 in June (Table 12). The mean copepod density from all samples collected in 1979 was 115/1 or 24 percent of the entire zooplankton population.

Cyclopoid nauplii was the dominant copepod taxon during every collection.

Copepoda was the dominant zooplankton group in the May 23 collection and the June collection representing 36.4 and 54.3 percent, respectively, of the total zooplankton density.Monthly mean cladoceran densities ranged from 1/1 in November to 162/1 in May (Table 12). The mean cladoceran density from all samples collected in 1979 was 59/1 or 12 percent of the total zooplankton population.

Cladoceran populations were dominated by Chydorus sphaericus on May 1; Daphnia retrocurva on May 23 and collection dates in June and July; and Eubosmina coregoni in August, September, October and November.Daphnia retrocurva had the largest annual mean density, 28/1 or 6 percent of the entire zooplankton density. Cladocera was never the dominant zoo-plankton group.Monthly mean protozoan densities ranged from 0/1 in May and November to 901/1 in July (Table 12). The annual mean density of 170/1 was 36 percent of the total zooplankton population.

Difflugia sp. was the only protozoan taxon. Protozoa was the dominant zooplankton group in July, August and October representing 72.0, 34.1, and 49.7 percent, respectively, of the entire zooplankton density.Two other groups, Ostracoda and Tardigrada, appeared in collections during 1979. An ostracod was found on May 23, while a tardigrad was found on May 1.All raw data were keypunched and are stored in Columbus, Ohio at the office of the Center for Lake Erie Area Research on the campus of The Ohio State University.

1974 -1979 Phytoplankton Data Summary Yearly results of the phytoplankton monitoring program have been presented in the annual performance reports for this project beginning with 1974 (F-41-R-6).

This section of the report summarizes the findings presented in these earlier reports through graphic presentations of monthly densities of the major phytoplankton components, Bacillari-ophyceae, Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae, encountered yearly from 1974-1979 (Figures 5 -10). Figure 4 presents the monthly estimates of the total phytoplankton density from 1974 through 1979.Table 14 and Figures 11 -14 summarize the above data in a different manner by combining all monthly density estimates from all years and all stations and comparing pre-operational means, minima, maxima, and standard deviations with operational results. Table 15 and Figures 15 -17 use this same technique to compare the total phytoplankton densities observed at Station 8 (intake structure), Station 13 (plume area), and Station 3 (control station).

A discussion of these comparisons follows.Diatoms. Both pre-operational and operational densities were high during the spring and fall, and low during the summer (Figure 11). Spring densities were highest. This is typical for western Lake Erie and as one would expect since diatoms are cold-water forms. Operational densities observed during the spring and fall were larger than the corresponding pre-operational values. However, operational standard deviations overlapped the pre-operational standard deviations.

Green Algae. Chlorophycean densities, .in general, were much lower than diatom densities or blue-green algae densities during the pre-operational and the operational studies. Furthermore, these green algae population densities are much less predictable seasonally than diatoms.

Reutter (1976) has demonstrated that green algae densities parallel transparency closely and are opposite to turbidity and, therefore, are often controlled by factors such as the wind, which affects transparency by suspending bottom sediments through wave action. However, most of the monthly samples collected during the operational period fell within the range established during the pre-operational period, and for those which were outside the range (July, September, and November), the standard deviation of the operational period overlapped the standard deviation of the pre-operational period (Figure 12).Blue-Green Algae. Myxophycean populations during both the pre-operational and operational periods showed tendencies toward sudden, large, mid-summer pulses (Figure 13). Operational densities were generally larger than pre-operational densities.

However, with the exception of October and November, the operational standard deviations always overlapped the pre-operational standard deviations.

Total Phytoplankton.

The total phytoplankton density, i.e., the sum total of the 3 major component groups previously discussed and several other minor classes, was higher during most of the operational study than during the pre-operational study (Figure 14). However, with the exception of April and October, the standard deviations of the means observed during the operational study overlapped the standard deviations from the pre-operational study.1972 -1979 Zooplankton Data Summary The results of the zooplankton monitoring program have been presented in the annual performance reports for this project beginning with F-41-R-4. This section of this report summarizes the findings presented in these earlier reports through graphic presentations of the monthly densities of the total zooplankton population and its major components, rotifers, copepods, and cladocerans encountered yearly from 1972 -1979 (Figures 18 -21).Table 16 and Figures 22 -25 summarize the data in a different manner by combining all monthly density estimates from all years and all stations and comparing pre-operational means, minima, maxima, and standard devi-ations with operational results. Table 17 and Figures 26 -28 use this same technique to compare total zooplankton densities observed at Station 8 (intake structure), Station 13 (plume area), and Station 3 (control station).

A discussion of these comparisons follows.Total Zooplankton.

The total zooplankton population density, i.e., a sum total of the major zooplankton groups (rotifers, copepods, and cladocerans) and any minor classes or orders, has usually exhibited two pulses, one in the late spring or early summer and a smaller pulse in the fall. This is true of both pre-operational and operational results, although operational densities were generally lower than pre-operational densities (Figure 22).Rotifers.

Rotifer densities at Locust Point during the operational period were lower for every month than the mean value from the pre-operational period for the same month (Figure 23). However, the operational monthly mean was below the pre-operational monthly range only during June and November, and the operational monthly mean was always less than two standard deviations from the pre-operational mean.Copepods.

Copepod densities at Locust Point during the pre-operational study generally exhibited spring pulses (Figure 24). This was also the case during the operational study, except the pulse was somewhat data were keypunched and are maintained on file at the offices of the Center for Lake Erie Area Research in Columbus, Ohio.1972 -1979 Data Summary The results of the benthos monitoring program have been presented in the annual performance reports for this project beginning with F-41-R-4.This section of the report summarizes the findings presented in these earlier reports through a graphic presentation of the monthly benthic macroinvertebrate densities encountered yearly from 1972 -1979 (Figure 29).Table 19 and Figures 30 -34 summarize the data in a different manner by combining all monthly density estimates for the major benthic groups from all years and all stations during the pre-operational study, and comparing these pre-operational monthly means, minima, maxima, and standard deviations to operational results. Table 20 and Figures 35 -37 use this same technique to compare total benthic macroinvertebrate densities observed at Station 8 (intake structure), Station 13 (discharge area), and Station 3 (control station).

A discussion of these comparisons follows.Total Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

The population densities of all benthic macroinvertebrates, i.e., the sum total of the major benthic groups (Coelenterata, Annelida, Arthropoda, and Mollusca), were generally the highest in the late summer and fall during the pre-operational study.During the operational study the highest densities occurred slightly earlier in the summer and fall (Figure 30). Operational densities were very close to the pre-operational mean during every month except September, when they were slightly lower than the pre-operational minimum.

the bluntnose minnow (Pimephales notatus) and the white perch (Morone americana) (Table 21). The three fishing methods combined yielded a total of 186,505 fish, of which 4.1 percent occurred in gill nets, 94.1 percent in shore seines, and 1.8 percent in trawls (Table 22). The combined results of all three sampling methods indicated that the numerically dominant species in the Locust Point vicinity during 1979 were gizzard shad (49.9 percent), alewife (26.8 percent), emerald shiner (10.1 percent), spottail shiner (9.9 percent), yellow perch (2.4 percent), freshwater drum (0.4 percent), white bass (0.2 percent), channel catfish (0.1 percent), and carp (0.1 percent) (Table 23). No other species comprised more than 0.1 percent of the total catch by number.Gill Nets. Gill nets set from April through November 1979 yielded 7,663 fish weighing 702.7 kg and representing 19 species (Tables 22).Monthly catches of all stations combined ranged from a maximum of 1,814 (CPE = 302.3) in August to a minimum of 329 (CPE = 54.8) in April. The maximum catch occurred at Station 3 in September (481 fish), and the minimum catch occurred at Station 13 in October (7 fish) (Table 24). In general, catches were much higher during summer than during spring or fall (Tables 22 and 24). Species captured consisted primarily of yearling-size or larger yellow perch, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, and white bass, as well as young-of-the-year (YOY) alewife and gizzard shad. There were no marked differences in direction of movement by fishes with respect to either species, month or station. There was no trend in abundance of fishes at offshore (8, 26, and 28) vs. inshore stations (3, 13, and 29). Although the differences were not great and not consistent, greater numbers of fish were generally collected at control stations (3, 26, 28, and 29) than at the intake (8) and discharge (13) stations.Additional gill net catch data are presented in Tables 25 -32.Trawls. Trawling in the Locust Point vicinity during 1979 yielded 3,329 fish weighing 70.0 kg and representing 20 species (Table 22).Monthly catches along all three transects ranged from a maximum of 1,904 (CPE = 634.7) in November to a minimum of 82 (CPE = 27.3) in May. The maximum catch occurred on Transect 28-29 in November (972 fish), and the minimum catch occurred on Transect 3-26 in June (22 fish). After an initial high catch of 208 fish in April, catches decreased in May and June, then increased gradually through summer and fall until the highest catch in November (Tables 22 and 33). Species c aptured were primarily YOY and yearling-size or larger alewife, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, emerald shiner, brown bullhead, channel catfish, trout-perch, white bass, yellow perch, and freshwater drum. Alewives were caught in greatest numbers as YOY in late summer and fall. The unusually high catch in November consisted largely of YOY gizzard shad. There were no marked differences or trends in the abundance of fishes at control transects (3-26 and 28-29) vs.the intake-discharge transect (8-13) (Table 33). Additional trawl data are presented in detail in Tables 34 -41.Shore Seines. Shore seining in the Locust Point vicinity during 1979 yielded 175,513 fish weighing 210.1 kg and representing 13 species (Table 22). Monthly catches at all three stations ranged from a maximum of 153,570 (CPE = 51,190.0) in July to a minimum of 67 (CPE = 14.7) in May.The maximum catch occurred at Station 25 in July (92,591 fish), and the minimum catch occurred at Station 25 in October (13 fish) (Tables 22 and 42). The large July catch consisted primarily of YOY alewife and gizzard shad. In general, catches were much greater during early spring and mid-summer than during other sampling periods. Species captured were primarily YOY alewives, gizzard shad, and white bass, and both adult and YOY emerald shiners and spottail shiners. There were no marked differences or trends in abundance of fishes at control station (23 and 25) vs. the intake-discharge (24) station (Table 42). Shore seine data are presented in detail in Tables 43 -50).Food Habits. Food items of the major fish species in the Locust Point vicinity during 1979 were relatively limited in variety. Zooplankton, primarily cyclopoid Copepoda and several common species of Cladocera were the major dietary items of yellow perch, freshwater drum, spottail shiners, emerald shiners, and young white bass. Minor dietary items of these species included several taxa of insects, primarily chironomid larvae, rotifers, mites, amphipods, oligochaetes, small fish, and unidentified plant and animal material.

White bass adults were almost entirely piscivorous.

There was no marked difference in amount or kinds of food items found in fish from the control transect (3-26) vs. the intake-discharge transect (8-13). Food habits data are presented in detail in Tables 51-58.1973 -1979 Data Summary The results of the fisheries population studies have been presented in the annual performance reports beginning with F-41-R-4.

With the exception of the 1979 data which are being presented as part of this report, the previously mentioned reports contained the results from all fisheries work conducted as part of this project. These reports have shown gill netting to be the superior sampling technique for measuring the impact of the thermal discharge (and unit operation) for several reasons:

1. gill nets can be set right at the point of impact, are relatively W unbiased sampling devices, and collect adequate sample sizes (quantities of fish);2. shore seines sample mainly YOY fish and, consequently, are subject to sudden pulses following spawning;3. shore seines sample at locations over 1000 feet from the point of discharge;

4. trawls collect few fish.Consequently, although the results of shore seining and trawling have been used to greatly increase our ability to interpret yearly results, gill nets have proven to be the most effective assessment tool, and, therefore, this data summary will pertain mainly to this gear type.Fifty-one fish species have been collected at Locust Point since 1963 (Table 21). However, the fish community at Locust Point has consistently been dominated by seven species: alewife, emerald shiner, freshwater drum, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, white bass, and yellow perch. These seven species generally constituted well over 90 percent of the annual catch by the sampling program. The monthly mean, minimum, maximum, and standard deviation of the number of each of these species, except emerald shiner, collected in the gill net set at the discharge have been presented in Table 59 and Figures 38 -45. Emerald shiners are seldom collected in gill nets of these mesh sizes, so they were not included in the tabulations.

However, due to their economic importance, channel catfish and walleye were added to the list. Table 60 and Figures 46 -51 summarize the gill net results by presenting pre-operational means, minima, maxima, and standard deviations and comparing them to operational results at Stations 8 (intake), 13 (discharge or plume area), 3 and 26 (controls).

Alewife. Alewife densities in the vicinity of the unit discharge during both the operational and pre-operational periods were generally highest during the late summer and early fall (Figure 38). The maximum pre-operational catch was 322, while 136 was the maximum catch during the operational period (Table 59). Although operational catches were generally lower than pre-operational catches, they were always within the pre-operational range.Channel Catfish. Channel catfish catches during both the pre-operational and operational studies were greatest during the summer (Figure 39). They were seldom a significant component of the catch, as 18 was the maximum pre-operational catch and 6 was the maximum operational catch (Table 59). The pre-operational and operational catches were quite similar, and all operational means werewithin the pre-operational range.Freshwater Drum. During both the pre-operational and operational studies, freshwater drum were most abundant during the summer (Figure 40).The maximum catch during the pre-operational study was 50, while 75 was the maximum operational catch (Table 59). With the exception of June, which was higher, all operational catches were within the range established during the pre-operational study.Gizzard Shad. Gizzard shad densities during both the pre-operational and operational studies were always greatest during the late summer and fall (Figure 41). The maximum pre-operational catch was 184, while 291 was the maximum operational catch (Table 59). The monthly pre-operational and operational mean catches were generally quite similar, and all but one of V the operational means were within the pre-operational range (Figure 41).Spottail Shiner. Spottail shiners were always most abundant during the month of May (Figure 42). In fact, with the exception of April and June, the minimum catch in May was greater than the maximum catch of any of the other months during the pre-operational period. The operational catch was within the range established during the pre-operational period during all months but September.

Walleye. Walleye catches during both the pre-operational and operational studies were greatest during the summer (Figure 43). This species was never a significant portion of the catch, as 15 was the maximum prior to plant operation and B was the maximum afterwards (Table 59). With the exception of August, when the operational catch was above the range of pre-operational catches, all catches after the unit began operation were within the range of catches prior to unit operation.

White Bass. White bass were generally most abundant during the summer (Figure 44 and Table 59). The magnitude of the pre-operational and operational catches were very similar, but the pre-operational peak occurred in August whereas the operational peak occurred in June. With the exception of June and July, when the operational catch was above the pre-operational mean, all operational values were within the range established during the pre-operational study.Yellow Perch. Yellow perch generally occurred in similar numbers from month to month during the pre-operational period with a slight increase in the early fall, followed by a decrease to low densities in November.(Figure 45). Operational densities were of similar magnitude during all months but August when they were higher than the pre-operational mean but very close to the pre-operational maximum for September.

Food Habits. Zooplankters constituted the major portion of the stomach contents of the fish species collected in the Locust Point vicinity from 1972 -1979. Chironomids were the next most frequently observed item followed by small fish occasionally observed in the stomachs of some of the piscivorous species, primarily white bass and yellow perch.Ichthyoplankton 1979 Data Specimens collected during the 1979 field season were placed into 15 taxa (Table 61). Ten taxa were to the species level, while the remaining 5 consisted of unidentified, unidentified shiner, unidentified sunfish, fish eggs, and freshwater drum eggs. Collections from Toussaint Reef (a spawning area) produced 9 taxa, all of which were found at Locust Point except for an unidentified percid which was found on 9 May (Table 62).Emerald shiner, walleye, and drum egg concentrations were higher at Toussaint Reef than at Locust Point, while the opposite was true for the concentrations of all other taxa. Overall, ichthyoplankton concentrations at Locust Point (66.79/100 m ) were greater than those at Toussaint Reef (51.67/100 mi 3) (Tables 61 and 62). Gizzard shad, yellow perch, emerald shiner, fish egg, and rainbow smelt were the dominant taxa representing 81.8, 11.2, 2.5, 1.6, and 1.3 percent, respectively, of the total ichthyo-plankton density. No other taxon made up as much as 1.0 percent of the total. Gizzard shad were collected between 31 May and 15 August and peaked on 31 May at 200.4/100 m 3.Yellow perch were collected between 1 May and 5 June, and they appeared again on 3 August. Perch densities peaked on 31 May at 66.1/100 m3. Emerald shiners were collected between 21 June and 15 August and peaked on 5 June at 10.4/100 m 3.Rainbow smelt were collected between 31 May and 3 August and peaked on 31 May at 5.6/100 m 3.Stations 3 and 13 (plume area), the inshore stations, exhibited the greatest mean larval densities, 82.98 and 82.52/100 m 3 , respectively, while Station 8 (intake) yielded the lowest larval densities.

Stations 3, 8 and 29 had greater densities at the surface while Station 13 had greater densities at the bottom. Toussaint Reef had much higher larval densities at the surface than at the bottom.All raw data were keypunched and stored at the offices of The Ohio State University's Center for Lake Erie Area Research in Columbus, Ohio. A voucher collection of all samples is also maintained at these offices.1974 -1979 Data Summary The results of the ichthyoplankton analyses have been thoroughly described in the annual performance reports for this project beginning with F-41-R-6.

Since the reporting of results changed (catch per unit effort vs. no./10O0 m3 ) during the course of the study, direct comparisons of results from 1977, 1978, and 1979 with those of the early pre-operational years, 1974 -1976, are not possible.

However, comparisons of the relative portions of the total density constituted by each species are possible and will be discussed within the "Analysis" section.

Water Quality 1979 Data The results of the monthly 1979 water quality determinations at Stations 1, 8 and 13 are presented in Tables 63-70. The monitoring stations were selected to characterize Lake Erie water quality at several distinct areas within the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Figure 52). Station 1, at 500 feet offshore and 1,500 feet west of the discharge structure, is positioned to monitor nearshore water masses and serves as a control for the other two stations.

Station 8 is 3,000 feet offshore and is positioned in the vicinity of the water intake crib. Station 13 is located 500 feet east of the discharge structure in the region of the discharge plume. All of the stations lie within Excepted Area "B" for Lake Erie water quality standards, established by the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (1978, p. 80).Mean annual (April through November) values and ranges for the monthly water quality determinations for the 19 parameters are presented in Table 71. The results of the 1979 monitoring program indicate that none of the parameters examined exceeded Ohio EPA standards.

1974 -1979 Data Summary Water quality measurements during the period April 1974 to November 1979 were used for the purposes of this summary. The results of these water quality monitoring studies are contained in the annual performance reports for this study beginning with F-41-R-6.

The data used included Station No. 13 (500 feet east of the discharge structure) and Station No. 8 (adjacent to the water intake crib). Station No. 13 serves as the station most likely to be impacted, while Station No. 8 serves as a control station (Figure 52). Each station was visited once a month during the ice-free period of the year (normally April-November).

Surface and bottom water samples were taken at each station. However, because the intake and discharge structures are located at or near the bottom, bottom samples were used for comparing pre-operational and operational conditions.

Tables 72 to 89 summarize pre-operational and operational data for the 18 water quality parameters at the intake and discharge stations.

These data are displayed graphically for the discharge station on Figures 58 to 75. The following discussion summarizes the comparison for each of the parameters.

Dissolved Oxygen. During both the pre-operational and operational period DO showed a typical trend of high values in the spring and fall with low concentrations in the summer. Operational concentrations were considerably lower than the pre-operational range in April and November, but not during the critical summer months (Figure 58).Hydrogen-ions (pH). Throughout the pre-operational and operational period pH values remained relatively stable, never exceeding 9.0 or falling below 7.5. The operational values showed more variability than the nearly straight-line mean concentration for the pre-operational period (Figure 59). However, both periods had a mean pH of 8.3.Transparency.

Both the pre-operational and operational measurements showed the lowest water clarity in the spring, the best transparency in the summer, and intermediate clarity in the fall. In general, operational values were within the range of pre-operational values throughout the year (Figure 60).

Turbidity.

Being somewhat the reciprocal of transparency, the lowest readings occurred in the summer, the highest in spring and intermediate values in the fall for the pre-operational period. Operational values showed a general decreasing trend throughout the year, with only a slight rise in the fall. However, values for May, June, and September well exceeded the pre-operational ranges for those months (Figure 61).Suspended Solids. This parameter, like turbidity showed a "U" shaped trend during the pre-operational period with summer concentrations being the lowest. Like transparency and turbidity, high particulate material in the water during the spring and fall months of the operational period yielded readings in excess of the pre-operational ranges for these months (Figure 62).Conductivity.

This parameter is a measure of the ionized material in the water and it also shows high concentrations in the spring for both the pre-operational and operational periods. Only conductivity values in April for the operational period exceed the range for this month during the pre-operational period (Figure 63).Dissolved Solids. The concentrations of dissolved substances in the water during pre-operational and operational periods were relatively similar, with the operational data falling within or nearly within the pre-operational range for each month. Operational concentrations were somewhat lower than pre-operational conditions for April and October, while September was slightly higher (Figure 64).Calcium. This element, one of the most common found in Lake Erie water, showed relatively consistent values during both the pre-operational and operational period. High concentrations typified the spring with considerably lower values in the summer and fall. Only in November did operational concentrations exceed the range of pre-operational data (Figure 65).Chloride.

Operational chloride concentrations were within the range of pre-operational concentrations during six of the eight months for which comparative data are available.

The greatest discrepancy occurred in April and November.

Pre-operational data show a progressive decrease in concentration throughout the year, while operational data indicate a more"U" shaped trend (Figure 66).Sulfate. Both pre-operational and operational sulfate data show relatively consistent concentrations throughout the year with somewhat higher values in the spring. Operational data were more erratic, with four months above the pre-operational range and one month below the range (Figure 67).Sodium. A trend similar to that of sulfate was noted for sodium.Operational data again showed greater variability with two months above and one month below the range for pre-operational data. April and November yielded the highest concentrations for the operational period, both beyond the pre-operational range (Figure 68).Magnesium.

This parameter showed the least agreement between pre-operational and operational data of any of those tested. Operational concentrations exceeded the range of pre-operational data for all months except May. In April, the operational mean value was nearly double the pre-operational mean concentration (Figure 69).Total Alkalinity.

This parameter showed considerable variability in both the pre-operational and operational data, with the highest values occurring in the spring and fall during the pre-operational period and in the spring and summer during operation.

April, July, August, and November were periods when operational values exceeded pre-operational ranges, while May and June were months of relatively low operational alkalinity (Figure 70).Nitrate. Serving as a biological nutrient, this parameter fluctuates widely in response to plankton productivity.

Concentrations during both the pre-operational and operational periodswere highest in the spring but decreased in the summer as this material was utilized by algae. Fall concentrations increased as algal productivity declined.

Concentrations during both periods were relatively consistent, with operational values being somewhat higher, particularly in June, August, and November (Figure 71).Phosphorus.

This parameter is also an important biological nutrient and, like nitrate, shows seasonal variations such as high spring and low summer concentrations.

Pre-operational and operational data were relatively consistent throughout the year, except for May which showed a considerably higher mean concentration during the pre-operational period (Figure 72).Silica. As a necessary material for diatom cells, silica also under-goes seasonal changes in concentration.

As the growing season progresses this material greatly declines in the water. Both pre-operational and operational data show the same seasonal trend. Operational concentrations exceeded the pre-operational ranges for May and November (Figure 73).Biochemical Oxygen Demand. BOD levels were relatively consistent throughout the year for both the pre-operational and operational periods.Values were highest in the spring and lowest in the fall. All of the operational concentrations fall within the range of pre-operational data, except for June (Figure 74).

Temperature.

Both pre-operational and operational data show typical seasonal temperature trends for Lake Erie; and both data sets are relatively consistent.

Most of the operational values fall within the range of pre-operational data (Figure 75).Primary Productivity Three primary productivity cruises were conducted during the 1979 field year. The productivity results are summarized in Table 90. In general, these results are consistent with measurements from prior years.Table 91 summarizes the comparisons of productivity at Stations 8, 13, and 14 with productivity at the "control" Station 3. These comparisons are a measure of whether the productivity at the indicated station is greater or less than the productivity at Station 3. If the value is greater than one, the productivity at the indicated station was greater than at Station 3. If it is less than one, the productivity at Station 3 was greater than at the indicated station. For example, on October 12, the productivity at Station 13 was 25 percent greater than at Station 3. On June 25, the productivity at Station 8 was 11 percent less than at Station 3.As in prior years, the comparisons vary from station to station for any given cruise and the comparison for each station varies from cruise to cruise. However, when all three cruises are averaged, each station demonstrates essentially the same productivity, within one standard deviation of the productivity at Station 3.Similar comparisons between Stations 13 and 14 are summarized in Table 92. A value greater than one indicates that the productivity at Station 13 was greater than at Station 14. For example, on June 25, the productivity at a depth of 0.5 meters was three percent greater at Station 13 than at Station 14. On the same date, however the productivity at a depth of one meter was 24 percent less at Station 13 than at Station 14.When both depths and all three cruise dates are averaged, the productivity at Station 13 appears to be six percent greater than the productivity'at Station 14. But with a standard deviation of 18 percent, the difference between the two stations is not significant.

Measurements of illumination as a function of depth are shown in Table 93, and Secchi depth measurements are summarized in Table 94. While the surface illumination values are generally lower in 1979 than in 1978, the slopes of the extinction curves are similar for all stations measured in both August and October. Slopes of the extinction curves for June are somewhat variable from station to station and deviate from the slopes of the extinction curves obtained in June- 1978. Field notes indicate a heavy sediment load for the June cruise in 1979. However, it appeared to be a general phenomenon occurring along the entire shoreline and not specifically associated with the plant discharge.

Secchi depth readings were comparable with 1978 values.In general, the decrease of productivity with depth parallels the decrease of illumination with depth. This relationship is illustrated in Figure 76, and was noted also in the F-41-R-8 performance report for the 1976 field year. Although the relationship is generally valid, there are frequent deviations at depths of 0.5 meters. In 28 percent of the measurements made from 1975 through 1979, the productivity measured at 0.5 meters, for any given station, was less than the productivity measured at one meter. This situation is illustrated in Figure 77.

No explanation for this deviation is readily apparent.

Although 28 percent is not a dominant trend, the condition occurred with sufficient frequency that the productivity values at 0.5 meters and one meter were averaged for the purpose of comparing stations for any particular cruise.ANALYSIS Prior to the appraisal of the effects of the thermal discharge and unit operation on the aquatic communities at Locust Point, some assistance in interpreting these results is warranted.

First, one should bear in mind that when sampling the same population eight months each year for seven years, and plotting data with monthly minima and maxima, as in this report, eight minima and eight maxima will be generated.

That is, there will be seven values for each of the eight months, or one value for each month from each of the seven years. Each of the eight months will have a minimum value and a maximum value, and, since there are eight months, there will be a total of eight minimum values and eight maximum values (one of each for each month). If there is nothing unusual about the environmental conditions which existed during any of the seven years, then each year would have an equal chance (probability) of producing several monthly minimum or maximum values. Assuming each year does have an equal probability of producing these minima and maxima, and since there are eight monthly minimum values and eight monthly maximum values, each year of the seven years would produce 1.14 of the monthly minimum values and 1.14 of the monthly maximum values. This is pointed out to demonstrate that it is natural for any year to produce a population extreme (monthly minimum or maximum value). Consequently, it should not be automatically viewed as a unit produced effect if any operational variable is above or below the pre-operational range.

Another point useful in the interpretation of these results involves the distance of the operational monthly mean from the pre-operational mean. A general "rule-of-thumb" is that when dealing with a normal distri-bution, the area within one standard deviation on either side of the mean will contain approximately 66 percent of the values, two standard devi-ations would contain approximately 95 percent of the values, and three standard deviations would contain approximately 99 percent of the values.As a final aid in interpreting these results, population densities are presented from control stations (unaffected) to allow comparison with the discharge where the impact should be greatest.

This allows a distinction to be made between unusual values caused by unit operation and unusual results which are typical of the entire lake due to an unusual set of climatic or biological conditions

-- natural variation.

Within each of the sections in the "Analysis" section of this report, the sampling dates will be compared to unit operation.

When the unit was not operating, although the circulating pumps were generally still operating, the discharge water was not heated, and, consequently, it was impossible to accurately assess the effects of the thermal plume on the aquatic environment at these times.Plankton Analysis of 1979 Results Phytoplankton.

The Center for Lake Erie Area Research has monitored phytoplankton populations at Locust Point since 1974 (Figure 4). Radical differences were noted between populations in 1974 and 1975, but 77 percent of the variation was explainable by variation in physical and chemical parameters of water quality (Reutter, 1976). Bacillariophycean and chlorophycean populations observed in 1974 and 1975 were quite comparable (Figures 6 and 7). The myxophycean component of the populations accounted for the differences between the 2 years. No myxophycean bloom occurred in 1974, whereas a huge Aphanizomenon sp. bloom occurred in August 1975. This bloom was highly correlated with increased transparency (80 percent greater than in 1974) and decreased turbidity (20 percent of that observed in 1974) (Reutter, 1976). A correlation of this type was first hypo-thesized by Chandler and Weeks (1945).Bacillariophycean and chlorophycean populations in 1976 were similar in size and composition to those observed in 1974 and 1975 (Figures .6, 7, and 8). The diatom population, especially, was strikingly similar from year to year, with 1976 most resembling 1974. Populations were always greatest in spring and fall, pulses which began and ended abruptly were commonplace.

Chlorophycean populations tended to increase in the fall. A very small pulse was observed in June 1975 which was not observed in 1974 or 1976.The 1976 myxophycean population was between the extremes set forth in 1974 and 1975. A bloom of Aphanizomenon sp. occurred in July and August.This corresponded well in time of occurrence with the 1975 August bloom, but, it was slightly longer in peak duration, it was only one-third the magnitude of the 1975 bloom and it started and ended much more abruptly.Again, these pulses appear to be explainable by variation in transparency and turbidity.

Transparency in 1976 was similar to 1975 and much greater than 1974, while turbidity, though more variable than in 1974 or 1975, reached a low in July similar to that observed in 1975 and below that of 1974 (Figures 79 and 80).

The 1977 phytoplankton population exhibited diatom blooms in fall and spring as in preceding years, however, the spring bloom was approximately twice as large as those observed from 1974-1976 (Figure 9). The myxo-phycean population showed pulses in summer as in 1975 and 1976, but blue-greens also increased in the fall which was only hinted at in previous years. Chlorophycean populations were generally low and were very similar to those observed in 1974 and 1976.The major differences between 1977 and previous years were in the size of the spring and fall diatom pulses and the summer myxophycean pulse.However, lack of a large summer blue-green bloom was not unusual (1974) and the unusually long and cold winters of 1976-1977 and 1977-1978 undoubtedly had a large influence on diatom densities as they are cold water forms.Furthermore, the increase in the myxophycean densities in the fall of 1977 was due to Oscillatoria sp. which is also a cold water form.The 1978 phytoplankton population exhibited spring and fall blooms and was very nearly a mirror image of the 1977 population (Figure 4). All three major components of the phytoplankton, diatoms, greens, and blue-greens, exhibited relatively large blooms during 1978 (Figure 10).Although no unusual taxa were observed during 1979, phytoplankton densities were the largest observed to date and exhibited pulses in the early spring and mid- to late-summer.

Diatoms (Asterionella formosa)caused the spring pulse, and their densities were more than 10 times greater than the fall pulse and more than twice as large as any previous diatom (or any group) bloom (Figure 5). The summer bloom was caused by blue-greens, Aphanizomenon flos-aguae, in July, August and September with green algae (Binuclearia tatrana) making significant contributions in September.

The myxophycean densities were also the largest recorded to date. When divided into its three major components, Bacillariophyceae, f Chlorophyceae, and Myxophyceae, the 1979 population, though much larger, was very similar to the 1976 phytoplankton population (Figures 5 and 8).The large diatom and green algae densities observed in 1979 should be considered natural phenomena as the pulses were caused by species which have been shown to bloom every year. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that monthly sampling would detect the maximum value reached during these short duration pulses caused by phytoplankton species with patchy distri-butions. Personal observations by the authors indicate that to date during the common summer blue-green blooms, samples have not been collected from the areas of greatest density due to the chance distribution of these populations around the sampling stations.

Consequently, it is probable that at some time in the future even greater densities will be recorded.In summary, phytoplankton populations observed at Locust Point during 1979 are similar to those of previous years and appear typical for those occurring in the nearshore waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie. No adverse impact due to the thermal plume or unit operation was detected.Zooplankton.

Zooplankton populations at Locust Point have been monitored since 1972. Densities observed in 1979 were very similar to the densities observed during 1978, except that the large July pulse observed in 1979 was more representative of densities observed in 1974, 1975, and 1977 (Figure 18). Monthly zooplankton densities were within the ranges established during previous years with the exception of June, July and November.

The June total of 483/1, although it was the lowest recorded to date, was very close to the 1978 density, 518/1. The July total of 1,252/1 was the largest recorded to date. However, it should be noted that this July pulse would have fallen within the range of previous years were it not for a sudden pulse of the dinoflagellate Difflugia spp., 901/1. The November density, 22/1, although it was the lowest recorded to date, was similar to densities in 1977, 55/1.Of the three major components of the zooplankton population, rotifer densities are by far the most erratic and unpredictable (Figure 19). On Figure 19, 1976 results illustrate this vividly. However, with the exception of November when all zooplankton densities were the lowest recorded to date, rotifer densities observed during 1979 were within the range established during the previous years of study at Locust Point.Copepod populations are much more regular and predictable than rotifer populations (Figure 20). They generally exhibit one peak per year and this usually occurs in the May/June period. This also occurred in 1979. With respect to population size, 1979 copepod densities were relatively low compared to 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1977. However, 1979 densities were larger than 1978 and very similar to 1976.As with the copepod densities, cladoceran densities are quite regular and predictable from year to year. They often exhibit two peaks, one in the spring and one in the fall (Figure 21). This was the case in 1979.Cladoceran densities during 1979 were lower than those observed during 1974, 1975, 1976, and 1978. However, they were similar to 1977 densities and greater than 1973 densities.

The months of May and August produced new highs, while June and November produced new lows.There are several plausible explanations for the variation which has occurred.

Samples in 1972 were collected with a 3-1 Kemmerer water bottle at the surface, with a Wisconsin plankton net. A brief comparison study in 1973 showed that the vertical tow captured approximately 50 percent more taxa than a 3-1 grab (Reutter and Herdendorf, 1974). The actual stations sampled have varied from year to year. In 1973 the intake and discharge pipelines were being dredged, and in 1972, tropical storm Agnes affected the weather. Due to the weather, samples were neither collected on the same day of the month each year nor spaced exactly one month apart.Hubschman (1960) pointed out the tremendous differences which occurred between daily samples, and these samples were taken monthly. Wieber and Holland (1968) showed that even with replication, wide variation can occur due to patchiness in population densities.

The high spring populations from 1975 were undoubtedly largely due to early warming and lower turbidity as the total zooplankton population was significantly correlated with both temperature and turbidity (r = 0.587 and -0.328, respectively) (Reutter, 1976). Finally, operation of station circulating pumps was common in 1976, 1977, 1978, and 1979.In summary, due to the large variability observed in previous years, zooplankton populations observed in 1979 should be considered typical for the south shore of the Western Basin of Lake Erie. No adverse impact due to the thermal discharge and/or unit operation was detected.Thermal Impact Assessment The limitations of this assessment should first be noted. Between September 1977 and the end of 1979, the operational period, plankton samples were collected on 18 occasions.

On five of these dates, the station was operating at 90 percent capacity, 8 percent capacity, 100 percent capacity, 99 percent capacity, and 48 percent capacity, respectively.

On the remaining 13 sampling dates the station was not operating.

0 Phytoplankton.

Operational phytoplankton densities were somewhat larger than pre-operational densities (Figure 14). This appears to be a general trend, as the operational values of the three major phytoplankton groups were never below the pre-operational range and often above it. Due to the unusually harsh winters of 1978 and 1979, it is likely that these differences were caused by natural weather conditions.

Figures 15 -17 present phytoplankton densities at the station intake (Station 8), discharge (Station 13), and a control station (Station 3). It would probably be safe to use the station intake as a control station, however, as an extra measure of caution Station 3, 3000 feet northwest of the discharge, was selected as a control. Using this comparative technique, any difference between pre-operational and operational data observed at the discharge which was also observed at the intake or Station 3 would obviously have been due simply to natural variation in population densities.

The only large differences between operational and pre-operational data at the discharge were unusually high spring and fall population densities, and, since these were also observed at the intake and Station 3, they were obviously a natural phenomenon and not caused by unit operation.

In conclusion, to date, operation of and the thermal discharge from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, has not had a significant effect on Lake Erie phytoplankton densities.

Zooplankton.

Zooplankton operational densities, though generally similar to pre-operational densities, were often somewhat lower than the corresponding pre-operational monthly density (Figures 22 -25). However, as with the phytoplankton, these differences should not be interpreted as due to unit operation, for it appears that zooplankton densities even in unaffected areas (control stations) were lower during the operational period (Figures 26 -28). Consequently, these differences were obviously attributable to natural variation and not unit operation or the thermal discharge.

The obvious conclusion is that to date, operation of and the thermal discharge from the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, has not had a significant effect on Lake Erie zooplankton densities.

Benthos Analysis of 1979 Results Benthic macroinvertebrate populations collected at Locust Point during 1979 were typical for populations along the south shore of western Lake Erie and similar to those observed during preceding years (Figure 29).In fact, the 1978 annual mean was 1,107.5/mr 2 which is only 23.3/m 2 greater than the density observed in 1979 (1,084.2/m 2). Species composition, mainly immature oligochaetes, chironomids, and cladocerans, was also similar to that observed from 1972-1978.

During the past eight years, a trend was noted of increasing population density, as distance from shore increased.

However, this trend has often been interrupted at individual stations due to the shifting substrate encountered in the Locust Point vicinity.

This was also the case in 1979, as the greatest densities were observed at Stations 9 and 26 (the farthest off shore), but Station 1 (nearshore) exhibited a density greater than Station 3, which was farther from shore.In summary, benthic macroinvertebrate populations found at Locust Point during 1979 must be considered typical for those of the nearshore waters of the Western Basin of Lake Erie. Furthermore, no significant environmental changes due to the thermal discharge or unit operation were observed.Thermal Impact Assessment Initially it should be pointed out, as discussed in the beginning of the "ANALYSIS" section (see page 56), that operational densities which are outside the pre-operational range may be due to natural variation and not related to unit operation.

To allow comparisons of ambient densities with densities at the unit discharge, population densities have been presented from Station 3, a control station located 3000 ft northwest of the unit discharge structure, the same distance from shore as the discharge and at approximately the same water depth. These comparisons allow one to more accurately assess the causes of observed differences

-natural variation or the thermal discharge and unit operation.

During what is defined as the operational period, samples were collected on ten occasions.

On these ten occasions, the unit was operating at 98 percent on one occasion, 100 percent on another, 99 percent on another, and not operating on the remaining seven dates. While this is very critical to water quality and plankton results, it is somewhat less important when observing benthic communities.

Benthic communities are much less mobile than plankton or fish, and, therefore, are generally considered to be good pollution indicators, even of intermittent pollutants or environmental changes. The rationale is that even if the unit were not operating on the sampling date, a large portion of the community sampled would have been present when the unit was operating and when the thermal plume was present. This is not true of plankters, and fish are capable of leaving when unfavorable conditions exist and then returning quickly when the conditions are improved.

Benthic macroinvertebrate densities observed during the operational study were within the limits established during the pre-operational study on all but one occasion.

A review of Figures 35 -37 shows that variability in population densities was widespread and not related to unit operation.

Operational densities observed at the discharge (Figure 36)more closely resembled pre-operational densities than did those observed at the intake (Figure 35) or Station 3 (Figure 37), which were designed to be the control stations.

Results at Station 3, which is well away from the intake and discharge and where no construction has ever occurred, are graphic examples of the discussion at the beginning of this appraisal section, showing that natural variability can produce values far from the pre-operational densities.

Furthermore, this type of variability is to be expected in the Locust Point vicinity, a shallow wave-swept zone with shifting substrate.

In conclusion, to date, the thermal discharge and operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, have not had a significant effect on Lake Erie benthic macroinvertebrate densities.

Fish Analysis of 1979 Results Adults. The Lake Erie fish community at Locust Point since 1963 has been dominated by alewife, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, emerald shiner, white bass, yellow perch, and freshwater drum. Percentages and absolute numbers of these species have varied from year to year, but the same species have predominated.

During 1979, fish sampling at Locust Point yielded similar results. A large percentage of the numbers of dominant species collected consisted of YOY taken in shore seines, but yearling-size and larger individuals of these species were also numerically more abundant than other species collected during 1979. The open, wave-swept nature of the nearshore zone at Locust Point and the lack of aquatic vegetation and other sheltering structures precludes the establishment of large resident populations of species which require more sheltered or quiescent conditions (i.e., northern pike, carp, goldfish, bluntnose minnow, spotfin shiner, quiliback, white sucker, shorthead redhorse, brown bullhead, yellow bullhead, white crappie, black crappie, and logperch, all of which were collected but not abundant during 1979), although small populations or transient individuals of such species do occur in the area.Of the approximately 83 species present or formerly present in the coastal waters of Lake Erie, the majority are abundant only in bays, marshes, and estuaries or around islands, bars, points, and reefs. The less abundant species captured at Locust Point during 1978 were generally of this type.Pelagic and benthipelagic schooling species consisting of intermediate predators and benthic foragers (i.e., white bass, freshwater drum, yellow perch) and forage fish (i.e., alewife, gizzard shad, spottail shiner, and emerald shiner) make up the bulk of the community.

Larger predators (i.e., walleye and channel catfish) are consistently common but less abundant than these dominant species. This type of community, consisting of highly mobile groups of fishes, is typical of such nearshore habitats.

Residents of the deeper offshore waters (i.e., trout-perch and rainbow smelt)commonly move inshore and are collected at Locust Point during their spring spawning seasons. The silver chub is an Ohio endangered species consistently collected in small numbers at Locust Point. This was originally a common nearshore schooling species which evidently succumbed to increasing turbidity in the lake (Trautman, 1975). The white perch was Rather, transient groups of fishes move through the area in response to food abundance, wave action, physicochemical changes and change of season.Densities of yearling and older fishes, as reflected in trawl and gill net catches, are greatest during the summer, due probably to greater food abundance and ambient water temperature, as well as the general concen-tration movement of most species to inshore spawning areas during spring and summer. Young-of-the-year fish, hatched in spring or summer generally become susceptible to shore seine capture during June and large numbers may be captured in shore seines until August. Thereafter, increased size and dispersal of these fish and decreased numbers due to mortality result in decreased shore seine catch. Many YOY become susceptible to capture by gill net and trawl during the fall.Food Habits. The major fish food resources in the Locust Point vicinity during 1979 were zooplankton, chironomid larvae, and small forage fish. Analysis of feeding habits of yellow perch, white bass, freshwater drum, spottail shiner, and emerald shiner indicated no marked differences in feeding habits between Transect 8-13 (test) and Transect 3-26 (control).

White bass were primarily piscivorous, and the remaining four species relied on zooplankton and chironomid larvae. These results are similar to those obtained during previous years of monitoring (1972 -1979).In conclusion, fish populations at Locust Point during 1979 were similar to those observed in previous years of monitoring at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (1972 -1978). No trends of attraction to or repulsion from the intake or discharge areas were noted.

I Thermal Impact Assessment In the assessments of the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and benthos sections, it was shown that extreme values, i.e., either maxima or minima, in addition to being potentially due to the thermal discharge and unit operation, will occur by chance alone, due to natural variation.

Furthermore, the magnitude of the standard deviation gives one a good indication of the magnitude of natural variation to be expected.The above statements are hardly necessary when evaluating the impact of the thermal discharge and unit operation on the fishery populations in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, for there was little or no variation out of the pre-operational range during the operational period for the eight major species (Figures 38 -45). However, on the 17 sampling dates during the operational period, the unit was operating at above 90 percent capacity on four dates, 15.0 percent capacity on another, and not operating on the remaining twelve dates. This limited operational history has made it impossible to develop correlations of these field data with the laboratory temperature preference and tolerance data from Study II of the project.Another way to measure impact and an approach which allows us to include all species (not just the major eight) is to compare catches at the discharge (Station 13) and those at the intake (Station 8) with control stations (Figures 46 -51 and Table 60). This method shows that the only operational catches at the intake and discharge which were outside the pre-operational range occurred during November (Figures 46 and 47). Both of these catches were above pre-operational data which is an indication that it was either a lake-wide occurrance, or a case of fish being attracted to the rip-rap material which was placed around these structures to prevent bottom scouring and ice damage. However, since an identical November increase occurred at the control stations (Figures 48 -51), natural vari-ation, not unit operation, should be considered the cause.In conclusion, it appears that to date, the thermal discharge from and operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1, has not had a significant effect on Lake Erie fish populations at Locust Point.Ichthyoplankton Thermal Impact Assessment Ichthyoplankton populations have shown tremendous variations since 1974. Emerald shiners constituted 81 percent of the 1974 larvae, 1 percent of the 1975 larvae, 60 percent of the 1976 larvae, 3 percent of the 1977 larvae, 14 percent of the 1978 larvae and 3 percent of the 1979 larvae.Yellow perch constituted 5 percent of the 1974 larvae, 70 percent of the 1975 larvae, 4 percent of the 1976 larvae, 26 percent of the 1977 larvae, 2 percent of the 1978 larvae, and 11 percent of the 1979 larvae. Gizzard shad appear to have increased significantly reaching 34 percent of the 1976 larvae, 56 percent of the 1977 larvae, 69 percent of the 1978 larvae, and 82 percent of the 1979 larvae. It is felt that the above described variability is largely due to the fact that we are sampling schooling specimens.

Consequently, when the net is drawn through a school the density appears quite high. This is also quite dependent on the seasonal frequency of sampling.

For example, if the weather allows more frequent spring sampling but prohibits summer sampling, then spring species such as perch and walleye appear relatively more abundant.The 1979 ichthyoplankton density (66.79/100 m3 ) was 18 percent greater than the 1978 density (56.6/100 m 3). Although walleye densities decreased from 6.1/100 m 3 to 0.15/100 m 3 , the loss was more than offset by yellow perch densities which increased from 1.2/100 m 3 in 1978 to 7.46/100 m 3 in 1979 and gizzard shad densities which increased from 38.9/100 m 3 in 1978 to 54.64/100 m 3 in 1979. It appears that walleye and yellow perch densities will fluctuate yearly, however, a definite increasing trend is emerging for gizzard shad densities.

In 1976, control stations (3, 26, 28 and 29) were established on either side of the intake (Station 8)/discharge (Station 13) complex to determine if unusually large fish larvae populations were occurring due to possible spawning in the rip-rap material around these structures.

This does not appear to be occurring to any significant degree as Station 13 (plume area) exhibited densities similar to Station 3 (control) and Station 8 (intake) exhibited the lowest densities.

These lower densities observed at Station 8 are probably due to the fact that this station is the farthest from shore and in the deepest water.In summary, there is no indication of significant spawning occurring at Locust Point. However, the nearshore waters here, as with the rest of the nearshore waters along the south shore of the Western Basin, appear to serve as a nursery ground for larvae. Furthermore, due to the similarity between test and control stations, there is no indication that the activities of the plant (including the thermal discharge) have signifi-cantly altered these populations.

Water Quality Analysis of 1979 Results Seasonal Variations.

The quality of the water in the vicinity of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station during the ice-free period of 1979 was typical for the south shore of western Lake Erie and showed normal seasonal trends. Average temperature rose 14 0 C from early May to late July and then dropped over 18 0 C by late November (Figure 53). Average dissolved oxygen concentrations fell from 9.5 ppm in early May to a low of 8.1 ppm in late July and August then rose again to 12.4 ppm in late November.

Hydrogen-ion concentrations remained fairly stable throughout the year, varying only 1.7 units. A slight rise was noted in the September pH (8.9) which corresponds to higher algal productivity and CO 2 utilization during early fall. Low temperatures and low primary productivity in late November account for a nearly-neutral pH (7.2) at that time (Figure 52).Mild turbulence in spring and fall is reflected by the higher turbidity and suspended solids measurements for these periods (Figure 54).The decreased sediment load during summer months accounts for the higher transparency readings in July, August and September (Figure 54). A three-fold improvement in the water clarity was noted between early May and September, and a corresponding three-fold decrease was observed from September and late November.

Biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) levels were relatively low and stable throughout the year, even during periods of high turbidity, indicating that the suspended material was largely of an inorganic nature. Slightly elevated BOD values in June may be in response to algal productivity.

Major dissolved ions, including calcium, magnesium, sodium, chloride and sulfate generally yielded the highest concentrations in the spring, the lowest concentrations in the summer and intermediate values in the fall (Figure 55). Similar patterns were exhibited by other parameters, including conductivity and total dissolved solids which are measures of dissolved ions (Figure 56). Alkalinity, which is largely a measure of bicarbonate ions, was relatively stable throughout the year, varying only 20 mg/l and showing a pattern similar to the other ions (Figure 56).The biological nutrients, such as phosphorus, nitrate, and silica, also generally yielded the highest concentrations in the spring or early summer, their lowest concentrations in the late summer and intermediate values in the fall (Figure 57). This cycle is attributed to utilization of these nutrients by photosynthesizing plankton.

In November, when primary production was at a lower rate, nitrate concentration rose to three times the October level.In July, 1979 the dissolved oxygen (DO) concentration dropped to 6.6 ppm (Station 1), the lowest value recorded during the 1979 monitoring program. This represents a continuing improvement over the lowest concen-tration observed in 1977 (3.0 ppm) and is consistent with concentrations measured in earlier years: Year DO Range (ppm)1974 5.7-14.1 1975 7.2-13.6 1976 5.0-12.5 1977 3.0-12.2 1978 5.7-12.5 1979 6.6-12.7 The International Joint Commission recommends a minimum DO level of 6.0 ppm for Lake Erie water (Canada-United States Water Quality Agreement of 1978). However, Ohio EPA (1978) has established a minimum DO standard of 4.0 ppm for the nearshore waters of Lake Erie within the vicinity of Locust Point.

Station Variations.

Stations 1, 8 and 13 are located approximately 500, 3,000 and 1,200 feet offshore respectively.

In general no consis-tently significant differences in water quality were observed between the stations.

In May and November when the concentrations of most parameters were the highest, a slight gradient was noted for most parameters from the closest inshore station (1) to the farthest offshore station (2). During the summer months these differences were not apparent.

In August several of the dissolved and suspended materials parameters showed slightly higher concentrations at Station 13 (Table 67). This may have been related to the proximity of the power station discharge; however, no elevation in water temperature was noted at Station 13 in relation to the other stations.Suspended solids, transparency and turbidity measurements indicate a general increase in water clarity from inshore to offshore (except in November), but differences were normally small.Differences between the surface and bottom water quality were also slight because of the shallowness (1.0 -4.3 meters) of this portion of Lake Erie and its well-mixed nature. Some depressions in the level of DO and small increases of suspended and dissolved materials were noted near the bottom. This may be due to the high oxygen demand of the sediments and the disturbance of these sediments by currents and wave action. As would be expected, the amount of solar radiation measured at the lake's bottom was significantly lower than the surface irradiance.

The difference between surface and bottom readings at the three stations was found to be directly proportional to the water depth.

Thermal Impact Assessment In general the quality of Lake Erie water in the vicinity of the Station's discharge structure has remained relatively constant over the past seven years (Figures 78, 79, and 80). In comparing the 18 water quality parameters during the ice-free months for the pre-operational versus the operational period (Figures 58 to 75), it can be seen that there is a 67% agreement (operational data within pre-operational range) between the two data sets. This is a relatively good'agreement (Figure 81).Table 95 summarizes this comparison and provides an indication of the degree of difference between the two periods. In general the concen-trations of dissolved and suspended substances were. higher during the operational period, particularly:

magnesium, silica, nitrate, turbidity, and suspended solids. Dissolved oxygen was lower after operation.

The magnitude of these differences was not great and seemed to be caused by the general condition of the nearshore waters of Western Lake Erie rather than Station operation.

For example, Table 83 shows that magnesium was not only high at the discharge (Station 13) but also high at the water intake (Station 8) which serves as a control station.Table 96 indicates the percent change in water quality at the Lake intake (Station 8) and discharge (Station 13) from the pre-operational period through the operational period. Dissolved oxygen and phosphorus showed the largest decreases in concentration (7 and 35 percent, respectively), while sulfate, magnesium, BOD, silica, chloride, turbidity, and suspended solids all had increases greater than 5%. In all cases where an increase in excess of 5% occurred at the discharge station, a similar increase was also observed at the control station. These observations further substantiate the conclusion that most of the changes are due to general lake conditions, and not localized changes resulting from Station operation and the thermal discharge.

The decrease in phosphorus concen-tration is consistent with other nearshore measurements in western Lake Erie which indicate a decline in this substance as a result of pollution abatement programs.Based on the results of this study, short-term degradation of Lake Erie water quality can not be demonstrated as a result of Station operation.

The stability of water quality in the vicinity of Locust Point is well-documented; long-term deleterious impacts resulting from station and the thermal discharge are unlikely.Primary Productivity When the decision was made to monitor primary productivity, a tacit assumption was that one or more aspects of plant operation could affect the rate of phytoplankton growth. Impacts that could affect phytoplankton, and that are frequently mentioned in the literature, include changes in temperature, turbidity, and chemical additives.

An increase in temperature caused by the heated water discharge might be expected to result in increased productivity.

Increased turbidity, a possible result of bottom scouring by the plant discharge, could result in decreased pro-ductivity.

Chemicals included in the plant discharge could cause changes in pH or alkalinity, both of which are determining factors in the rate of increase of phytoplankton biomass. As either pH or alkalinity increases, so does productivity.

No significant changes in any of these parameters was noted during the five years of the study. Nor were there discernible, long-term changes in the measured values of productivity during the study period.

Nevertheless, there was considerable variability from cruise to cruise and from station to station during any one cruise. Since the temperature was constant from station to station, and both pH and alkalinity were constant throughout the study period, this variability is most probably the result of natural factors such as non-homogeneous distribution throughout the study site, changes in phytoplankton species composition throughout the year (Tables 5 -10), or availability of nutrients (Tables 78 -80).If any factors associated with plant operation were to impact primary productivity, the changes would be expected to be measurable at Station 13, the closest station to the plant discharge.

However, the observations during the 1979 field year confirmed earlier observations that any impact of the plant discharge is either too localized to be measured at Station 13, which is 500 feet from the discharge, or so extensive that it extends beyond Station 14. Since productivity at Station 8 is comparable to Stations 13, 14, and 3, the control station, it is unlikely that any impact is very extensive.

Rather, any impact is most probably highly localized.

Such a localized impact is hardly liable to cause extensive environmental alteration.

Summary Although little operational data was actually collected due to unit outages, that information which was collected indicated that the thermal impact at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station is so localized as to be all but undetectable by the sampling program. To some degree this is a function of sampling station location, however, the stations were located in a systematic fashion capable of detecting any significant impact.Consequently, it appears that no significant aquatic environmental impact is occurring from the thermal discharge at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station. Based on the experience of the authors at other power stations on Lake Erie, the reason for this is the presence of the closed condenser cooling system which minimizes the size of the thermal plume and the volume of intake water. This project and other research by the authors has indicated that the design features at Davis-Besse, i.e., cooling tower, off-shore intake, closed intake canal, bottom intake and a high velocity discharge nozzle, may be the optimal design features to minimize aquatic environmental impacts due to cooling water intakes and thermal discharges.

RECOMMENDATIONS The Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station began commercial power production 29 August 1977. Since that time the station has been operating at 50 percent or more of its capacity on less than 25 percent of the sampling dates. Although every effort has been made to obtain the best possible interpretation from the data which were collected, the authors do not believe that enough operational information has been obtained to adequately assess the impact of the thermal discharge on the aquatic environment.

Consequently, it is recommended that the study be reinitiated to allow the collection of more information when the station is operating on a more regular basis.Based on the results obtained to date, it is recommended that if sampling is ever initiated again, sampling stations be moved closer to the discharge and be collected more frequently in an effort to actually measure the effects of the thermal discharge.

The present station location would document a significant impact. However, the actual effects of the thermal discharge could be missed if these effects (the impact) were very localized as is now expected.

It is not recommended that the fish management policies of the Ohio Division of Wildlife be significantly changed to handle fish populations in thermal discharges.

However, as large numbers of fish should be attracted to these thermal discharges, it is recommended that public education programs be initiated to make sport fishermen aware of unique fishing opportunities which may exist during fall, winter and spring in thermal plumes.Based on the results from this study and other research conducted by the authors at power stations on Lake Erie, it is possible to make several recommendations for power plant design features which would minimize aquatic environmental impacts.1. The location and design of the cooling water intake is critical.Offshore intakes and closed intake canals appear to be very effective at minimizing adverse aquatic environmental impacts.These design features allow fish which are orienting to the shoreline as they swim to swim past power stations.

Open intake canals at the shoreline serve as fish collection devices and often lead to the entrainment and impingement of large numbers of fish on the power stations traveling screens. In Lake Erie, fish concentrations in nearshore waters are higher than offshore, and, consequently, less fish are affected if the intake is located offshore.2. Devices such as cooling towers, cooling lagoons, etc. serve two useful purposes:

they reduce the quantity of water required by the power station; and they reduce the size of the thermal plume.A reduction in the volume of water required for cooling purposes generally reduces losses due to entrainment and impingement.

A reduction in the size of the thermal plume reduces the likelihood of recirculation of cooling water after it has been discharged and reduces the number of fish which would be attracted to the thermal discharge during cold weather. This reduction in the number of fish attracted to the plume can lead to significant reductions in the number of fish impinged as cooling water intakes and discharges are often relatively close together.3. Care should be taken to locate thermal discharges downstream from the intakes to avoid recirculation of cooling water. On the south shore of Lake Erie cooling water discharges should be to the east of the intakes.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge the cooperation of the Ohio Department of Natural Resources, (ODNR), the Toledo Edison Company and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Toledo Edison supplied plant operating characteristics which greatly increased our ability to interpret the results. The entire staff of Lake Erie Fishery Unit of ODNR has provided valuable technical input throughout the study with regard to sampling techniques, frequencies and sampling station locations.

However, we wish to especially acknowledge the contributions and cooperation of D.Barry Apgear, Allen W. Cannon, Delmar E. Handley and Russell L. Scholl, who were extremely helpful with both technical and administrative problems.For similar contributions, we would like to acknowledge the efforts of Donald V. Friberg (USFWS).

Within the Center for Lake Erie Area Research (CLEAR) at The Ohio State University there is an extremely long list of individuals who have participated in this effort over the past 11 years. We have attempted to acknowledge their contributions annually within a "Project Staff" section of each of the annual performance reports. A similar listing for this past year is presented below.Charles E. Herdendorf Jeffrey M. Reutter Mark D. Barnes Donald L. Breier Walter E. Carey C. Lawrence Cooper Deborah L. Downey James W. Fletcher Laurie J. Fletcher Jo Ann Franks Richard Froelich Patricia B. Herdendorf Suzanne L. Hessler Project Staff-Project Leader; Analysis of Water Quality and Physical Parameters

-Assistant Leader and Project Manager;Analysis of Biological Parameters

-Coordination of field sampling; Adult Fish and Stomach Analysis-Field sampling; Laboratory Analysis of Ichthyoplankton

-Primary Productivity Supervisor

-Supervisor Ichthyoplankton Identification

-Secretarial Services-Plankton Identification

-Drafting and Secretarial Services-Administrative Assistance

-Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates

-Primary Productivity

-Secretarial Services PROJECT STAFF (cont'd.)Cheryl L. Kimerline William S. Snyder Kristina I. White-Clerical Assistance

-Keypunching, Field Sampling, Clerical Assistance

-Project Accountant LITERATURE CITED American Public Health Association.

1975. Standard Methods for the Exami-nation of Water and Wastewater.

13th ed. APHA, New York. 847 p.American Society for Testing and Materials.

1973. Annual book of ASTM standards, part 23, water; atmospheric analysis.

ASTM, Philadelphia.

1108 p.Bailey, R.M., J.E. Fitch, E.S. Herald, E.A. Lachner, C.C. Lindsey, R.C.Robins, and W.B. Scott. 1970. A list of common and scientific names of fishes from the United States and Canada. Third ed. Amer. Fish.Soc. Spec. Pub. No. 6. 150 p.Busch, W.-D.N., D.H. Davies, and S.J. Nepszy. 1977 Establishment of white perch, Morone americana in Lake Erie. J. Fish Res. Board Can.34:1039-1041.

Chandler, D.C., and O.B. Weeks. 1945. Limnological studies of western Lake Erie V: relation of limnological and meteorological conditions to the production of phytoplankton in 1942. Ecol. Monogr. 15:435-456.Fish, M.P. 1932. Contributions to the early life histories of 62 species of fishes from Lake Erie and its tributary waters. Bur. Fish. Bull.Wash. D.C. 47:293-398.

Hubschman, J.H. 1960. Relative daily abundance of planktonic crustacea in the island region of western Lake Erie. Ohio J. Sci. 60:335-340.

Nelson, D.D. and R.A. Cole. 1975. The distribution and abundance of larval fishes along the western shore of Lake Erie at Monroe, Michigan.

Michigan State Univ., Inst. Water Res., Tech. Rept. No.32.4. 66 p.

LITERATURE CITED (cont'd)Norden, C.R. 1961a. A key to larval fishes from Lake Erie. Univ. of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayette.

4 p.Norden, C.R. 1961b. The identification of larval perch, Perca flavescens, and walleye, Stizostedion

v. vitreum. Copeia 1961:282-288.

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 1978. Water Quality standards.

OEPA Administrative Code, Chapter 3745-1. 117 p.Prater, Bayliss. 1976. The Measurement of Primary Productivity Using 14C and Liquid Scintillation Spectrometric Procedure.

Biol. Branch, Central Region Laboratory.

Region V, USEPA.Reutter, J.M. 1976. Environmental evaluation of a nuclear power plant on Lake Erie: Predicted aquatic impacts. Ph.D. Dissertation.

The Ohio State University.

Columbus, Ohio. 242 pp.Reutter, J.M. and C.E. Herdendorf.

1974. Environmental evaluation of a nuclear power plant on Lake Erie. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Project F-41-R-5, Study I and II. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Rept. 145 p.Reutter, J.M., C.E. Herdendorf, M.D. Barnes, and W.E. Carey. 1979.Environmental evaluation of a nuclear power plant on Lake Erie. Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio. Project F-41-R-10, Study I. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service Rept. 164 p.Saunders, G.W., F.B. Trama, and R.W. Bachmann.

1962. Evaluation of a Modified C1 4 Technique for Shipboard Estimation of Photosynthesis in Large Lakes. Pub. No. 8. Great Lakes Research Division, University of Michigan.

LITERATURE CITED (cont'd)Trautman, M.B. 1957. The Fishes of Ohio. The Ohio State Univ. Press, Columbus, Ohio. 683 pp.U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1974. Methods for chemical analysis of water and wastes. EPA Analytical Control Laboratory, Cincinnati, Ohio 125 pp.Welch, P.W. 1948. Limnological Methods. McGraw-Hill, New York. 381 p.Wieber, P.H. and W.R. Holland. 1968. Plankton patchiness:

effects on repeated net tows. Limnol. Oceanogr.

13:315-321.

.TABLES

-i 0 TABLE. 1 PLANKTON AND WATER QUALITY SAMPLING DATES Month ear1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 March 18 April 18 22 14 26 May 25 22 29 17 24 11 1 and 23 June 27 19 16 16 22 29 21 July 25 17 14 20 13 25 28 August 23 22 11 18 30 17 29 September 26 10 8 14 12 15 27 October 9 6 19 26 17 30 November 6 7 3 2 22 1 .8 December 4 16 I oo 1 No phytoplankton collections.

TABLE. 2 PHYTOPLANKTON AND ZOOPLANKTON SAMPLING STRUCTURE, 1973-19791

/Station 19732 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1 x x x x x x X 2 3 X X X X X X x 4 5 X 6 X X X X X X 7 X 8 x x x x x x x 9 X X X" 10 X X X 11 12 X X X Y 13 X X X X X X X 14 X X X X X X 15 16 17 X 18 X X X X X X X 19 X X X 20 X 21 22 23 24 25 26 x 27 X 28 X 29 X First Month May April April March April May May Last Month December November December November November November November All samples were collected by a vertical tow with a 12cm mouth 0.064 mm mesh in 1973 and 1974 and 0.080 2 No phytoplankton sampling; Zooplankton only.Wisconsin plankton net;mm mesh from 1975-1979.

0 TABLE 3 BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING DATES 0 Y'ear , Month 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 March 18 April 17-18 23 9 27 May 25 22-23 21 4 11 30 June 19-20 19 7 22 July 2, 26-1 '17 17 5 26. 29 August 23 14 19 .5 16 September 19-26 .6 11 3 26 30 October 10 9 5 3 November 2-7 7 6 4 December 4 16 I CD I TABLE .4-BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE SAMPLING STRUCTURE, 1973-19791 Station 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978. 1979 1 X X X X X X X 2 X X X 3 X X X X X X X 4 X X X 5 X X X 6 X X X X 7 X X X X 8 X X X X X X X 9 X X X X X X X 10 X X X 11 X X X X 12 X X X X 13 X X X X X X X 14 X X X X X X X 15 X X X X X X X 16 X X X X 17 X X. X X X X X 18 X X X X X X X 19 X X X 20 X 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 X X XX 27 X 28 X 29 X First Month May April April March April May May Last Month December November December November October November.

November Frequency Monthly Monthly Monthly Monthly Every- Every- Every-other- other-. other-month month month Three replicate grab samples with a ponar dredge (A=0.052 m2) were at the stations indicated each year -except 1973 when only one grab collected at each station.collected was Samples were collected only in April as water at this station was removed after this date to allow construction on the intake pumps.

TABLE 5 GILL NET SAMPLING DATES I 1.0 ND Year Month 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 April 25-26 17-18 12-13 18-19 30-1 (May)May 21-22 22-23 10-11 16-17 18-19 30-31 June 13-14 16-17 14-15 13-14 29-30 20-21 July 2-3 10-11 14-15 14-15 12-13 24-25 28-29 August 2-3, 30-31 19-20 11-12 11-12 9-10 17-18 28-29 September 28-29 12-13 8-9 30-1 13-14 24-25 2,9-30 October 16-17 6-7 20-21 17-18 27-28 November 12-13 25-26 3-4, 17-18 4-5 1-2 3-4 December 16-17 TABLE 6 SHORE SEINE SAMPLINE DATES.r MONTH YEAR 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 April 12 17 6 18 May 21 22 5 16 10 1, 30 June 14 13 17 10 13 29 20 July 9 15 7 12 24 28 August 1 27 12 10 9 17 28 September 12 10 20 13 15 29 October 3 16 14 15 20 18 27 November 12 14 5 15 2 3 TABLE 7 TRAWL SAMPLING DATES MONTH YEAR 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 April 25 19 3 30 May 21 5, 27 13 18 12 24 June 29 21 17 17 23 30 22 July 17 19 15 16 19 25 31 August 24 16 21 20 23 18 31 September 27 13 15 13 27 15 25 October 10 14 12 24 19 30 November 5 8 7 2 8 1 6 TABLE 8 ICHTHYOPLANKTON SAMPLING DATES 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 March Apri. 1 May" Juneuly August September October November 21 14 10 19 12 16 25 22 12, 25 2, 15, 22 2, 13 4, 30 6,' 14, 10, 17, 11, 17, 8, 23, 9, 20, 30 27 28 29 31 20, 29 21 2, 13, 25 5, 13, 20, 27 12, 22 2 8, 5, 1I, 11, 30 22 20 19 23 I, 9, 31 5, 21 5, 12, 20 3, 15 A __________

A ____________

I ________________

I £ TABLE 9 FOR WATER QUALITY DETERMINATION PROCEDURES I.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.Parameter Dissolved Oxygen Hydrogen-ions (pH)Transparency Turbidity Suspended Solids Conductivity Dissolved Solids Calcium (Ca)Chloride (Cl)Sulfate (S04)Sodium (Na)Magnesium (Mg)Alkalinity (Total as CaCO 3)Nitrate (NO 3)Phosphorus (Total as P)Silica (SiO 2)Biochemical Oxygen Demand Temperature Units oC pH units meters F.T.U.mg/l umhos/cm( 25C0)mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l oc References for APHA (1975): ASTM (1973): Welch (1948)APHA (1975): APHA (1975): ASTM (1973): uSEPA (1974)APHA (1975): APHA (1975): ASTM (1973): ASTM (1973): APHA (1975): APHA (1975): ASTM (1973): APHA (1975): ASTM (1973): APHA (1975): APHA (1975): Analytical Methods Sec. 422B D1293-65 Secchi disk Sec. 214A Sec. 208D D1125-64 Sec. 306C Sec. 408B D516-68C D1428-64 Sec. 313C Sec. 403 D992-71 Sec. 425F D859-68B Sec. 507 Sec. 212 0 0 S TABLE 10 MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL PHYTOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN BACILLARIOPHYCEAE ijiatoms).

As-terionella formosa. 680123 14439 221 111 0 0 30211 10187 91912 Cosinodiscus spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0: 17 0 2 Cyclotella spp. 6 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 1 Cymatopleura spp. 7 0 0 0 0 0. .0 0 1 Diatoma spp. 8 16 0 0 0. 0" 0 0 3 Fragilaria spp. 2706 7415 106 7276 5571 6365 9161 3071 5209 7yrosigma spp. 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 1 Melosira spp. 39353 5308 700 3422 68 5548 11930 489 8352 Navicula spp. 86 0 0 34 0 0 0 0 15 Nitzschiaspp.

12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Penularia spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 1 Pleurosoma sp. 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Rhizosolinia spp. 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Sceletonema subsalsa 0 0 .481 0 0 0 0 0 60 Stephanodiscus binderanus 10142 5847 11 0 23 0 5175 2833 2948 S. spp. 7 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 2 Surirella spp. 0 0 17 32 44 0 8 0 13 Synedra spp. 87 17 53 0 0 0 70 1034 158 Tabellaria spp. 1014 2492 39 0 0 0 113 798 557 Unidentified Centric 0 33 0 0 6 17 0 0 7 Unidentified Centric Filament 109 281 0 0 0 0 0 0 49 Subtotal 733663 35855 1628 10882 5712 11930 56703 17967 109293 TABLE 1O(Cont'd)

MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL PHYTOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN CHLOROPHYCEAE (Green..Algae).

Actinastrum sp.p. 0 0 13 0 0' 0 93 0 13 Ankistrodesmus falcatus 0 0 50 0 14 0 0 O 8-Binuclearia tatrana 0 0 338 255 195 57144 11069 44 8631 Botryococcus sudeticus 0 0 0 1360 1977 59 0 0 424 Closteriopsis longissima 11 184 7 13 0 0 9 21 31 Closterium spp. 0 0 6 17 0 0 0 0 3 Coelastrum spp. 0 0 0 79 47 0 0 0 16 Cosmarium spp. 0 0 0 35 0 0 0 0 4 Dictyosphaerium sp. 8 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 Micractinium sp. 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Mugeotia sp. 146 1958 111 84 85 12747 8068 385 2948 Oocystis spp. 0 0 0 47 0 11 5 0 8 Pediastrum duplex 18 151 899 716 955 355 241 0 417 P. simplex 28 85 67 1018 422 636 224 84 323 Scenedesmus spp. 26 7 42 64 0 17 10 0 21 Schroederia sp. 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 1 Staurastrum paradoxum 10 14 34 404 75 23 78 0 80 Tetraspora spp. 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Subtotal 261: 2416 1574 4092 3791 70992 19798 534 12932* 0 S 0 TABLE 1O, (Cont'd)MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL PHYTOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 co I DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.-TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN MYXOPHYCEAE (Blue-green Algae)Anabaena spiroides 0 0 13 129 259 17 22 10 56 A. sp. 45 8 129 26 15 277 0 0 63 Wphanizomenon flos-aguae 18 0 110 215464 96118 405876 2198 0 89973 Aphanothece spp. 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0. 1 Chroococcus spp. 0 524 0 147 0 0 0 0 84 Gomphosphaeria spp. 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 1 Merismopedia spp. 0 0 7 21 0 0 0 0 4 Microcystis spp. 0 0 0 1071 189 0 0 0 158 Oscillatoria spp. 779 689 984 100 103 12128 40903 945 7079 Subtotal 842 1221 1243 216958 .96697 418298 43123 955 97417 DINOPHYCEAE (Protozoa)

Ceratium hirundinella 0 5 149 34372 40 147 0 0 4339 Peridinium sp. 11 0 0 197 5 0 0 0 27 Subtotal 11 5 149 34570 45 147 .0 0 4366 TOTAL 734777 39497 4595 -266502 106244 501368 119624 19456 224008* Expressed as number of whole organisms/liter and computed from duplicate vertical tows (bottom to s a Wisconsin plankton net (12cm diameter, 0.080mm mesh) from 7 sampling stations on dates indicated.

urface) with TABLE 11 MONTHLY MEAN PHYTOPLANKTON DENSITIES*

FROM SAMPLING STATIONS AT LOCUST POINT, LAKE ERIE -1979 I DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. GRAND STATION 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN 1 630647 52546 7624 317485 81514 406729 120938 38020 206938 3 737866 45212 8252- 327506 94904 517548 145597 21221 237263 6 633462 48808 3851 440997 79302 444691 134103 13662 224859 8 872472 28665 1945 94904 181824 481395 100882 17527 222452 13 889947 36594 3961 260850 96672 692887 133682 12320 265864 14 672223 28405 2762 206194 185327 363659 112627 12497 197962 18 706825 36252 3773 217577 24168 602667 89539 20943 212718 GRAND MEAN 734777 39497 4595 266502 106244 50.1368 119624 19456 224008* Data presented as the number of whole organisms/liter and computed from tows (bottom to surface) with a Wisconsin plankton net (12cm diameter, each of the indicated stations.duplicate vertical 0.080mm mesh) at 0 0 0 TABLE 12 MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL ZOOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN ROTIFERA Asplanchna priodonta 0.1 2.2 0.2 0.1 5.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 Brachionus angularis 6.5 0.8 10.5 15.2 4.0 5.1 0.3 0.0 5.3 B. calyciflorus 27.8 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.6 B. caudatus 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 B. diversicornus 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 B havanaensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 <0.1 Cephalodella spp. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 Filinia terminalis 2.0 0.4 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 Kellicottia longispina 0.0 14.4 4.6 0.0 <0.1 0.0 <0.1 0.4 2.4 Keratella cochlearis 16.5 30.2 9.9 38.6 1.4 102.8 13.8 1.5 26.8 K. quadrata 16.0 112.5 9.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.3 0.0 17.3 Lecane spp. 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 No-thoica spp. 16.8 4.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.1 2.6 Polyarthra vulgaris 37.2 3.3 15.0 13.6 20.4 2-08.7: 25.9 0.8 40.6 Synchaeta spp. 76.1 1.0 14.5 8.3 0.4 7.4 68.1 7.9 23.0 Trichocerca multicrinis 0.0 0.6 4.5 25.5 9.1 22.1 0.0 0.0 7.7 T. similis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 Unidentified Rotifer 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 Subtotal 199.5 170.3 70.2 101.8 40.8 346.2 108.5 10.6 131.0 TABLE 12(Cont'd)

MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL ZOOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN COPEPODA Calanoid Copepods Diaptomus ashlandii 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 D. minutis <0.1 0.8 0.1 1.4 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 ff. oregonensis 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 D. sicilis 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 U. siciloides 0.1 0.2 6.9 6.8 5.4 2.0 0.0 0.7 2.8 , Eurytemora affinis 0.0 0.1 <0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Copepodids, calanoid 3.4 25.5 3.8 3.0 8.5 8.9 0.7 0.0 6.7 Nauplii, calanoid 2.0 11.8 4.5 4.8 1.2 21.0 0.4 0.0 5.7 Cyclopoid Copepods Cyclops bicuspidatus thomasi 0.2 8.4 1.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.2 0.1 1.3 C. vernalis 0.0 2.8 51.2 0.9 4.2 2.5 0.4 0.0 7.8 Mesocyclops edax 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.4 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Tropocycl ops, prans pex 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Copepodids, Td- 3.7 20.9 19.1 3.6 16.3 13.8 7.3 1.6 10.8 Nauplii, cyclopoid 33.1 119.2 175.5 153.6 47.9 54.0 30.4 7.2 77.6 Harpacticoid Copepods Canthocamptus robertcokeri 0.4 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 Copepodids, harpacticoid 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 <0.1 Nauplii, harpacticoid 0.5 2.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.4 Subtotal 43.7 195.0 262.3 176.3 87.4 102.0 39.7 9.6 114.5 TABLE 12(Cont'd)

MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL ZOOPLANKTON TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.TAXA 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN CLADOCERA Alona spp.Bosmi-h longirostris Ceriodaphnia lacustris Chydorus sphaericus Daphnia galeata mendotae D. retrocurva Uiaphanosoma leuchtenbergianum Eubosmina coregoni Leptodora kindtii Subtotal PROTOZOA Difflugia spp.OSTRACODA TARDIGRADA TOTAL 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 0.0 0.6<0.1 0.5 0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0<0.1 245.3 0.0 2.2 0.0 13.5 0.1 121.5 0.1 24.6 0.3 162.3 8.6<0.1 0.0 536.1 0.0 0.6 0.0 5.1 0.0 48.7 0.0 9.3<0.1 63.8 86.9 0.0 0.0 483.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.4 26.3 33.1 0.1 8.3 0.7 72.9 901.3 0.0 0.0 1252.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 34.6 0.0 15.8 0.8 41.0 0.0 92.2 114.0 0.0 0.0 334.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 18.6 0.0 6.5 0.4 23.5 0.0 49.0 76.8 0.0 0.0 574.1 0.2 1.4 0.1 8.0 0.0<0.1 0.0 19.6 0.0 29.3 175.4 0.0 0.0 352.9 0.0 0.4 0.0<0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.8 0.0 1.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 21.5<0.1 0.6-e0. 1 10.6 3.3 28.3 0.2 15.9 0.1 59.1 170.4<0.1I<0.1 475.0* Data presented as number of organisms/liter and computer (bottom to surface) with a Wisconsin plankton net (12cm 7 stations in Lake Erie at Locust Point in the vicinity Power Station.from duplicate vertical tows diameter, 0.080mm mesh) from of the Davis-Besse Nuclear TABLE 13 MONTHLY MEAN ZOOPLANKTON DENSITIES*

FROM SAMPLING STATIONS AT LOCUST POINT, LAKE ERIE -1979 DATE May May June July August Sept. Oct. Nov. GRAND STATION 1 23 21 28 29 27 30 28 MEAN 1 238.2 645.3 537.9 1,374.9 340.4 936.5 265.9 20.3 544.9 3 206.9 568.1 488.7 802.0 257.0 362.2 385.2 22.9 386.6 6 200.8 405.3 421.0 1,117.3 158.2 575.1 452.8 16.0 418.3 8 217.9 657.0 336.7 1,285.4 290.9 312.8 334.9 22.1 432.2 13 287.4 354.3 563.2 1,433.0 402.6 753.6 440.3 10.3 530.6 14 255.2 617.6 478.9 1,156.3 312.7 198.7 302.6 18.3 417.5 18 310.9 505.5 555.6 1,596.5 578.8 879.8 288.8 40.3 594.5 GRAND MEAN 245.3 536.1 483.1 1,252.2 334.4 574.1 352.9 21.5 475.0 CD cI* Data presented as number tows (bottom to surface)mesh) at each station.of organisms/liter and computed from duplicate vertical with a Wisconsin plankton net (12cm diameter, 0.080mm S TABLE 14 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL PHYTOPLANKTON DATA FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION BACILLARIOPHYCEAE Pre-Operational DataI Operational Data 2 (no/l) (no/l)Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March ---.--- 22404 --- -- 3 April 7531 216609 105938 85684 --- --- 733663 ---May 2080 167574 69785 78218 35855 408898 222377 263781 June 90 6573 2131 2991 1628 11078 6353 6682 July 285 2556 1206 1073 1830 10882 6356 6401 August 772 20481 7513 8870 3372 5712 4542 1655 September 907 17383 7577 8674 4996 18138 11688 6574 October 5958 34799 24927 16432 12505 89804 53004 38782 November 7993 13002 10584 2509 16471 105250 46563 50830 December --- 79879 ---............

Mean 3202 59872 33194 37727 10951 92823 135568 252388 CHLOROPHYCEAE March --- 32 ---April 102 2888 916 1323 --- 261 ---May 432 2110 1167 716 700 2416 1558 1213 June 904 8347 4604 3951 1574 5556 3565 2816 July 1024 3384 1955 1012 4092 26052 15072 15528 August 793 5910 2362 2194 3791 4192 3992 284 September 2921 9511 5780 3381 2843 10034 27956 37443 October 7366 21872 13686 7431 16665 27160 21208 5388 November 1691 21198 11544 9755 27141 117566 48414 61348 Decemb er --- 1522 ..............

.Mean 1904 9528 4357 4706 8115 27568 15253 16785 1 Results from samples collected from 1974 through August 1977.2 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.3 April sample actually collected May 1.-104 -

TABLE 14 (cont'd)PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL PHYTOPLANKTON DATA FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION.MYXOPHYCEAE Pre-Operational DataI Operational Data 2 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 82 ---April 81 954 358 402 --- --- 8423 ---May 0 688 221 315 1221 1886 1554 470 June 13 12854 3471 6269 1243 45570 23407 31344 July 313 84901 37539 35129 28878 216958 122918 132993 August 35 315263 101877 146415 69043 96697 82870 19554 September 1881 17977 7902 8780 19954 75577 171276 215727 October 5109 14203 8394 5045 19629 60168 40973 20355 November 1504 2578 2179 588 28219 31652 20275 16820 December ...... 1563 ---.---........

Mean 1117 56177 16359 32084. 24027 75501 58027 62124 TOTAL PHYTOPLANKTON March --- 22517 ---April 7860 224076 108178 88757 --- 734777 ---May 4883 168899 71305 77644 39497 411501 225499 263047 June 1604 17817 10357 12247 4595 62414 33505 40884 July 3460 87260 41833 34760 59120 266502 162811 146641 August 1603 3279.15 112143 147757 76687 106244 91466 20900 September 5751 31352 21378 13705 48372 83480 211073 252015 October 19232 70129 47052 25778 99846 126796 115422 13958 November 17148 33499 24324 8357 161456 165699 115537 83236 December 82963 ---... .....Mean 7693 121368 54205 37254 69939 174662 211261 220686'Results from samples collected from 1974 through August 1977.2 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.3April sample actually collected May 1.-105 -

TABLE 15-PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL PHYTOPLANKTON DATA 1 FROM THE VICINITY OF THE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES AND A CONTROL STATION STATION 3 Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std 0ev March -------------

4 April 5929 188717 91274 76544 --- -- 737866 --May 3553 201735 74227 91342 45212 267882 156547 157451 June 1607 18380 6303 8079 8252 30840 19546 15972 July 2737 113803 48155 47231 57331 327506 192419 191043 August 1329 358252 125142 162782 48336 94904 71620 32929 September 3891 27850 16441 12020 40281 64617 207482 268801 October 12016 66619 46585 30064 152681 226943 175074 45060 November 12786 33484 20171 11552 149954 244023 138399 111850 December --- ----- ----------

Mean 5481 102539 53537 41018 71721 179531 212369 221533 STATION 8 March.April isMay June July August Septemb er October November December Mean 8250 1634 1348 2313 1562 5528 14883 15181 6337 142686 124782 22427 80734 389417 28524 52375 43947 111737 22747 72523 58863 7242 39508 133684 19847 35282 26842 79075 49561 57337 62864 10174 32224 182880 12473 18963 14813 37676 28665 1945 31659 116805 36743 71015 93383 54316 384544 6778 94904 181824 82952 116363 199435 152400 8724724 206605 4362 63282 149315 200363 96087 103448 211992 251644 3417 44721 45975 244475 23051 91371 275361 STATION 13 March ---- 21247 ----4--April 6657 193221 113796 78639 --- --- 889947 ...May 4224 191170 78251 87463 36594 429182 232888 277602 June 1597 23356 9191 10200 3961 85402 44682 57587 July 2139 53265 35461 23674 47743 260850 154297 150689 August 1679 405706 132161 186211 96672 119697 108185 16281 September 6444 40540 23973 17068 46421 89766 276358 361375 October 17977 98873 52447 41752 77695 136376 115918 33129 November 13995 26408 20205 6207 75855 111081 66422 50057 December ---- 83306 --------Mean 6839 129067 57004 42833 54992 176051 236087 275701 1 Data presented as number of whole organisms per liter.2 2 Data collected from 1974 through August 1977.3Data collected from September 1977 through 197R.4 April sample actually collected May 1, 1979.-106 -

.1 TABLE 16 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL ZOOPLANKTON DATA FROM THE LOCUST POINT AREA ROTIFERS Pre-Operational DataI Operational Data 2 (no/l) (no/i)Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March --- 27 ---..........

April 39 362 169 138 ...... 200 ---May 94 479 304 166 170 264 217 66 June 87 234 149 71 33 70 52 26 July 35 573 259 234 39 102 71 45 August 23 592 292 213 36 41 39 4 September 119 369 241 128 82 213 214 132 October 73 681 280 347 70 120 100 26 November 143 513 282 164 15 49 25 21 December 219 236 228 12 ---........

Mean 92 449 223 86 64 123 115 82 COPEPODS March ...... 5 ---April 24 46 35 9 ---...-443 ---May 233 851 400 255 31 195 113 116 June 182 591 340 165 91 262 177 121 July 62 423 186 148 126 176 151 35 August 33 163 77 51 87 141 114 38 September 66 177 103 51 47 109 86 34 October 67 105 82 20 59 67 55 14 November 24 119 68 42 25 48 28 19 December 32 52 42 14 ............

Mean 80 281 134 134 67 143 96 53 1Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.2 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.3 April sample actually collected May 1.-107 -

S TABLE 16 (cont'd)PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL ZOOPLANKTON DATA FROM THE LOCUST POINT AREA CLADOCERAN Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 2 (no/l) (no/])Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev M arch 7 -- 0 .2 ---........

3 ---April 0 11 3 .5 ---..May 8 130 45 49 1 162 82 114 June 103 335 198 90 64 360 212 209 July 39 188 134 61 73 122 98 35 August 2 39 25 15 72 92 82 14 September 29 205 104 74 30 192 90 89 October 26 211 101 97 27 56 37 16 November 17 58 34 18 16 26 14 13 D ec e m b er 12 2 4 18 8 .. .. .... .. ..Mean 26 133 66 65 40 144 77 66 TOTAL ZOOPLANKTON March --- --- 32 ---April 77 439' 217 157 --- 245 ---May 555 1086 819 191 295 536 416 170 June 707 1365 902 266 483 518 501 25 July 306 1168 911 345 252 370 811 624 August 144 825 454 249 250 334 292 59 September 391 627 500 110 251 557 461 182 October 259 831 489 302 159 246 253 97 November 256 650 391 178 55 135 71 58 December 275 303 289 20 222 Mean 330 810 500 296 249 385 381 222 1Results from 2 Results from 3 April sample samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.actually collected May 1.-108 -

TABLE 17.PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL ZOOPLANKTON DATA IN THE VICINITY OF THE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES AND A CONTROL STATION.STATION 3 (Control)Pre-Operational Data 1 Operational Data 2 (no/l). (no/i)Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March ---.--- --- --- ---3....April 54 323 177 118 ...... 207 ---May 415 1007 682 261 327 568 448 170 June 640 1210 862 218 489 535 512 33 July 265 1211 642 360 550 802 676 178 August 223 731 371 244 257 271 264 10 September 386 742 507 163 230 541 378 156 October 214 855 492 329 112 265 254 137 November 248 520 367 138 42 151 72 69 December --- 280 ............

Mean 306 825 487 215 287 448 351 192 STATION 8 (Intake)March --.--- 30 ......April 56 318 151 115 --.--- 218 May 265 846 656 268 124 657 391 377 June 504 1673 897 526 337 386 362 35 July 216 918 487 328 319 1285 802 683 August 100 435 303 148 228 291 260 45 September 243 564 394 133 263 412 329 76 October 256 513 354 139 154 252 247 91 November 225 489 323 144 34 137 64 63 December --- 234 ---............

Mean 233 720 383 250 208 489 334 215 STATION 13 (Discharge)

March --- 33 ---...April 63 482 223 184 --- 287 ---May 454 1421 894 350 243 354 299 78 June 621 1230 872 222 498 563 531 46 July 387 1243 808 413 337 1433 885 775 August 136 793 446 262 197 403 300 146 September 363 533 459 83 249 513 505 253 October 282 984 565 370 176 179 265 152 November 237 569 375 140 80 127 72 59 December 170 346 258 124 --- ----....Mean 301 845 493 292 254 510 393 245 1 Data collected from 1973 through August 1977.2 Data collected from September 1977 through 1979.3 April sample actually collected May 1.0-109 -

TABLE :18 MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May July Sept. Nov. GRAND TAXA 30 29 30 4 MEAN COELENTERATA Hydra sp. (budding polyp) 8.2 0.0 10.2 14.6 8.3-, jdjasp. (single polyp) 13.0 0.0 29.9 59.2 25.5 Subtotal 21.2 0.0 40.1 73.8 33.8 CD ANNELIDA Oligochaeta Immatures (hair setae) 0.0 1.9 0.0 0.0 0.5 Immatures (no hair setae) 294.7 1822.1 418.3 478.1 753.3 Branchuira sowerbyi 0.0 17.2 5.1 0.6 5.8 Limnodrilus cervix 2.0 3.8 0.0 0.6 1.6 L. maumeensis 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.0 0.2 Uphidonais serpentina 6.1 91.7 19.1 14.6 32.9 Potamothrix moldaviensis 2.7 9.6 0.6 1.9 3.7 Subtotal 305.5 1946.9 443.1 496.0 798.0 ARTHROPODA Cladocera Leptodora kindtii 235.3 181.5 38.8 3.8 114.9 Amphipoda Gammarus fasciatus 6.1 13.4 17.2 35.0 .17.9 ZI .- --.TABLE I8(Con't.)

MONTHLY MEAN DENSITIES*

OF INDIVIDUAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE TAXA AT LOCUST POINT -1979 DATE May ,July 1Sept. Nov. GRAND TAXA '30 29 '30 4 MEAN ARTHROPODA Diptera Chaoborus sp. 0.0 0.0 13.4 0.0 3.4 Chironomidae Chironomus sp. 64.1 91.0 :10.2 43.9 52.3 Cryptochironomus sp. 2.0 19.7 13.4 15.9 12.8 Polypedilum sp. ,0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 Procladius sp. .0.7 89.1 8.3 3.8 25.5 P. pupae 0.0 0.0 1.3 0.0 0.3 Tanytarsus sp. 17.7 3.8 14.0 61.1 24.2 T. pupae 0.0 0.0 0.6 0.0 0.2 Ephemeroptera Caenis sp. 3.4 0.0 0.0 1.9 1.3 Trichoptera Trichocerca sp. 0.0 0.0 0.6 1.9 0.6 Subtotal 330.0 398.6 .i17.8 167.0 253.6 TOTAL 652.9 2345.5 601.0 737.3 10.84.2* Data presented a Ponar dredge indicated.

as number of organisms/m2 (A=0.052m 2) at each of 10 and computed from 3 grabs with sampling stations on the dates 0 0-0 TABLE 19 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITIES 1 FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION COELENTERATA Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev M a r c h ---0 .... ... ... ... ..April 0 3 1 2 ---.........

May 9 51 21 20 1 21 11 14 June 0 210 89 89 ---....--

--July 0 5 2 2 0 4 2 3 August 0 7 2 3 ....September 1 36 10 17 1 40 21 20 October 2 72 30 37 --- -- 57 ---November 7 98 32 44 17 74 46 40 December 0 27 14 19 ............

Mean 2 57 20 27 5 35 27 23 ANNELIDA.March ... .113 ---.... ........April 506 1448 923 473 ---.........

May 368 1153 637 358 302 306 304 3 June 547 822 705 101 ---....--

--July 481 1417 918 397 564 1947 1256 978 August 212 2212 1254 736 ............

September 1012 2715 1561 783 443 813 628 262 October 767 2226 1305 801 --- 1371 ---November 654 1705 1157 509 496 1788 1142 914 December 140 1543 842 992 ... ..........Mean 521 1693 942 409 451.2 1214 940 455 ARTHROPODA March --- 11 ---... .....April 29 149 89 68 ............

May 71 107 120 60 257 330 294 52 June 105 700 449 218 ............

July 243 1146 491 437 169 2346 1258 1539 August 109 1583 642 562 ............

September 96 1035 602 407 275 601 438 231 October 270 729 440 252 --.--- 180 ---November 124 3016 896 1415 239 737 488 352 December 30 217 124 132 ............

Mean 120 976 386 290 235 1004 532 424 I Data presented as number of organisms per square meter.2 Data collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Data collected from September 1977 through 1979.-112 TABLE 19 (cont'd)PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DENSITIES1 FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION MOLLUSCA Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March --- 4 ---....April 0 2 1 1 May 0 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 J une 0 5 2 2 .. ... .. ... ..July 1 3 2 1 0 0 0 0 August 0 4 1 2 ---..--- ---September 0 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 October 0 2 1 1 ---... I ---November 0 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 December 0 1 1 1 ---........

Mean 0 3 2 1 0 1 1 1 TOTAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE POPULATION March --- --127 ............

April 540 1592 1018 535 ............

May 537 1216 777 315 560 653 607 66 June 653 1557 1241 363 ............

July 772 2559 1399 805 737 2346 1542 1138 August 321 2782 1893 1008 ............

September 1254 3753 2179 1116 601 1090 846 346 October 1065 3027 1767 1094 --.--- 1609 ---November 894 4492 2090 1675 737 2044 1391 924 December 170 1788 979 1144 ---........

Mean 690 2530 1347 649 659 1533 1199 447 1 Data presented as number of organisms per.square meter.2 Data collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Data collected from September 1977 through 1979i-113 -

S TABLE 20 , PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL BENTHIC MACROINVERTEBRATE DATA 1 FROM THE VICINITY OF THE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES AND A CONTROL STATION STATION 3 (CONTROL)Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March --.- -- ---- ---... -.--April 172 1910 1044 816 .........May 376 1662 824 604 923 955 939 23 June 1356 4181 2591 1451 ............

July 1448 3565 2529 1008 19 204 112 131 August 0 2776 1248 1151 ---.........

September 1191 2540 1828 648 280 382 331 72 October 1719 2903 2209 618 --- 83 ---November 1573 3247 2320 739 96 4081 2089 2818 December ---... 2660 ---.---........

Mean 979 2848 1917 711 330 1406 711 844 STATION 8 (INTAKE)March --- --- 57 ---... .....April 64 3361 1598 1642 ............

May 255 1483 906 506 89 592 341 356 June 573 1598 1387 455 ............

July 458 1834 1127 700 554 3031 1793 1752 August 18 4164 1328 1639 ............

September 1229 3095 2178 1003 618 1496 1057 621 October 414 2604 1488 1096 --- 611 ---November 172 1995 1125 819 649 1706 1178 747 December 51 325 188 194 ---Mean 359 2273 1138 636 478 1706 996 559 STATION 13 (DISCHARGE)

March ....--- 191 ---............

April 83 1293 417 585 ---........

May 280 901 498 280 669 1178 924 360 June 337 1776 884 543 ............

July 181 5068 2594 2374 649 1490 1070 595 August 89 3120 1319 1257 ............

September 1827 3795 2701 851 140 1012 576 617 October 337 5100 2171 2563 --- 592 ---November 337 1490 874 700 121 1834 978 1211 December 255 2497 1376 1585 ---.........

Mean 414 2782 1303 907 395 1379 828 229 1 Data presented as number of organisms per square meter, 2 Data collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Data collected from September 1977 through 1979.-114 -

TABLE 21 S SPECIES FOUND IN THE LOCUST POINT AREA 1963 -1979 rý P- t1- r- COMMON NAME M cn M (n CA SCIENTIFIC NAME-4 4 4 C,01 I a K***k*******1**Amiidae Amia calva Atherinidae Labidesthes sicculus Catostomidae Carpiodes cyprinus Catostomus commersoni Minytrema melanops Moxostoma erythrurum Moxostoma macrolepidotum Ictiobus cyprinellus Hypentelium nigricans Centrarchidae Ambloplites rupestris Lepomis cyanellus L. gibbosus L. humilis L. macrochirus L[. microlophus Micropterus dolomieui M. salmoides Pomoxis annularis P. nigromaculatus Clupeidae Alosa pseudoharengus Dorosoma cepedianum Cyprinidae Carassius.

auratus C. auratus x Cyprinus carpio Cyprinus carpio Hybopsis storeriana Notemigonu crysoleucas Notropis atherinoides N. hudsonius N. spilopterus N. volucellus PFimephales notatus P. promelas*r*r*r*k bowfin brook silverside quill back white sucker spotted sucker golden redhorse shorthead redhorse bigmouth buffalo northern hogsucker rockbass green sunfish pumpkinseed orangespotted sunfish bluegill redear sunfish smalImouth bass largemouth bass white crappie black crappie alewife gizzard shad goldfish carp x goldfish hybrid carp silver chub goldenshiner emerald shiner spottail shiner spotfin shiner mimic shiner bluntnose minnow fathead minnow* 1************c*kS-115 -

S TABLE 2.1(CON'T)

SPECIES FOUND IN THE LOCUST POINT AREA 1963 -1979 I-C .'J e I t r v 4 [,j L O t _ _ o M- a r-. ~ CI ENTIFIC NAMEa COMMON NAME**********************1**************************t.o~c'J***********Esocidae Esox lucius Esox masquinongy Ictaluridae Ictalurus melas I. natalis 1. nebulosus I. punctatus Noturus flavus Lepi sosteidae Lepisosteus osseus Osmeridae Osmerus mordax Percidae Etheostoma nigrum Perca flavescens Percina caprodes Stizostedion canadense S. v. vitreum Percichthyidae Morone americana M. chrysops Percopsidae Percopsis omiscomaycus Petromyzontidae Petromyzon marinus Salmonidae Oncorhynchus kisutch Sciaenidae Aplodinotus grunniens northern pike muskellunge black bullhead yellow bullhead brown bullhead channel catfish stonecat longnose gar rainbow smelt johnny darter yellow perch logperch sauger walleye white perch white bass trout-perch sea lamprey coho salmon freshwater drum*cli* 1* 1*c'J r-.aBailey et al..(1970)

-116 '

TABLE 22 NUMBERS OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT, APRIL -NOVEMBER 1979, AT LOCUST POINT USING EQUAL MONTHLY EFFORT WITH EACH TYPE OF FISHING GEAR" APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER TOTAL METHOD OF No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No.CAPTURE Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Fish Species Gill Netb 329 9 Soo 14 861 9 1,380 12 1,814 13 1,669 9 364 5 446 5 7,663 19 Shore Seinec 16,816 7 67 4 1,968 4 153,570 6 666 5 211 5 84 3 2,131 6 175,513 13 Trawld 209 12 82 11 84 11 146 9 256 11 340 9 309 5 1,904 7 3,329 20 TOTAL 17,353 14 949 17 2,913 13 155,096 15 2,736 18 2,220 12 757 6 4,481 10 186,505 27 I-.aValues represent sum of catch per unit effort results from all stations bsix units effort per month cThree units effort per month dThree units effort per month at which a type of gear was used each month 0 S 0 r TABLE 23 MONTHLY CATCH IN NUMBERS OF INDIVIDUALS OF FISH BY SPECIES AT LOCUST POINT DURING 1979 USING EQUAL EFFORT WITH EACH TYPE OF GEARa S APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV. TOTAL PERCENT SPECES ITOTAL Alewife 1 49,181 22 485 201 141 50,038 26.8 Black Crappie 2 2 40.1 Bluntnose Minnow I I <C.I Brown Bullhead 3 5 5 14 35 1 63 Carp 15 5 7 57 46 I 1 133 0.1 Carp X Goldfish 8 8 <0.1 Channel Catfish 9 24 59 57 34 183 0., Emerald Shiner 16,419 52 47 15 68 83 52 2,039 18,775 10.1 Freshwater Drum 124 250 287 13 66 8 748 0.4 Gizzard Shad 383 115 2,026 87,119 635 405 333 2,118 93,134 49.9 Goldfish 1 1 9 2 2 15 <0.1 Logperch 1 1 2 <0.1 Northern Pike 1 14 15 <O.1 Quillback 1 6 7 <0.1 Rainbow Smelt 1 1 2 40.1 Shorthead Redhorse 1 1 2 <0.1 Silver Chub 1 1 <0.1 Spotfin Shiner 1 1 <O.1 Spottail Shiner 206 132 42 17,376 95 300 136 146 18,433 9.9 Trout-perch 37 14 1 52 <0.1 Walleye 5 7 10 11 13 4 50 <0.1 White Bass 16 16 63 209 52 22 3 381 0.2 White Crappie 1 1 < 0.1 White Perch 36 4 40 <0.1 White Sucker 1 2 3 <0.1 Yellow Bullhead 3 3 <0.1 Yellow Perch 130 310 358 1,026 1,619 906 32 31 4,412 2.4 No. Species 14 17 13 15 18 12 6 10 27 TOTAL 17,353 949 2,913 155,096 2,736 2,220 757 4,481 186.505 100 aGill nets (six units effort per month), trawl (three units effort per month), shore seine (three units effort per month)1#-118 -

TABLE 24

SUMMARY

OF GILL NET CATCH RESULTS AT LOCUST POINT DURING 19796 DATE APRILb MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEP. OCT. NOV.ATION 30-1 30-31 I 20-21 28-29 28-29 29-30 1 27-28 i 3-4 TOTAL& DIRECTION 3 NW 49 72 44 127 144 178 10 48 672 SE 23 26 58 95 123 303 21 149 798 UK 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tubtatal -F ~ 8 12 -98 -IDF 3Y '0-1 T1 7 470 26 NW 33 44 41 109 223 149 17 23 639 SE 14 83 60 149 122 167 54 25 674 UK 0 0 0 0 0 13 0 0 13"-btotal 7 TT T9 2 354 T 2-- 71 48 1326 8 NW 15 97 113 139 110 113 18 5 610 SE 18 31 83 123 95 101 7 7 465 UK 0 6 0 0 3 7 0 0 16 Subtotal I-TTOT- W5 = 7--2-- 0--13 NW 49 18 58 70 194 87 4 50 530 SE 29. 11 64 68 193 44 3 43 455 UK 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 Subtotal 88 29 122 138 387 131 995 28 NW 19 109 98 51 112 94 21 9 513 SE 12 89 76 177 140 136 62 21 713 UK 0 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 10 r-btotal 3 205 177 227 8 252-2 230- 83 30 1236 29 NW 32 147 65 215 162 162 117 29 929 SE 26 53 98 57 193 102 30 37 596 UK 0 7 0 0 0 13 0 0 20 7ubtotal 8 7 163 YF T5 T14 1545 Inshoree NW 130 237 167 412 500 427 131 127 2131 SE 78 90 220 220 509 449 54 229 1849 UK 10 7 0 0 0 13 0 0 30-ubtotal T1 F W- MT I 1T T65- 'W6- 4010 Offshoree NW 67 250 252 299 445 356 56 37 1762 SE 44 203 219 449 357 404 123 53 1852 UK 0 13 3 0 3 20 0 0 39 rubtotal 111 465 T7 74 W 05- 79 '9 --W T65T Controlf NW 82 116 85 236 367 327 27 71 1311 West SE 37 109 118 244 245 470 75 174 1472 UK 0 0 a 0 0 13 0 0 13 Tbtotal 1I9 225 20 480 8612 0 R 279 Controlg NW 51 256 163 606 274 256 138 38 1782 East SE 38 142 174 234 333 23B 92 58 1309 UK 0 14 3 0 0 13 0 0 30 Subtotal 9 412 )4w W T 9 6 -3121 Intake-h NW 64 115 171 209 304 200 22 55 1140 Discharge SE 47 42 147 191 288 145 10 50 920 UK 10 6 0 0 3 7 0 0 26 Subtotal 121 163 318 400 5-95 3-52 32 105 2086 TOTAL NW 197 487 419 711 945 783 187 164 3B93 SE 122 293 439 669 866 853 177 282 3701 UK 10 20 3 0 3 33 0 0 69 GRAND TOTAL 329 800 861 1 1380 1814 1669 364 446 7663 aTotal numbers of fish collected at each station on each date using a 24-hr set with an experimental gill net (125 x 6 ft with five 25 x 5-ft panels of i-in, 3/4-in, 1-in, 1-in, and 2-in bar mesh)b30 April -1 May 1979 cNW.= northwest-NE = northeast; UK = unknown (fish fell from net before direction was determined);

determined by direction fish was travelling parallel to shore when entangled in net dTotal of Stations 3, 13. and 29 eTotal of Stations 26, 8, and 28 fTotal of Stations 3 and 26 gTotal of Stations 28 and 29 hTotal of Stations 8 and 13-119 El I TABLE 25 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT" AT LOCUST POINT 30 APRIL -i MAY 1979 I.DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTALS I NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST UNKNOWN TMTan_ _0 MISLength (a) Mea'n Len th l(m) Mean Mean Welqht oMean Range Weight (g) No Mean Range 1eight(g)

O Mean Range Weight(g)

IO. Length Mean Totel 3 Gizzard Shad 2 377.5 351.0-404.0 423.0 1 346.0 --- 429.0 3 367.0 425.0_ 1275.0 Spottail Shiner 21 f12.4 85.0-133.0 9.8 11 114.3 87.0-145.0 10.4 32 113.0 10.0 319.0 Channel Catfish 1 214.0 --- 73.0 1]1 1 214.0 73.0 73.0 Trout-perch 1 2 87.0 81.0- 93.0 7.5 2 8Q. 0 7. 15.0 White Bass 2 190.5 188.0-193.0 80.0 _ 2 _90.5 80.0 160.0 Yellow Perch 20 180.8 149.0-201.0 68.1 7 167.7 143.0-208.0 58.3 27 177.4 65.6 1770.0 Freshwater Drum 3 290.7 270.0-313.0 299.0 2 315.5 311.0-320.0 329.0 5 300.6 311.0 1555.1 Subtotal 49 23 72 _5167.0 26 Northern Pike 1 235.0 --- 121.0 1 1 235.0 121.0 121.0 Gizzard Shad 1 402.0 --- 637.0 1 402.0 637.0 637.0 Spottail.Shiner S 109.4 99.0-121.0 8.6 3 117.7 109.0-125.0 11.7 B 112.5 9.8 78.0 White Bass 1 201.0 --- 93.0 1 201.0 93.0 93.0 Yellow Perch 12. 167.7 108.0-Z03.0 61.2 8 158.1 145.0-188.0 49.8 20 163.8 56.6 1132.0__Freshwater Drum 13 222.1 95.0-290.0 153.6 3 383.7 133.0-243.0 85.7 16 214.9 140.9 2254.0 Subtotal, 33 14 1 1 1 147 1 4315.0 a One 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in, I in, I1 in, and 2 inch bar mesh TABLE 25 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30 APRIL -I MAY 1979_ __DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

.... "" , NXKNWN TOTALS-ELength (m) Mean Len th .. Mean Length mm ean Mean Weiht ()No. Mean I Range Welght(g)

No, Mean Range Welght(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Length Mean Total 8 Spottail Shiner 4 111.0 103.0-121.0 9.5 4 110.3 97.0-130.0 8.8 -8 110.6 9 .73.-0 Channel Catfish 2 142.5 88.0-197.0 31.0 2 142.5 -.11 n 820n Trout-perch 2 89.0 88.0- 90.0 8.0 2 89.0 -.. 1 (; n_Yellow Perch 6 160.2 146.0-199.0 50.7 3 149.7 14B.0-151.0 40.7 -. 15- 7. 47.31 425.0 Walleye 1 253.0 --- 151.0 1 11 53.0 1 11.0. 151..0 Freshwater Drum 11 252.1 108.0-339.0 174.3 -1 _252.1 1174.3 1917.0 Subtotal 15 318 3 2645.0 13 Gizzard Shad 1 331.0 --- 363.0 .....1 331.0 36.0_ 363.0 Spottail Shiner 31 111.7 82.0-138.0 9.7 17 112.3 97.0-138.0 10.2 10 112.1 104.0-130.0 10.0 58 111.9 1.* 176.0 Channel Catfish 1 262.0 --- 123.0 1 262.0 123.0 123.0 Yellow Perch 12 177.3 149.0-210.0 70.5 12 161.2 133.0-195.0 50.9 24 169.3 60.7 1457.0 Freshwater Drum 4 245.5 214.0-293.0 144.8 __ 4 245.5 144.8 579.0 Subtotal 49 29 10 3095.8 B.aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 in, I in, 11 in, and 2 inch bar mesh I-.N)I.L S S 1 1 ...0 TABLE 25 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT' AT LOCUST POINT 30 APRIL -1 MAY 1979 PO!OIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTIWEST SOUTHEAST

,___ UKNkOWN TOTALS SPECIES Length (mn) Mean Length (mn) Mean Lenfth eem Mean Mean Weiqht It)Mean Range Wefght(g)

No. Mean Range_ eight(g) No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Length Mean Total 28 Spottail Shiner 9 118.4 114.0-123.0 11.3 1 116.0 11.0 10 118.2 11.3 113.0 Trout-perch 2 105.5 99.0-112.0 12.5 2 105.5 12.5 25.0_ Yellow Perch 6 168.5 134.0-199.0 63.8 8 169.0 141.0-207.0 63.5 _ 14 168.8 63.6 891.0 Freshwater Drum 2 261.5 173.0-350.0 293.5 3 213.0 170.0-271.0 124.7 5 232.4 192.2 961.0_ Subtotal 19 12 1 31 1990.0 29 Gizzard Shad 1 443.0 --- 963.0 1 443.0 963.0 963.0_ Spottail Shiner 8 116.8 108.0-133.0 11.3 5 108.4 99.0-118.0 9.2 13 113.5 10.5 136.0 Channel Catfish 1 234.0 --- 107.0 1 249.0 --- ._ 155.0 2 241.5 131.0 262.0 Trout-perch 1 110.0 --- 11.0 1_ 1 110.0 11.0 11.0 Yellow Perch 16 176.2 140.0-210.0 74.7 8 166.0 144.0-187.0 61.6 24 172.8 70.3 1688.0__ Walleye 2 205.5 200.0-211.0 73.5 1 245.0 --- 146.0 3 218.7 97.7 293.0 Freshwater Drum 5 191.8 134.0-302.0 122.8 9 188.1 137.0-330.0

.104.3 14 189.4 110.9 1553.0 Subtotal 32 26 58 ...... .4906.0_ TOTAL 197 i122 10 329 !2121.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in. I in, Ij in, and Z inch bar mesh 7-LJ TABLE 26 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30-31 MAY 1979".--__________DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ... ..._ _SPCISNORTHWEST L SOUTHEAST UNKNOWN TOTALS SELenth n Mean (enth non Mean Len th (m) meanr Mean "ellht" S Mean Range Welght(g)

No. Mean Range Weiglt(g) " Mean Range Weight(q)

No. Length 61ear Total Northern Pike I 2I3.0 --- 79.0 1 1 213.0 79.0 79.0 Gizzard Shad 4 335.5 170.0-415.0 486.0 4 362.3 330.0-379.0 496.5 ,, 8 348.9 491.3 3930.0 Spottail Shiner 32 115.8 98.0-157.0 10.5 5 115.0 109.0-122.0 10.2 1 37 115.6 10.4 386.0 White Bass 1 240.0 -- 156.0 1 240.0 156.0 156.0 Yellow Parch 19 182.3 140.0-213.0 56.8 17 179.8 150.0-203.0 56.9 36 181.1 56.9 2047.0 Freshwater Drum 15 196.0 116.0-255.0 77.5 is 196.0 77.5 1163.0 Subtotal 72 '26 98 7761.0 26 Northern Pike 1 393.0 --' 538.0 2 199.5 192.0-207.0 61.5 1, 3 264.0 220.3 661.0 Gizzard Shad 3 162.6 206.0-419.0 580.4 6 364.0 171.0-416.0 666.7 13 363.2 620.2 8063.0 Spottail Shiner 11 113.7 110.0-130.0 12.5 11 113.7 12.5 137.0 Carp 2 302.5 280.0-325.0 438.0 ___________

_____________

2 302.5 438.0 876.0.Channel Catfish 6 304.8 187.0-376.0 317.3 2 251.5 190.0-313.0

.3B.0 8 291.5 247.5 1980.0_ITrout-perch 2 116.0 115.0-117.0 10.5 2 116.0 10.5 21.0 Yellow Perch 6 176.8 143.0-205.0 65.0 37 167.2 133.0-203.0 52.4 43 168.5 54.1 2325.0 Freshwater Drum 20 257.5 134.0-365.0 229.1 25 210.7 112.0-327.0 117.2 45 231.5 167.0 7513.0 Subtotal 44 83 227 _ _ 1579.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set wiith a 125-ft, experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of i in, 3/4 in, I in. 1i in, and 2 inch bar mesh-0 0 TABLE 26 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTS AT LOCUST POINT 30-31 MAY 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ...._ ....SPECIES NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

..... .... UNKNOWN TOTALS Length eei Mean Length (em) Mean Length inn Mean Mean Weinht (ol Mean Range Welght(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(q)

No. Mean Range ,tWefght(g)

NO. ,Length Mean Total 8 Northern Pike .1 414.0 --- 575.0 .... 414.0 575.0 575.0 Gizzard Shad 15' 361.9 181.0-480.0 629.5 3 348.3 194.0-435.0 675.3 3 346.7 332.0-362.0 508.3 21 357.8 618.7 12993.0__ Spottail Shiner 6 133.8 110,0-160.0 26.0 1 110.0 --- 15.0 7 130.4 24.4 171.0__ Channel Catfish 1 186.0 --- 61.0 1 186.0 61.0 61.01 White Bass 1 276.0 --- 267.0 2 167,5 83.0-252.0 120.0 3 203.7 169.0 507.0__ Yellow Perch 48 166.7 125.0-223.0 59.1 12 169.3 147.0-201.0 60.8 60 161.2 59.5 3568.0__ Walleye 1 249.0 --- 145.0 1 -1 249.0 145.0 145.0 Freshwater Drum 25 211.0 130.0-334.0 114.7 12 202.8 94.0-293.0 140.1 3 18B.0 131.0-241.0 88.7 40 206.8 120.3 4814.0 Subtotal 97 31 6 134 .. 22834.0 13 Gizzara Shad 2 384.0 383.0-385.0 566.0 3 375.7 337.0-397.0 556.3 5 379.0 ,560._2 _2RD.0 Spottail Shiner 5 117.0 112.0-13F.0 11.8 7 111.9 106.0-117,0 14.4 .. .. 12 114.0 13.3_ 160.0 White Bass 2 245.0 242.0-248.0 196.0 2 -4 O 2 245.0 .392.0 Yellow Perch B 157.4 144.0-195.0 37.3 1 152.0 --- 44.0 9 156.B 38.0 -342.0 Freshwater Drum 1 311.0 --- 365.0 1 311.0 .65.0 365-0 Subtotal 1E I 11 .29 4060.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in, 1 in, lj in, and 2 inch bar mesh JIL. I TABLE 26 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30-31 MAY 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTALS PCINORTHWEST LenSOUTHEAST engSPECIES eength mmo Mean I Lengh 51) 1 i en Len th (mmn Mean Mean Weigh to-No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. -art n Rang e- Weight(g{

1e. Length Mean Totel 28 Nort'hern Pike 4 293.8 236.0-355.0 260.0 4 326.8 234.0-360.0 391.0 ., 8 310.3 325.5 2604.0____Gizzard Shad 15 370.6 328.0-443.D 593.2 15 360.3 316.0-444.0 589.4 1 201.0 --- 96.0 31 360.1 575.3 17835.0 Spottail Shiner 5 117.8 112.0-135.0 17.6 6 127.3 111.0-187.0 26,2 1I23.0 22.3 245.01 Carp 1 31g.0 --- 466.0 1 319.0 466.0 466.0 Channel Catfish 2 222.5 192.0-253.0 128.0 1 5 216.8 175.0-295.0 166.0 7 218.4 155.1 1086.0., Trout-perch 1 115.0 --- 18.0 L 1 115.0,, 18.0 18.0__ Yellow Perch 51 167.3 112.0-225.0 59.8 43 161.1 130.0-207.0 54.4 2 170.0 156.0-184.0 56.0 96 164.6 57.3 5502.0_ Freshwater Drum 3] 217.6 126.0-369.0 143.7 15 211.9 114.0-312.0 156.1 4 169.3 154.0-180.0 55.8 50 212.0 140.4 7019.0 Subtotal 109I -I u 7 205 I.a One 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I In, 3/4 in. 1 bar mesh in, 1* in, and 2 inch 0 0 TABLE 26 {cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30-31 MAY 1980 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTALS NORldWST SOUTHEAST Mean UNKNOWN TOTALS Length (nmm) j Mean Length (mm) Mean Length (nm)n Mean Mean WelqhE q_ _ _ Mean Range jWelght(g)

_e. Mean Range WeIght(g)

Io.__ Mean Range Weight(g No. Length Mean Total 29 Northern Pike 1 201.0 --- 68.0 1 201.0 68.0 68.0 Alewife 1 164.0 --- 35.0 1 164.0 35.0 35.0 GIzzard Shad 10 325.4 182.0-439.0 498.7 4 358.3 314.0-424.0 636.5 2 293.5 187.0-400.0 99.0 16 329.6 483.2 7731.0 Spottail Shiner 22 114.6 106.0-1*21.0 15.1 8 114.1 110.0-117.0 14.3 1.. .. 30 114.5 14.9 446.0 Carp 1 381.0 --- 787.0 1 381.0 787.0 787.0 Goldfish 1 301.0 -- 455.0 1 301.0 455.0 455.0 White Sucker 1 231.0 --- 150.0 .1 231.0 150.0 150.0 Brown Bullhead 1 194.0 --- 110.0 1 194.0 110.0 110.0 Channel Catfish 6 178.7 146.0-197.0 81.5 6 178.7 81.5 489.0 White Bass 6 268.0 147.0-349.0 291.3 6 268.0 291.3 1748.0 Yellow Perch 41 168.1 112.0-210.0 58.6 17 170.6 146.0-207.0 63.2 1. I 141.0 --- 39.0 59 168.4 59.6 3515.0 Walleye 4 248.0 199.0-370.0 168.8. ........4 248.0 168.8 675.0 Freshwater Drum 53 189.5 127.0-329.0 83.6 23 201.3 124.0-353.0

.90.8 4 227.3 177.0-281.0 154.3 80 194.8 B9.2 7136.0 Subtotal 147 53 7 207 23345.0 TOTAL __487 .293 20 800 114354.0 I-.-aOne 24-hr bottom bar mesh set with a 125-ft. experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of jin,3/4 in, 1 in,11 in, and 2 Inch TABLE 27 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 20-21 JUNE 1979_DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTAL.SPECES L.NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

"'_UXO ___ TOTALS NE. Length (m) Mean Lenth (mm) Mean I Lenqth (mml Mean I Mean Weinht IQ)_ _ _ _ _ Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Welght(A)

No. Mean Range Welight(g) oI Length Mean Total 3 Gizzard Shad 17 365.2 323.0-410.0 482.9 20 375.8 238.0-439.0 551.8 37 371.4 S20.2 19246.0-Alewife 3 182.3 174.0-187.0 32.0 2 165.0 164.0-166.0 27.5 5 175.4 30.2 151.0-Spottail Shiner 4 113.3 108.0-120.0 9.5 1 117.0 --- 10.0 5 114.0 9.6 48,0 Carp 1 337.0 --- 566.0 1 337.0 566.0 566.0:_Channel Catfish 1 153.0 --- 26.0 1 153.0 26.0 26.0__ White Bass 14 258.7 234.0-295.0 214.6 2 256.5 248.0-265.0 156.0 16 258.4 207.3 3317.0 Yellow Perch 2 186.5 186.0-187.0 59.0 18 158.3 128.0-180.0 41.1 20 161.1 42.9 858.0__ Freshwater Drum 3 262.0 176.0-329.D 230.3 14 231.5 140.0-324.0 178.6 17 236.9 184.2 3132.0 SSubtotal 44 , 58 .... _ 102 27344.0 I-.J a 0 ne 24-hr bottom bar mesh set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 in, I in, 14 in, and 2 inch 0 TABLE 27 (cont'd)GILL 'NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 20-21 JUNE 1979.... -_"-_DIRECTION OF TRAVEL , PEC.ES NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST__....

.NKNON -A Lepgth (mm) Mean t Length (n) Mean Lenath (mm) Mean Mean Weiqht (q1 S Mean Range Weight(g)

Mean Range e t(g Mean Reiht Length Mean Total 26 Gizzard Shad 7 354.3 257.0-402.0 534.3 17 322.5 174.0-423.0 453.9

24 331.8 477.3 11456.0 Alewife , 2 171.0 159.0-183.0 47.5 2 171.0 47.5 95.0_ Spottail Shiner 2 138.5 122.0-155.0 31.0 5 120.4 113.0-132.0 16.6. 7 125.6 20.7 145.0 Carp 1 326.0 --- 510.0 -1 326.0 510.0 510.0 Channel Catfish 2 262.0 247.0-277.0 147.0 -22 262.0 147.0 294.0* Yellow Perch 12 169.0 145.0-202.0 50.6 9 165.8 147.0-191.0 57.6 21 167.6 53.6 1125.0___ Wallee " 1 245.0 --- 118.0 1 245.0 118.0 118.0_ Freshwater Drum 17 284.7 143.0-346.0 278.1 26 250.4 125.0-330.0 191.1 43 264.0 225.5 9695.0 460 --23438.Subtotal .41. 1 -60 1 t1 2343BL aOne 24-hr bottom iet with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels ofj In, 3/4 in, I bar mesh in, in, and 2 inch

'1 No LD)I TABLE 27 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT" AT LOCUST POINT 20-21 JUNE 1979 D___________0IRECTION OF _TRAVEL ,,_'.....SPECIES ' NORTHWEST

_ SOUTHEAST UNK4OWN ... ... TOTALS Length ,(nn) Mean No. Lenqth (m) Mean .Length 1mn Mean N Mean Wela t In)No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No Cean Range Veight(g)

.Mean Range Weight(g q Length Mean Total 8 Gizzard Shad 4 341.0 234.0-415.0 556.8 8 394.6 372.0-420.0 586.6 ..... 12 376.8 576.7 6920.0 Spottail Shiner 2 .133.0 132.0-134.0 16.5 .... 2 133.0 16.5 33.0 Carp 1 364.0 --- 843.0 .1 1 364.0 843.0 843.0 Channel Catfish 7 285.0 182.0-407.0 272.0 5 286.8 167,0-415.0 298.0 _ -" 12 285.8 282.8 3394.0 White Bass 1 251.0 --- 209.0 1 251.0 209.0 209.0 Yellow Perch 52 153.0 116.0-198.0 42.0 41 150.8 115.0-182.0 40.6 , _, , 93 152.0 41.4 3847.0 Walleye 2 233.5 215.0-252.0 110.0

1 239.0 -108.0 1-. 3 235.3 109.3 328.0 Freshwater Drum 44 248.3 94.0-356.0 196.8 28 249.8 123.0-357.0 223.0 72 248.9 207.0 14901.0 Subtotal 113 83 -196 30475.0 13 Gizzard Shad 10 387.7 358.0-409.0 520.8 12 387.6 345.0-418.0 640.4 _22 387.6 586.0 12893.0 Spottall Shiner 4 123.0 104.0-155,0 17.5 .... 4 i23.0 17.5 70.0 Carj 1 322.0 --- 454.0 1 354.0 --- .622.0 2 338.0 538.6 1076.0 Channel Catfish 2 225.5 157.0-294.0 50.0 1 308.0 --- 310.0 .. 3 253.0 136.7 410.0 White Bass 19 261.7 239.0-287.0

,216.5 24 255.56224.0-271.0 198.7 43 258.3 206.6 8882.0 Yellow Perch 17 156.2 141.0-185.0 43.8 11 154.5 136.0-178.0 38.9 28 155.5 41.9 1172.0 Freshwater Drum j 5 201.8 130.0-363.0

.138.8 15 244.8 133.0-337.0.

202.3 20 234.0 186ý4 3729.0 Subtotal 58 ...64 122 28232.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in. 3/4 in, 1 in, 11 in, and 2 inch bar mesh 0.............--.--.-.--

TABLE 27 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 20-21 JUNE 1979 C: DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST -UNKN SPECIES Length (mm) Mean -Lenqth (mm Mean Len th sn Mean Mean Idei ht (01 O. Mean "Range iJelght(g}

No. Mean Range Weight(g)

.Mean Range Weight{q Ho, Length Mean Total 28 Gizzard Shad 4 393.5 366.0-419.0 718;5 3 396.7 358.0-471.0 661.0 7 395.0 693.9 4857.0 Spottail Shiner 9 130.9 113.0-168.0 22.3 g9 130.9 22.3 201.0 Channel Catfish 4 207.5 174.0-288.0 108.8 ...... 4 207.5 108.8 435.0 White Bass I 116.0 --- 20.0 1 116.0 20.0 20.0 Yellow Perch 44 153.2 129.0-184.0 43.5 43 150.3 132.0-198.0 39.7 2 151.0 146.0-156.0 39.5 89 151.B 41.6 3699.0 Walleye _ 2 219.0 194.0-244.0 96.5 _ 2 219.0 96.5 193.0 Freshwater Drum 34 279.6 194.0-353.0 253.5 '30 247.1 101,0-351.0 176.8 1 122.0 --- 25.0 65 262.1 214.6 13947.0 Subtotal 98 76 3 177 23352.0 29 Gizzard Shad 3 392.7 382.0-412.0 649.0 7 404.7 346.0-447.0 784.4 70 401.1 743.8 7435.0 Spottail *Shiner 3 127.0 108.0-164.0 19.7 3 134.3 115.0-158.0 14.7 6 130.7 17.2 103.0 Channel Catfish 3 268.3 186.0-415.0 275.0 5 210.6 148.0-371.0 129.8 8 232.3 184.3 1474.0 White Bass 1 96.0 --- "13.0 1 96.0 11.0 11.0 Yellow Perch 23 162.7 95.0-207.0 51.4 48 156.0 126.0-198.0 37.8 71 158.2 42.2 299B.0 walleye 1 221.0 --- __ 124.0 1 228.0 --- 296.0 2 _ 2Z4.5 210.0 1420.0 Freshwater Drum 32 275.2 109.0-402.0 254.8 33 253.5 108.0-396.0 198.1 165 264.2 226.0 14690.0 Subtotal 65 98 11163 27134.0 TOTAL 419 439 3 851 159975.0 a One 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of J in, 3/4 in, I in, Ii in, and 2 inch bar mesh JILL TABLE 28 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 JULY 1979 I-.DIRECTION_

OF TRAVEL ......SPECIES NORTWEST -_.SOUTHEAST

-,_ UNKNDOWN ... ... TOTALS f Length (mn) Mean ". Length s) Mean .Len th (mm) Mean N ean We Iht (q_. _ _ o, Mean Range Weight~g)

Io_ Mean Range Wei _t o Mean. Range Welghtg) NO Length Mean Total 3 Alewife 1 181.0 --- 41.0 1 158.0 --- 53.0 2 169.5 47.0 94.0 Gizzard Shad 19 251.5 212.0-376.0 212.0 20 255.8 223.0-386.0 217.8 .... 39 253.7 215,0 8385.0 Spottail Shiner 26 91.8 BI.0-108.0 7.0 11 107.5 77.0-132.0

12. 4 37 96.5 8.6 318.0 Carp 2 333,5 311.0-S56,0 517.5 5 332.2 236.0-394.0 564.4 .7 332.6 551.0 3857.0 Quillback 1 208.0 --- 131.0 1 208.0 131.0 131.0 Channel Catfish 7 243.0 176.0-418.0 200.9 5 262.4,192.0-337.0 184.2 12 251.1 193.9 .2327.0 White Bass 13 165.8 102.0-292.0 89.2 3 152.0 130.0-182.0

.61.3 16 163.3 84.0 1344.0 Yellow Perch 57 164.9 139.0-203.0 48 167.7 136.0-196.0 65.1 _105 166.2 65.6 6887.0 Walleye 1 252.0 --- 184.0 2 245.5 241.0-250.0 127.0 3 247.7 146.0 438.0 Subtotal .127 95 222 23781.0 eone 24-hr.bottom set with a 125-ft-experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of i in, 3/4 in, I in, 11 In, and 2 inch bar mesh 0 iLl I.I 0 0 TABLE 28 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT' AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 JULY 1979 I-.c--)DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ...._ _NORTHWEST

_ ___ISOUTHEAST UNKNOWN TOTALS SPECIES Length !mm) Mean Len th (mm) Mean Len th (mm) Mean Mean Weight h q)Mo. Mean "Range Weight(g)

Mo. Mean] Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(g No. N Len th Mean Total 26 Gizzard Shad 10 290.2 221.0-457,0 337.4 14 296.41242.0-417.0 312.9 24 293.8 323.1 7754.0_ Spottail Shiner 3 113.3 110.0-117.0 18.0 7 112.7 97.0-126.0 15.7 1 10 112.9 16.4 164.0_ Carp 5 337.6 283.0-407.0 469.6 5 365.0 335.0-393.0 649.8 .... 10 351.3 169.7 5597.0 Goldfish *_ 1 38510 --- 848.0 1 385.0 848.0 848.0 Quillback 1 329.0 --- 528.0 1 329.0 528.0 52B.0 Channel Catfish 14 252.9186.0-366.0 169.1 12,, 236.3 172.0-317.0 140.5 ,. , 26 236.0 155.9 4053.0 White Bass 4 245.5 177.0-274.0 195.3 5 219.0 172.q-276.0 152.4 ... .... 9 230.8 171.4 1543.0 Yellow Perch 70 156.5 115.0-201.0 61.7 98 170.4 135.0-219.0 63.5 168 168.1 62.8 10547.0_ Walleye " 1 497.0 --- 986.0 2 251.5 237,0-266.0 112.0 3 333.3 403.3 1210.0__ Freshwater

{,rum 7 229.0 181.0-277.0 160.0 4 194.3 157,0-266.0 92.5 6 205.8 115.0 690.0__ Subtotal ,109 149 Z1-32934.0 32934.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft exaerlmental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I In, 3/4 In, I in, 11 in, and 2 inch bar mesh I .I TABLE 28 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 JULY 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SPECIES NORTHWEST TOTSSOTHEAST OTA No. Length m) Mean Len th (rm) Mean enth nam mean Mean Welht.Mean Range Weight(g) o Mean Range 'veight(g)

NO. Mean Range Weightg)

No. Length Mean Total Gizzard Shad 14 323.1 224.0-410.0 380.2 15 284.7 230.0-376.0 287.3 29 303.2 332.1 9632.0 Spottail Shiner 2 114.5 110.0-119.0 17.0 2 114.5 17.0 34.0 Car 5" 338.2 282.0-369.0 565.0 3 329.7 310.0-357.0 514.0 8 335.0 545.A 4367.0 SGoldfIsh 3 -3 333.0 272.0-391.0 667.0 r 3 333.0 667.0 2001.0 , Quillback 1 264.0 --- 279.0 1 325.0 --- 621.0 2 294.5 450.0 900.0 Shorthead Redhorse 1 206.0 --- 98.0 1 206.0 98.0 98.0_ Channel Catfish -13 225..0 166.0-281.0 121.3 4 230.0 180.0-370.0 140.3 " 7 227.9 132.1 925.0 White Bass 5 218.2 k70.0-275.0 135.0 3 240.0 185.0-282.0 8 226.4 164.3 1314.0_ Yellow Perch 108 179.8 143.0-204.0 66.1 88 170.0 136.0-203.0 65.1 198 173.2 65.6 12863.0 W'alleye 1 266.0 --- 150.0 3 301.7 250.0-366.0 222.7 4 292.8 204.5 818.0 Freshwater Drum 1 258.0 --- 156.0 1 245.0 --- 165.0 2 251.5 160.5 3Z1.O Subtotal 39 1 123 262 33273.0 aone 24-hr bottom bar mesh set with a 125-ft eiperimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in, 1 in, 11/2 in, and 2 inch 0 TABLE 28 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTý AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 JULY 1979 I-.La.D I R E C T I O N O F T R A V E L. ....... .. ...SE SNORTHWEST SOUTHEAST NVNQWN TOTALS No.CELength W Mean L t Mean Len.th ens Mean Mean We Iht [q)Ro. :Mean Range -Welht(g)

No.W Mean Ran e Melht~g) No. Mean Ran e Welght(g __o. Length Mean Total 13 Gizzard Shad 10 284.2 231.0-415.0 264ý7 3 250.3 247.0-257.6 163.7 13 276.4 241.4 3138.0 Carp 6 335.7 272.0-383.0 535.7 11 340.2 245.0-443.0 593.0 17 338.6 572.8 9737.0--Goldfish 2 271.5 230.0-313.0 313.0 2 271.5 313.0 626.0 Quiliback 1 280.0 --- 337.0 1 280.0 337.0 337.0 Channel Catfish 3 265.7 204.0-306.0 172.0 1 196.0 --- 55.0 4 248.3 142.8 571.0 White Bass 18 180.1 115.0-271.0 85.6 7 233.7 117.0-326.0 208.6 25 195.1 120.0 3001.0 Yellow Perch 30 177.3 136.0-218.0 69.8 46 166.7 125.0-203.0 63.7 76 170.9 66.1 5024.0 Subtotal 70 68" 138 22434.0 28 Gizzard Shad 7 325.3 Z40.0-425.0 368.3 17 276.1 233.0-396.0 223.2 24 290.5 265.5 6373.0 Spottail Shiner 1 113.0 --- 15Z0 2 105.5 98.0-113.0 8.0 3 108.0 10.3 31.0 Carp I 319.0 --- 462.0 3 291.7 235.0-321.0 357.3 4 298.5 383.5 1534.0 Channel Catfish -2 266.0 187.0-345.0 226.0 1 171.0 --- " 44.0 " 3 234.3 165.3 496.0 White Bass 2 265.0 262.0-268.0 244.5 2 171.0 150.0-192.0 46.0 4 218.0 145.3 581.0 Yellow Perch 37 169.4 112.0-Z10.0 72.3 152 165.6 133.0-200.0 63.8 189 167.2 65.4 12369.0 Walleye 1 261.0 --- 114.0 1 261.0 114.0 114.0 Subtotal 51 177 228 21498.0'One 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimen*tal gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 5-ft contiguous panels of I in. 3/4 in, I in, 1I in, and 2 inch bar mesh 1.

TABLE 28 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT DI.. .... .ORECTION OF TRAVEL "' ' .. TOTALS NORTHW4EST SOUTEASUNNOW SPECIES ngt Mean Len th mm Mean Len th Tim Mean Mean e it No._Me-an I Range We No. Mean Ran e We!ght(g)

No. Mean Range weight(g.

... L 29 Gizzard Shad 18 j286.J 183.0-436.0299.3 20 323.5 223.0-549.0 363.0 1 38 305.8 332.8 12648.0 Spttail Shiner l 117.06....

0 j6, 2 114.5 113.0-116.0 15.53 11.3 .7 47.0 Cear 4 378.0 310.0-*477.0 490.3 2 386.5 376.0-397.0 718.0 6 380.9 566.2 3397.0; J ~ ~ 7 , n Z10.1 5. 0" l'--._Goldfish

_ _ 7Z1 i- --- 210.0 210.0___" (.X I nw~i I lh-ck I I I 332.0 1-~ -.--. -.----. &--t--------.-t

-7r7T5 1175A1-256.n 130.5 193.oI Channel Catfish 2 237 5 1179.(-*1 z 13 3 2 11 1 06 1 tWhitp RaSI 10 161.7 1123.0-245.0

-.68.2 1- 1683.0 *-- 64.0 i'C l~,, ~ 'CAA Cl I ~, C Yellow Perch1n 11Z IJL 1~.1. -4~C ~ 17 ,C-YO-111 3 -- ---3 4.Freshwater ,rum 1 247.0 --- 146.0 2 280.0 268.0-292.0' 197.5 3 27 z_ Subtotal 2155 7 " "272 TOTAL 71 669 I380 22.7 104.7 314.0 61.8 67.8 746.0.71.9 62.8 1Z927.0 69.01 180.3 541.0 31350.0 165270 .0 aone 24-hr bottom bar mesh set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in, 1 in, 14 in, and Z inch 0 TABLE 29 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 AUGUST 1979_ _ _ _ _ _ _DIRECTION OF TRAVEL T..A. .SPECES'NORTHWEST

_ SOUTH1AST UNKNOWN -T-SPECIESnth n Mean Length (m) Mean Lennth (m) ýMean Mean Wel Qht(q Mo. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range WeiqhtLg) o Mean Range Vteight(g)

No .Length Mean Tota.Alewife 6 98.'3 81.0-129.0 7.5' 4 90.8 79.0- 98.'0 4.8 -1 10 95.3 6.4 64.0_ Gizzard Shad 10 217.6 121.0-400.0 193.2 7 184.7 140.0-300.0 9Z.7 .17 204.1 151.8 2581.0-Spottail Shiner .,._ 8 113.8 105.0-130.0 11.0 B 113.8 11.0 88.0 Carp 4 317.3 247.0ý-379.0 436.8 4 317.3 436.8 1747.0 White Perch 3 193.0 141.0-265.0 107.7 3 193.0 107.7 323.0 Yellow Perch 120 175.8 123.0-Z05.0 72.3 97 177.7 155.0-197.0 80.6 217 17657 76.0 16488.0_ _ W a l l e y e ..... 1 3 6 3 .0 ---4 4 6 .0 1 3 6 3 .0 4 4 6 .0 4 4 6 .0__ Freshwater Drum 4 146.0 67.0-248.0 66.0 3 249.0 240.0-262.0 179.7 _ 7 190.1 114.7 803.0..Subtotal 6144 123 267 22540.0 M.)I " aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 in, bar mesh 1 in, 1j in, and'2 inch.- .Tr ALI TABLE 29 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 AUGUST 1979.. ....__ _ _D OIRECTION OF 'TRAVEL ........NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST OWNTOTALS SPECIES M Length (mm) _ Mean N Length nom Mean N Lenth ramen Mean Mean Welqbt No, Mean Range Weight(g) o Mean Ran e Wel ht(g) No. Mean Ranoe Wei ht NO. Lenth WMeant Total 26 Alewife 5' 96.0 80.0-132.0 8.0 , '" .5 96.0 8,0 40.0 Gizzard Shad a 210.1 134.0-415.0 174.3 2 252.5 126.0-379.0 260.0 " 10 218.6 191.4 1914.0 ,Spottail Shiner 37 113.0 95.0-120.0 15.5 9 111.7 96.0-123.0 10.7 46 112.7 14.6 671.0 Carp 4 327.0 31Z.0-340.0 463.3 5 302.8 248.0-337.0

-389.6 ,,, 9 313.6 422.3 3801.0 White Perch 1 154.0 -- 57.0 1 154.0 57.0 57.0 Yellow Perch 167 176.1 146.0-197.0 54.8 100 181.4 154.0-215.0 73.1. 27 178.9 61.7 16463.0 Walleye .2 247.0 187.0-307.0 183.5 2 247.0 183.5 367.0 Freshwater Drum 1 83.0 --- 11.0 4 218.0 120.0-308.0 162.5 5 191.0 132-.2 661.0 Subtota, l 223 1 122 345 23974.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 in, I in, 1* in, and 2 inch bar mesh* I-.0 I-TABLE 29 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 AUGUST 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTALS SPCE NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST UNKNO.. TOTALS SPECIES Length (em) Mean Le qth (mm) Mean Len th (r.1) Mean Mean Weht (q* Mo. Mean I Range Weight~g)

Mo. Mean Range Weight(q) -o. Mean. Range Weight(g) o Length M-an Total 8 Gizzard Shad 6 222.8 120.0-292.0 167.2 6 252.2 130.0-297.0 220.7 1 226.0 --- 151.0 13 236.6 190.6 2478.0 Spottail Shiner 4 92.8 73.0-120.0 5.8 3 114.7 112.0-117.0 15.3 1 7 102.1 9.9 69.0 Carp_ 5. -63.0 .1 251.0 63.0 63.0 Carp~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

15. 251.0 63.0__ 30 __ __________

____ ___ ___ __I Carp X Goldfish 2 251.0 247.0-255.0 209.0 3 307.7 302.0-317.0 422.0 1 323.0 --- 515.0 6 291.3 366.5 2199.0* White Sucker 1 343 --- 433.0 1 439.0 --- 837.0 2 391.0 635.0 1270.0 Shorthead Redhorse 1 401.0 --- 707.0 1 401.0 707.0 707.0 White Perch 2 165.0 154.0-176.0 67.5 1 187.0 --- 81.0 3 172.3 75.3 226.0.Yellow Perch go 176.7 142.0-201.0 55.5 80 179.0 134.0-211.0 75.9 1 155.0 --- 44.0 171 177.6 65.0 11109.0 Walleye 1 273.0 --- 157,0 1 273.0 157.0 157.0 Freshwater Drum 3" 212.0 176.0-260.0 105.7 3 212.0 105.7 317.0 ,Subtotal 110 95 3208 18595.0 13 Alewife 6 112.5 87.0-134.0 14.8 II 6 112.5 14.8 89.0 Gizzard Shad 3 180.3 1 108.3 4 273.3 245.0-301.0 21B.3 7 233.4 17 1198.0 Spottail Shiner 1 101.0 --- 6.0 20 112.8 95.0-120.0 15.4 21 112.2 15.0 314.0 CarR 5 315.4 254.0-341.0 455.6 4 350.5 322.0-365.0 572.8 9 331.0 507.7 Carp X Goldfish 2 214.0 210.0-218.0 153.0" 2 214.0 153.0 305.0 White Perch 16 150.3 115.0-187.0 40.0 13 146.8 123.0-173.0 49.2 29 148.7 44.1 1280.0 Yellow Perch -167' 175.3 143.0'198.0 55.5 146 176.7 157.0-199.0 61.7 313 176.0 63.8 19954.0 Subtotal 194 "_193. 387 [27710.0 aOne 24-hr bottom bar mesh set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of J in, 3/4 In, 1 in, 11 in, and 2 inch..ir '-

.JL.-. ý j -1 TABLE 29 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 AUGUST 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ...... .S SNORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

.. ..N N .. TOTALS SPECIES Length (n) Mean eth Mean Len th (mm) Mean Mean ,e1 iht (0l o, Mean.. '"'Range Welght~g)

No. Mn Rng We ght(g) No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Length Mean Total.28 Gizzard Shad 7 270.4 125.0-365

.262.7 6 1212.5 131.0-297.0 140.0 13 243.7 206.1 2679.0 Carp 5 366.41295.0-440.0 743.6 1 246.0 --- 276.0 6 346.3 665.7 3994.0 Goldfish 1 237.0 --- Z33.0 1 331.0 --- 560.0 2 264.0 396.51 793.0 White Bass 1 1 260.0 --- 221.0 1 260.0 221.0! 221.0 Yellow Perch 97 178.0 141.0-222.0 74.8 128 180.3 150.0-204.0 73.3 225 179.2 73.9 16638.1_ Walleye 1 280.0 --- 168.0 1 137.0 --- 19.0 2 206.5 93.5 187.0 Freshwater Drum 1 234.0 --- 149.0 2 225.5 192.D-259.0 125.0 3 228,3 133.0 399.0 Subtotal 11I 140 2 24911.1 aDne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft'x 6-ft contiguous panels of 1/2 in, 3/4 in, I in, Ij in, and 2 inch bar mesh (.0 kO S'TABLE 29 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PR UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28-29 AUGUST 1979" DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHWEST SO THEA T UNOWN TOTALS L SPECIES -ength (rrn) Mean Lenth Om Mean Lenqth (m) Mean Mean To h t a _l Ko. Mean I Range Welght(g)

No. Mean Ran e Wel t~() No. Mean Range Weight(q) -o Length Mean Total 29 Alewife 1 111.0 --- 9.0 1 111.0 9.0 9.0__ Gizzard Shad 7 161.0 109.0-244.0 57..7 13 184.8 120.0-40g.0 1441.2 .. ... 20 176.4 111.9 2239.,0 Spottafl Shiner 2 113.5 108.0-119.0 7.5 .2 113.5 7.5 15.0_ Carp 5 335.4 290.0-430.0 577.2 2 259.5 240.0-299.0 310.5 7 315.6 501.0 3507.0 White Bass 1 253.0 --- 223.0 1 253.0 223.0 223.0 Yellow Perch 145 183.21150.0-221.0 74.2 175 183.41 164.0-212.0 77.6 320 183.3 76.1 24338.0 Walleye 2 337.5 262.0-413.0 341.5 ' I 1 2 337.5 341.5 683.0 Freshwater Drum 2 2ZO.5 197.0-244.0 126.0 .2 220.5 , 126.0 .5ia Subtotal 162 1193 *.355 31266.0 TOTAL 945 :866 3 1814 148 1 0.aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ftexperimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of i in, 3/4 in, 1 bar mesh in, It in, and 2 inch I.TABLE 30 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 29-30 SEPTEMBER 1979 CA _ _ _ _ _DIRECTION OF TRAVEL '" SPECIESNORTHWEST SOUTHEAST .UNKNOWN TOTALS SPECIES Length (M) Mean Length (mm) Mean Len th nmmn Mean Mean Welight (o 'No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean I Range Welght(g)i No. Mean Range Weight~g)

No. Length Mean i 3 Alewife 152 93.9 83.0-103.0 5.4 231 92.9 82.0-113.0 7.1 33 934 6.41 4530 Gizzard Shad 11 135.0 103.0-206.0 28.0 11 135_0 28,0' 3OB.0___ Spottail Shiner 15 118.7 97.0-158.0 13.8 -15 118.7 13.B' 207.Oi-Yellow Perch 26 177.0 149.0-190.0 66.0 46 185.8 163.0-211.0 78.8 72 182.6 74-2 .4. 51 Subtotal 178 303 -_, _,...481 Ring A -__25 Alewife 26 95.3 88.0-116.0 5.2 9 93.9 81.0-111.0 3.9 7 95.3 82.0-105.0 5.1 V 3 9 175.0!_ Gizzard Shad 16 120.6 96.0-140.0 17.2 6 131.7 115.0-151.0 16.7 1 120.0 --- 11.0 23 1_ Spottail Shiner 14 114.8 110.0'123.0 9.9 12 115.3 108.0-123.0 9.6 1 126.0 --- 14.0 27 115.. .L 267,0 Yellow'Perch 98 174.1 145.0-220.0 66.2 139, 178.6 154.0-220.0 J 67.7 Z4 173.5 165.0-182.0 65.0 241 7 7 :L5150.0 Freshwater Drum 1 295.0 --- 366.0 1 1322.0 -350.0 30B2 54 11 .ee n 71C (I, Subtotal 149 167 113 I17694 .0-, __________

Ur.~L.2...1

_________aone 24-hr bottom set with bar mesh a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 In. 1 in, 11/2 in, and 2 inch 0 0 0 TABLE 30 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 29-30 SEPTEMBER 1979___. ....__ _.. DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SPECIES NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST UNKNOWN TOTALS-N. Length (m) Mean No Length i(Tm) Mean Len th mnm) Mean Mean Weight Mean Range Welght~g)

I Mean Range Welght(O)l NO Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Length Mean Tots'8 Alewife 3 102.01 95.0-115.0 8.0 -I ...... .3 102.0 8.0 24.0 Gizzard Shad 6 1129.5 110.0-160.0 19.3 8. 114.1 10B.0-12o.0 12.9 t 121.5 97.0-137.0 16.8 18 120.9 9 15.9 286.0, Spottall Shiner 10 114.71100.0-127.0 9.2 1 111.0 -- 8.0 11 114.4 9.1 100.0 White Perch 1 100.0 --. 7.0 1 100.0 7.0 7.0_ Yellow Perch r93 181.8 85.0-279.0 79.2 91 174.4 138.0-211.0 71.2 2 167.5 166.0-169.0 5Z.5 186 177.9 75.0 13944.0-.Walleye 1 560.0 --- .1743,0 .....1 560.0 -- 1743.0 Freshwater Drum.. 1 3180 --- -385.0 1 318.0 , 385.0 385.0 Subtotal 113 H101 7 ",_ 221 16489.0 N,3 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a IZ5-ft experimental gill net consisting of five Z5-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I in.bar mesh 3/4 in. 1 in, 1f in, and 2 inch TABLE 30 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 29-30 SEPTEMBER 1979__ _ _DIRECTION OF TRAVEL SEI NORTHWEST SOUTREAST , TOTALS"SPECIES .Length (mm) Mean Length (mm) Mean Length (m) Mean Mean Weigh (h l__No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range No Length Mean Total 13 Alewife _ 1 8 90.9 77.0- 99.0 40.0 8 9019 8 .0 40.Gizzard Shad I _ .1 157.0 --- 32.0 1 157.0 32.0 32.0 Spottail Shiner 63 116.9 99.0-133.0 15.5 12 107.7 97.0-127.0 9.5 75 115.4 14.5 1DB9.01 Carp 1_I 1 235.0 --- 169.0 -235.0 169.0 169, White Perch 2 137.51 93.0-182.0 49.5 2 137. 5 4,5 94.0.Yellow Perch 21 172.4 79.0-216.0 71.1 22 175.2 147.0-203.0 67.2 43 173.. 62.1 Walleye .1 196.01 --- 63.0 1 6.0 63.0 .3.0 Subtotal 87 .., 44. -31 4..9 4-I One 24-hr bottom set with bar mesh a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of j in, 3/4 in. I in. 1 in. and 2 inch 0 I TABLE 30 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT' AT LOCUST POINT 29-30 SEPTEMBER 1979...A OIRECTION OF TRAVEL ...._ _NORTHWEST

'_SOUTHEAST

.___WN.. TOTALS SPECIES Length ( iw Mean No Length (mm) Mean Lenth Mean Mean No. ht No. Mean Range WeIght~g)

No. Mean Range I Weight(9) "o- Mean Range Weight(g o Length Mean Total 28 Alewife 8 102.1 88.0-170.D 5.4 2 101.5 94.0-109.0 5.5 _- _ 10 102.0 5.4 54.0 Gizzard Shad 15 161.9 116.0-338.0 75.4 21 138.8 104.0-311.0 38.7 36 148.4 54.4 1959.0 Spottail Shiner 9 113.9 77.0-143,0 10.2 15 114.8 85.0-168.0 12.5 .... .24 114.5 11.9 285.0 White Bass. 2 193.5 .137.0-250.0 124.0 2" 2 193.5 124.0 Z48.0 Yellow Perch 61 175.0 143.0-208.0 67.5 94 178.2 80.0-230.0 77.4 1 .155 176.0 73.5 11395.0 1 Walleye 1387.0 --- 491.0 1 387.0 491.0 491.0 Freshwater Drum 1 325.0 --- 379.0 1 265.0 l-- 194.0 2 295.0 286.51 573.0 Subtotal 94 136 .,1 230 .. ... 15005.0 29 Alewife 6 99.8 87.0-112.0 4.8 16 95.6 87.0-111.0 5.4 7 94.7 87.0-102.0 5.7 29 96.2 5.3 155.0 Gizzard Shad 11 149.7 116.0-320.0 61.5 12 124.8 114.0-134.0 11-8 1 94.0 --- 5.0 24 135.0 34.3 822.0 Spottail Shiner 16 116.4 103.0-163.0 10.8 12 108.3 97.0-121.0 10.1 3 112.3 110.0-116.0 9.3 31 112.9 10.4 , 321.0 Yellow Perch 129 181.3 158.0-ZI.0 70.9 62 182.3 152.0-225.0

.73.2 2 174.5 170.0-179.0 62.5 193 181.7 71, 13808.7__ Subtotal .162- IO- 102 ... ..13 277 15106 .7 TOTAL 783 853 33 1669 7 7.7 1 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous paneTs of I in, 3/4 in, 1 in, 11 in, and 2 inch *bar mesh TABLE 31 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT' AT LOCUST POINT 27-28 OCTOBER 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL " _ ._ _ _NORTWAEST SOUTHEAST, _ _ UNKNOWN .TOTALS SPECIES Len th (mm)h n MeanMe Lenth t n Meant' Mean Weight (01 Mean Range Welght~g)

..Mean Range Weight(g)l No. Mean Range Weight(g)

Length Mean Total 3 Alewife 6 106.2 100.0-117.0 10.0 9 100.4 80.0-1Z1.0 12.1 1 5 102.7 J1. 169.0 Gizzard Shad 1 87.0 --- 8.0 6 83.0 72.0- 97.0 8.7 7 83.6 B.6 60.0 Spottail Shiner 2 107.5 105.0-110.0 11.5 6 114.2 106.0-135.0 17.2 8 .1.L5 15.8 126.0 White Bass. 1 129.0 --- 29.0 1 129.0 0" 29.0 Subtotal 10 21 .... 31 384.0 26 Alewife 3 97.3 91.0-107.0 8.7 15 99.2 84.0-rl6.0 10.3 --18 8.9 10.0 180.0 Gizzard Shad 2 72.0 --- 6.5 14 81.4 70.0-122.0 , B.2 .... 16 80.3 8.0 128.0 Spottail Shiner 10 109.1 103.0-116.0 15.2 24 107.0 100.0-116.0 13.6 34 107.6 14.1 478.0 Yellow Perch 2 190.0 188.0-192.0 83.0 1. .173.0 --- 68.0 3 184.3 78.0 234.0 Subtotal 17. 54 .71 1020.0 (41 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft bar mesh x 6-ft contiguous panels of i in, 3/4 in, 1 in, 14 in, and 2 Inch I i F TABLE 31 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 27-28 OCTOBER 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHWEST SOUT EAST "I UNKNOWN TOTALS SPECIES -Length (mm) Me'an Len th (rm) -Mean Len.th (rsm Mean I Mean Weight (0l_o. Mean I Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(q)

Mo. Mean Range Weightj j Len th Mean Ta.8 Alewife 3 102.8 97.0-112.0 12.0 Z 112.0 109.0-115.0 10.0 T -7 105.4 11.4 80.0-Gizzard Shad 5 82.4 79.0- 86.0 8.0 I1 121.0 -21.0 ,.. _- 6 B8. 8 10.2 61.0 Spottail Shiner 6 111.2 105.0-IZ5.0 16.5 4 114.0 110.0-111.0 13.8 10 112.6 15.4 154,0 ,, Yellow Perch 2 168.0 136.0-200.0 70.5 _ 168.0 70.5 141.0_ Subtotal 18 7 25 436.0 13 Spottail Shiner 2 107.0 104.0-110.0 14.5 2 105.0 105.0-105.0 13.0 .... .4 106.0 13.8 55.0 Yellow Perch 2 165.5 165.0-166.0 57.0 1 140.0 --- 38.0 3 157.0 50.7 152.0 q Subtotal 4 .. 3 L 7 207.01 aone Z4-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of I In, 3/4 In. 1 in, Ij In, and 2 Inch bar mesh.... "" .. ....

TABLE 31 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 27-Z OCTOBER 1979 IDIRECTION OF TRAVEL NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST

"______ TOTALS 0 SPECIES Length (mm) Mean Lenpth (w) Mean Lenth ean TMean Weiht (a No. 'Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Welght(q)

No- Mean Range Weight(q)

NO- Length Mean Total 28 Alewife S 103;0 101,0-105.0 9.8 31 101.8 82.0-122.0 10.2 _ 36 102.0 10.1 365.0 Gizzard Shad 6 107.7 80.0-141.0 18.5 12 97.3 73.0-140.0 13.0 ..... 18 100.7 14.8 267.0 Spottail Shiner 6 109.2 107.0-112.0 14.7 12 113.7 104.0-121.0 15.3 18 112.2 15.1 272.0__ Yellow Perch 4 185.8 177.0-1A0.0 80.5 7 194.3 166.0-227.0 99.7 11 191.2 92.7 1020.0 Subtotal 21 62 1 83 1 1924.0 29 Alewife 85 105.6 87.0-118.0 10.8 19 101.4 93.0-116.0 10.7 104 104.4 10.7 1117.0 Gizzard Shad .2 284.0 123.0-445.0 572.5 1 Z 284.0 572.5 1145.0 Spottail Shiner 26 110.2 103.0-123.0 14.0 10 107.4 104.0-111.0 14.2 36 109.4 14.0 505.0 White Bass 1 174,0 --- 28.0 1 174.0 28.0 28.0 Yellow Perch 3 175.3 163.0-190.0 69.0 1 197.0 --- 96.0 4 181.5 75.8 303.0 Subtotal 1117 " 30 147 .. 3098.0 TOTAL 1B7 177 1364 7069.0 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of J in, 3/4 in. 1 In, 11 in, and 2 Inch bar mesh 0*

I-TABLE 32 GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 3-4 NOVE4BER 1979 OIRECTION OF TRAVEL .... .... ...NORTHWEST SOUTHEAST UNKNOWN ...._TOTALS SPECIES Length (nM Mean " Length inmr Mean n tenth era Mean Mean Welcht (Q1 Mean Range- Weight(g)

No. 'Mean Range Weight(q)

I_, Mean Range lVeight(g)

No- Length Mean Tctal 3 Alewife 9 100.4 88.0-112.0 11.9 16 98.8 77.0-111.0 9.3 "25 9.4 10.Z 256.0_ Gizzard Shad 24 87.6 73.0-132.0 10.5 112 84.1 73.0-118.0 8.0 136_ 8 , .. -152.0 Spottail Shiner 14 105.6 96.0-122.0 14.9 18 109.4 103.0-121.0 12.9 _ 32 108,2 j -LO.0 Yellow Perch 1 173.0 --- 74.0 3 174.3 172.0-177.0 67.0 ,_ _ -4 174.0 6 .2 Subtotal 48 149 197 21.23.0 26 Alewife .108.5 100.0-I14.0' 12.3 6 96.3 89.'0-104.0 9.3 12 102.4 10.8 130.0 Gizzard Shad 6 6 85.7 76.0-101.0 8.2 6 85.7 3.2 -4.0 Spottall Shiner 5 109.4 101.0-118.0 14.6 18 109.4 96.0-122.0 14.1 23 109.4 14.2 ?26.0-Yellow Perch 6 175.7 151.0-191.0 74.3 1 203.0 1- 114.0 .... 7 180.4 80.0 550,0 Subtotal 23 25 ____ Shiner .6 18 109. 48 __ _aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 5-ft contiguous panels of I In; 3/4 in, I in, 1I In, and 2 inch bar meshffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff LOI TABLE 32 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 3-4 NOVEMBER 1979___'___________

....___________DIRECTION OF TRAVEL ............

... ..' NORTHWEST

-SOUTHEAST

..UNKNOWN TOTALS SPECIES Length (m") M Lenth (mm) Mean Len thom-, Mean Me n Wel it , No Mean Range Weight((g)

No Mean Range Weight(g)

No. Mean Range Weight(g)

No, Length Mean Total 8 Alewife 1 109.0 --- 13.0 1 109.0 13X0 13.0 Spottail Shiner 4 104.0 98.0-113.0 14.0 4 112.8 106.0-121.0 13.8 8 108.4 13.9 111.0 Yellow Perch 1 198.0 --- 101.0 2 182.0 175.0-186.D 83.0 3 187.3 89.0 267.0 Subtotal S 7 12 391.0 13 Alewife 25 98.5 82.0-112.0 9.5 27 99.8 73.0-111.0 8.9 55 99.1 9.2 _478.0 Gizzard Shad 3 91.0 77.0-112.0 10.0 8 91.9 76.0-127.0 10.4 11 91.6 10.3 113.0 Spottail Shiner 17 107.2 96.0-118.0 13.0 7 109.1 104.0-116.0 12.0 2_ 4 107.8 12.7 305.0 Yellow Perch 5 169.0 145.0-196.0 67.6 1 164.0 --- 54.0 .6 168.2 65.3 3 2.0 Subtotal 50 43 L -93 ]1288.0 aone 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill bar mesh net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ft contiguous panels of i in, 3/4 in, 1 in, 11 in, and 2 inch S TABLE 32 (cont'd)GILL NET CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUZ- POINT 3-4 NOVEMBER 1979 DIRECTION OF TRAVEL TOTALS_ NORTHWEST SOUTHEASO T TSTHKHOWN SEISLength (mm Mean Len th (mm) Mearý Lenot U( ev Mean Mean W4iq htW_ _. Mean Range Welght( I No. Mean Range Wel h'-j) No. Mean Range Weight(. No. Length Mean Total 28 Alewife 1 113.f -13.0 5 99.2 91.0-106.0 9.E 6 101.5 10.3 62.0 Gizzard Shad 1 309.0 --- 415.C ,_._1 309.0 '415.0_....

415.0 Spottall Shiner 7 106.3 97.0-111.0 14.3 10 109.6 104.0-115.0 13.F 17 108.2 14.0 238.0 Yellow Perch -1 189.0 --- 93.0 5 203.2 196.0-209.0 105.2 6 200.8 103.2 619.0 Subtotal 9 21 1 30 1334.0 Aleife 12 110.8 94.0-183.0 13.3 '13 108.6 94.0-194.0 16.S 25 109.7 1 15.0 374.0 Gizzard Shad 9 111.11 81.0-318.0 51.2 15 91.5 '73.0-154.0 11.- 24 98.8 26.4 634.0 Spottall Shiner i 66 111.8 103.0-126.0 16.0 7 109.4 103.0-120.0 15.:: 13 110.5 15.5 201.01 Goldfish 1 226.0 --- 235.:: 1 226.0 235.0 235.0 Yellow Perch 2 181.5 176.0-187.0 74.0 1 183.0 --- 82.: 3 .... 182.0 76.7 230.0 Sqbtotal Z9 37 , 66 1674.0 TOTAL 164 282 446 7875.0 ANNUAL GRAND TOTAL 3893 j 3701 69 17663 1 702727.8 aOne 24-hr bottom set with a 125-ft experimental gill net consisting of five 25-ft x 6-ý- contiguous panels of I in, 3/4 in, I in, 11 in, and 2 inch bar mesh 01 I................................................................

.......-I -

TABLE 33

SUMMARY

OF TRAWLING RESULTSa AT LOCUST POINT DURING 1 9 7 9 a SAO 3-26 8-13 28-29 TOTAL:DATýE 30 April 82 58 68 208 24 May 27 25 30 82 22 June 22 37 25 84 31 July 70 34 42 146 31 August 84 79 93 256 25 September 98 134 108 340 30 October 104 120 85 309 6 November 271 661 972 1904 TOTAL 758 1148 1423. 3329 aTotals of four 5-min. tows with a 16-ft.(1/8-in. bag mesh) bottom trawl at each transect on each date-15i -

TABLE 34 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30 April 1979 LENGTH (mm) ..WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT 'SPECIES NUMBER ;MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL.3-26 Spottail Shiner 31 108.5 57.0-188.0 21.5 667.5 Emerald Shiner 11 68.2 41.0-161.0 10.2 112.0 Brown Bullhead 1 215.0 .. .. 118.0 118.0 Channel Catfish 1 143.0 .. .. 21.0 21.0 Trout-perch 17 91.2 60.0-188.0 16.8 286.0 White Bass I 128.0 .. .. 32.0 32.0 Yellow Perch 3 173.7 152.0-191.0 39.3 118.0 Freshwater Drum 17 134.8 107.0-195.0 31.2 530.0 Subtotal 82 1884.5 8-13 Spottail Shiner 12:': 92.8 77.0-127.0 8.3 99.0 Emerald Shiner 4 57.8 51.0- 66.0 4.5 18.0 Carp 1 425.0 1247.0 1247.0 Goldfish 1 212.0 195.0 195.0 Brown Bullhead 1 187.0 94.0 94.0 Channel Catfish 1 178.0 .. .. 65.0 65.0 Trout-perch 11 91.5 73.0-123.0 9.2 101.0 White Bass 3 135.7 134.0-139.0 35.7 107.0 Yellow Perch 5 159.2 113.0-215.0 48.2 241.0 Freshwater Drum 19 133.5 100.0-270.0 54.6 1037.0 Subtotal 58 .. -.3204.0 28-29 Spottail Shiner 18 89.2 57.0-136.0 6.1 109.0 Emerald Shiner 3 .59.0 55.0- 64.0 5.0 15.0 Yellow Bullhead 3 195.7 175.0-208.0 106.7 320.0 Channel Catfish 1 145.0 .. .. 49.0 49.0 Trout-perch 2 99.5 83.0-116.0 19.5 39.0 White Bass 4 142.0 115.0-194.0 48.0 192.0 Yellow Perch 4 165.0 141.0-197.0 61.0 244.0 Walleye* 1 361.0 .. .. 445.0 445.0 Freshwater Drum 32 144.0 102.0-246.0 41.4 1325.0 Subtotal 68 2738.0 TOTAL 208 7826.5 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-152 -

TABLE 35 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 24 May 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Spottail Shiner 8 98.6 80.0-130.0 8.0 64.0 Emerald Shiner 3 58.0 56.0- 62.0 1.0 3.0 Brown Bullhead 1 193.0 -- -- 96.0 96.0 Channel Catfish 1 140.0 .. .. 24.0 24.0 Trout-perch 2 102.0 89.0-115.0 8.0 16.0 White Bass 2 156.0 126.0-186.0 53.0 106.0 Yellow Perch 3 170.7 146.0-197.0 52.7 158.0 Freshwater Drum 7 185.1 122.0-244.0 71.0 497.0 Subtotal 27 964.0 8-13 Spottail Shiner 8 77.3 66.0- 81.0 2.3 18.0 Emerald Shiner I 53.0 .. .. 1.0 1.0 Carp 1 313.0 .. .. 445.0 445.0 Brown Bullhead 2 188.0 172.0-204.0 84.0 168.0 Trout-perch 1 94.0 .. .. 3.0 3.0 White Bass 2 121.5 110.0-133.0 19.0 38.0 Yellow Perch 1 146.0 .. .. 22.0 22.0 Walleye 2 246.0 139.0-353.0 223.0 446.0 Freshwater Drum 7 108.0 99.0-113.0 10.1 71.0 Subtotal 25 1212.0 28-29 Rainbow Smelt 1 128.0 .. .. 10.0 10.0 Spottail Shiner 7 82.7 68.0-105.0 3.0 21.0 Emerald Shiner 4 64.5 59.0- 72.0 1.3 5.0 Brown Bullhead 1 230.0 .. .. 135.0 135.0 Channel Catfish 1 145.0 .. .. 22.0 22.0 Trout-perch 8 90.4 79.0- 98.0 6.0 48.0 Yellow Perch 3 178.3 160.0-195.0 44.3 133.0 Freshwater Drum 5 165.8 115.0-210.0 63.8 319.0 Subtotal 30 693.0 TOTAL 82 2869.0 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-153 -

0 TABLE 36'TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 22 June 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Spottail Shiner 1 85.0 .. .. 15.0 15.0 Brown Bullhead 1 208.0 .. .. 140.0 140.0 Channel Catfish 5 189.6 166.0-250.0 75.8 379.0 White Bass 1 224.0 ... .. 150.0 150.0 Yellow Perch 11 154.3 93.0-201.0 56.5 621.0 Walleye 2 235.0 225.0-245.0 115.0 230.0 Freshwater Drum 1 186.0 .. .. 58.0 58.0 Subtotal 22 1593.0 8-13 Carp 2 464.0 340X0-588,0 1651.0 3302.0 Brown Bullhead 4 208.0 190.0-230.0 85.0 340.0 Channel Catfish 19 164.8 130.0-190.0 40.6 771.0 Yellow Perch 11 143.7 105.0-191.0 32.5 357.0 Freshwater Drum 1 180.0 .. .. 45.0 45.0 Subtotal 37 4815.0 28-29 Spottail Shiner 1 80.0 .. .. 15.0 15.0 Emerald Shiner 1 60.0 .. .. 5.0 5.0 Silver Chub 1 130.0 .. .. 50.0 50.0 Quillback 1 275.0 .. .. 320.0 320.0 Channel Catfish 5 157.6 145.0-170.0 57.0 285.0 Yellow Perch 14 141.3 88.0-184.0 41.8 585.0 Freshwater Drum 2 135.0 100.0-170.0 35.0 70.0'Subtotal 25 1330.0 TOTAL 84 7738.0 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-154 -

TABLE 37 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT a AT LOCUST POINT 31 July 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Gizzard Shad 6 96.3 77.0-115.0 33.0 198.0 Spottail Shiner 23 104.3 80.0-130.0 13.8 318.0 Carp 1 442.0 .. .. 1150.0 1150.0 Goldfish 1 418.0 .. .. 956.0 956.0 Brown Bullhead 10 158.4 137.0-195.0ý 56.4 564.0 Channel Catfish 1 356.0 -- --: .380.0 380.0 Yellow Perch 27 168.1 120.0-205.0 59.3 1602.0 Freshwater Drum 1 133.0 .. .. 30.0 30.0 Subtotal 70 5198.0 8-13 Spottail Shiner 2 114.0 111.0-117.0 10.5 21.0 Carp 3 371.3 246.0-453.0 1022.0 3066.0 Goldfish 1 380.0 .. .. 920.0 920.0 Brown Bullhead 2 192.5 155.0-230.0 114.5 229.0 Channel Catfish .1 295.0 .. .. 260.0, 260.0 Yellow Perch 24 167.8 120.0-202.0 60.6 1454.0 Black Crappie 1 118.0 .. .. 19.0 19.0 Subtotal 34 5969.0 28-29 Gizzard Shad 2 103.5 100.0-107.0 10.5 21.0 Spottail Shiner 1 111.0 ..-- 18.0 18.0 Carp 1 490.0 .. .. 923.0 923.0 Brown Bullhead 2 172.5 132.0-213.0 86.0. 172.0 Black Crappie 1 112.0 .. .. 22.0 22.0 Yellow Perch 35k: 164.6 120.0-200.0 60.3 2112.0 Subtotal 42 3268.0 TOTAL 146 14435.0 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.0-155 ---- -000"WR--

--- --,. .- --

0 TABLE 38 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 31 August 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Spottail Shiner 8 87.3 43.0-120.0 17.3 138.0 Carp 6 374.3 277.0-620.0 1057.3 6344.0 Brown Bullhead 3 208.7 163.0-265.0 136.7 410.0 Channel Catfish 5 197.0 175.0-222.0 71.8 359.0 Trout-perch 1 60.0 .. .. 3.0 3.0 White Bass 3 63.0 60.0- 67.0 3.7 11.0 Yellow Perch 40 163.3 66.0-210.0 62.8 2511.0 Walleye 2 212.0 152.0-272.0 86.0 172.0 Freshwater Drum 16 69.8 40.0- 88.0 3.2 51.0 Subtotal 84 9999.0 8-13 Carp 3 260.0 220.0-300.0 240.0 720.0 Brown Bullhead 11 189.8 155.0-232.0 92.8 1021.0 Channel Catfish 18 192.4 140.0-275.0 59.8 1077.0 White Bass 4 135.3 90.0-195.0 38.5 154.0 Yellow Perch 27 181.6 131.0-295.0 58.4 1576.0 Logperch 1 75.0 .. .. 4.0 4.0 Freshwater Drum 15 76.9 16.0-220.0 12.0 180.0 Subtotal 79 4732.0 28-29 Gizzard Shad 1 85.0 .. .. 7.0 7.0 Spottail Shiner 2 73.5 70.0- 77.0 3.0 6.0 Carp 1 322.0 .. .. 490.0 490.0 Brown Bullhead 21 182.0 133.0-266.0 92.7 1947.0 Channel Catfish 11 184.2 132.0-210.0 58.9 648.0 White Bass 1 97.0 .. .. 11.0 11.0 Yellow Perch 39 180.4 155.0-205.0 62.7 2445.0 Walleye 3 177.7 62.0-303.0 103.0 309.0 Freshwater Drum 14 112.5 53.0-253.0 31.2 437.0 Subtotal 93 6300.0 TOTAL 256 21031.0 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-156 -

eb TABLE 39 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 25 September 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Gizzard Shad 72 85.1 60.0-117.0 5.2 376.0 Alewife 4 102.8 97.0-107.0 8.5 34.0 Spottail Shiner 15 101.3 71.0-121.0 10.2 153.0 White Bass 5 84.0 42.0-124.0 12.2 61.0 Yellow Perch 1 166.0 .. .. 54.0 54.0 Freshwater Drum 1 200.0 86.0 86.0 Subtotal 98 764.0 8-13 Gizzard Shad 90 83.2 62.0-106.0 5.5 497.2 Alewife 8 107.9 102.0-119.0 10.0 80.0 Spottail Shiner 19 101.3 59.0-132.0 9.9 188.0 Brown Bullhead 1 211.0 -- -- 109.0 109.0 White Bass 7 53.3 44.0- 67.0 2.0 14.0 Yellow Perch 7 173.1 151.0-187.0 56.6 396.0 White Crappie 1 54.0 .. .. 2.0 2.0 Walleye 1 55.0 .. .. 24.0 24.0 Subtotal 134 1310.2 28-29 Gizzard Shad 57 92.6 68.0-117.0 8.3 472.0 Alewife 4 108.0 102.0-112.0 9.0 36.0 Spottail Shiner 33 112.4 75.0-130.0 14.1 465.0 White Bass 4 74.3 46.0-113.0 6.8 27.0 Yellow Perch 8 169.9 137.0-190.0 58.3 466.0 Freshwater Drum 2 97.0 92.0-102.0 8.0 16.0 Subtotal 108 1482.0 TOTAL 340 3556.2 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-157 -

TABLE 40 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30 October 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Gizzard Shad 84 83.7 68.0-115.0 5.4 453.0 Alewife 5 101.2 88.0-115.0 8.0 40.0 Spottail Shiner 11 82.3 56.0-118.0 6.0 66.0 Yellow Perch 4 125.3 120.0-134.0 22.5 90.0 Subtotal 104 649.0 8-13 Gizzard Shad 99 83.8 67.0-116.0 5.5 540.0 Alewife 11 95.5 87.0-106.0 7.0 77.0 Spottail Shiner 6 85.2 57.0-122.0 7.5 45.0 White Bass 1 215.0 .. .. 149.0 149.0 Yellow Perch 3 154.0 126.0-196.0 53.0 159.0 Subtotal 120 970.0 28-29 Gizzard Shad 71 83.4 68.0-112,0 5.6 398.0 Alewife 5 89.2 79.0-100.0 7.4 37.0 Spottail Shiner 7 79.7 65.0-.99.0 5.3 37.0 Yellow Perch 2 173.0 168.0-178.0 44.5 89.0 Subtotal 85 561.0 TOTAL 309 2180.0 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-158 -

eL TABLE 41 TRAWL CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT a AT LOCUST POINT 6 November 1979 LENGTH (i) WEIGHT (g)TRANSECT SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 3-26 Rainbow Smelt 1 63.0 .. .. 1.0 1.0 Gizzard Shad 251 77.2 63.0-119.0 4.6 1148.0 Alewife 7 90.1 80.0-101.0 7.3 51.0 Spottail Shiner 10 95.0 66.0-129.0 10.6. 106.0 Emerald Shiner 1 63.0 .. .. 2.0 2.0 Carp 1 430.0 879.0 879.0 Subtotal 271 2187.0 8-13 Gizzard Shad 970 83.3 66.0-119.0 5.1 4901.0 Alewife 2 91.5 91.0-92.0 4.5 9.0 Subtotal 972 4910.0 28-29 Gizzard Shad 642 81.4 65.0-132.0 4.8 3067.0 Alewife 11 90.5 78.0-110.0 4.4 48.0 Spottail Shiner 5 90.4 70.0-126.0 "6.6 33.0 Emerald Shiner 1 76.0 .. .. 3.0 3.0 Yellow Perch 2 186.5 186.0-187.0 85.0 170.0 Subtotal 661 3321.0 TOTAL 1904 10418.0 ANNUAL GRAND TOTAL 3329 70053.7 aFour 5-minute tows with a 16-ft trawl (1/8-in bag mesh) at each transect.-159 -

TABLE *42

SUMMARY

OF SHORE. .SEINE RESULTS AT LOCUST POINT DURING 1 9 7 9 a 23 24 25 TOTAL I May 6,224 5,608 4,984 16,816 30 May 27 24 16 67 20 June 287 640 1,041 1,968 28 July 45,661 15,318 92,591 153,570 28 August 249 285 132 666 29 September 32 42 137 211 27 October 44 27 13 84 3 November 145 206 1,780 2,131 TOTAL 52,669 .22,150. 100,694. 175,513 aTotal of two hauls through a 900 arc with a 100-ft bag seine (*-in bar mesh) at each station on each date-160 -

0~TABLE 43 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT a AT LOCUST POINT-I May 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT g STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 128 231.7 115.0-513.0 156.7 20062.0 Spottail Shiner 4 101.5 79.0-130.0 10.0 40.0 Emerald Shiner 6082 63.4 45.0-110.0 1.1 6873.0 Carp 9 521.6 337.0-780.0 2380.0 21420.0 Brown Bullhead 1 241.0 .. .. 175.0 175.0 Subtotal 6224 48570.0 24 Gizzard Shad 137 217.0 123.0-502.0 125.0 17126.0 Spottail Shiner 5 114.6 100.0-127.0 13.2 66.0 Emerald Shiner 5461 66.9 43.0-111.0 1.1 6181.5 Carp 5 481.4 312.0-631.0 1914.6 9573.0 Subtotal 5608 32946.5 25 Gizzard Shad 112 218.0 121.0-560.0 135.6 15182.0 Spottail shiner 7 115.4 101.0-130.0 13.0 91.0 Emerald Shiner 4858 69.3 37.0-111.0 1.1 5494.5 Carp 1 479.0 .. .. 1499.0 1499.0 White Bass 5 121.6 100.0-141.0 33.4 167.0 Freshwater Drum 1 259.0 115.0 115.0 Subtotal 4984 22548.5 TOTAL 16816 104065.0 aTwo hauls through a 900 arc with station.a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-. 161 -

TABLE 44 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 30 May 1979 LENGTH (rmm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 7 153.9 132.0-180.0 29.4 206.0 Emerald Shiner 2P 71.2 41.0-140.0 2.3 47.0 Subtotal 27 253.0 24 Gizzard Shad 9 163.3 131.0-195.0 35.4 319.0 Spottail Shiner 1 131.0 .. .. 20.0 20.0 Emerald Shiner 13 66.2 51.0-103.0 1.5 19.0 Logperch 1 102.0 .. .. 11.0 11.0 Subtotal 24 369.0 25 Gizzard Shad 5 172.8 157.0-186.0 42.2 211.0 Emerald Shiner 11 66.2 39.0- 95.0 1.5 16.0 Subtotal .16 227.0 TOTAL 67 849.0 aTwo hauls through a 900 station.arc with a 100-ft bag seine ('-in bar mesh) at each-162 -

TABLE 45 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 20 June 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 272 48.7 19.0-301.0 5.8 1575.0 Spottail Shiner 5 101.2 52.0-139.0 14.4 72.0 Emerald Shiner 9 77.1 63.0- 88.0 1.9 17.0 Freshwater Drum 1 130.0 -- -- 20.0 20.0 Subtotal 287 1684.0 24 Gizzard Shad 617 27.7 19.0- 38.0 0.5 310.0 Emerald Shiner 23 74.0 46.0- 93.0 1.7 39.0 Subtotal 640 349.0 25 Gizzard Shad 1025 34.7 20.0-237.0 4.0 702.0 Spottail Shiner 2 126.0 121.0-131.0 20.0 40.0 Emerald Shiner 14 73.9 59.0- 87.0 1.5 21.0 Subtotal 1041 763.0 TOTAL 1968 2796.0 aTwo hauls through a 900 station.arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each 0-163-TABLE 46 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 28 July 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 24 25 Gizzard Shad Alewife Spottail Shiner Emerald Shiner White Bass Subtotal Gizzard Shad Alewife Spottail Shiner Emerald Shiner White Bass Subtotal Gizzard Shad Alewife Spottail Shiner Emerald Shiner White Bass Freshwater Drum Subtotal TOTAL 28265 17342 1 1 52 45661 7783 7479 1 9 46 15318 50896 41650 1 5 38 1 92591 153570 51.3 25.6.59.0 72.0 50.3 41.4 25.6 45.0 70.4 46.3 44.6 28.6 82.0 81.0 47.7 137.0 21.0-274.0 15.0-35.0-30.0-17.0-63.0-37.0-40.0 75.0 56.0 37.0 85.0 70.0 0.8 0.4 2.0 2.0 1.3 0.7 0.4 0.5 1.2 1.2 0.7 0.4 3.0 3.8 1.4 28.0 23110.5 6942.0 2.0 2.0 68.5 30125.0 5441.5 2996.0 0.5 11.0 57.0 8506.0 36074.5 16665.0 3.0 19.0 51.5 28.0 52841.0 20.0-386.0 17.0- 38.0 58.0-110.0 37.0- 57.0 91472.0 I91472.0 0 aTWo hauls through a 900 station.arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-164 -

TABLE 47 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT a AT LOCUST POINT 28 August 1979 LENGTH (7m) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 212 81.6 40.0-264.0 8.0 1702.5 Spottail Shiner 1 68.0 .. .. 3.0 3.0 Emerald Shiner 27 61.9 26.0- 95.0 2.4 64.0 White Bass 9 79.8 57.0-108.0 6.1 55.0 Subtotal 249 1824.5 24 Gizzard Shad 229 88.2 40.0-145.0 5.9 1342.0 Emerald Shiner 27 47.8 18.0- 80.0 0.7 18.2 White Bass 28 99.2 68.0-120.0 12.0 335.0 Freshwater Drum 1 324.0 .. .. 418.0 418.0 Subtotal 285 2113.2 25 Gizzard Shad 113 76.8 36.0-100.0 5.6 632.5 Emerald Shiner 14 66.1 42.0- 80.0 2.2 30.5 White Bass 5 59.8 37.0- 80.0 3.8 19.0 Subtotal 132 682.0 TOTAL 666 4619.7 aTwo hauls through a 900 station.arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-165 -

3-TABLE 48 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 29 September 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Spottail Shiner 13 65.2 32.0- 82.0 4.3 55.5 Emerald Shiner 19 69.4 46.0- 84.0 6.0 114.0 Subtotal 32 169.5 24 Gizzard Shad 7 54.0 36.0- 86.0 1.7 12.0 Spottail Shiner 22 56.2 30.0- 86.0 2.0 43.0 Emerald Shiner 10 67.4 39.0- 86.0 3.2 32.0 White Bass 3 70.0 56.0- 94.0 2.7 8.0 Subtotal 42 95.0 25 Gizzard Shad 66 92.7 34.0-172.0 11.8 781.0 Spottail Shiner 15 71.6 38.0-105.0 3.4 51.0 Emerald Shiner 54 64.9 41.0- 87.0 2.1 112.0 White Bass 1 44.0 -- -- 1.0 1.0 White Perch 1 89.0 9.0 9.0 Subtotal 137 954.0 TOTAL 211 1218.5 aTwo hauls station.through a 900 arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-166 -

.p.TABLE 49 SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORT a AT LOCUST POINT 27 October 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 19 82.2 53.0-120.0 6.7 127.0 Emerald Shiner 25 67.2 42.0- 95.0 3.1 78.0 Subtotal 44 205.0 24 Gizzard Shad 6 84.5 53.0-103.0 8.3 50.0 Spottail Shiner 2 83.5 79.0- 88.0 6.5 13.0 Emerald Shiner 19 74.2 52.0- 98.0 3.7 70.0 Subtotal 27 133.0 25 Gizzard Shad 5 88.4 52.0-120.0 9.0 45.0 Emerald Shiner 8 69.8 52.0- 88.0 2.9 23.0 Subtotal 13 68.0 TOTAL 84 406.0 aTwo hauls through a 900 station.arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-167 -

TABLE 5O-SHORE SEINE CATCH PER UNIT EFFORTa AT LOCUST POINT 3 November 1979 LENGTH (mm) WEIGHT (g)STATION SPECIES NUMBER MEAN RANGE MEAN TOTAL 23 Gizzard Shad 4 65.3 52.0- 85.0 4.0 16.0 Spottail Shiner 10 83.8 55.0-135.0 8.1 81.0 Emerald Shiner 129 60.4 41.0-. 86.0 1.9 247.0 Bluntnose Minnow 1 57.0 .. .. 3.0 3.0 Goldfish 1 154.0 58.0 58.0 Subtotal 145 405.0 24 Gizzard Shad 7 60.9 43.0- 82.0 2.9 20.0 Spottail Shiner 4 83.5 61.0-111.0 7.0 28.0 Emerald Shiner 194 62.9 42.0-100.0 1.9 369.0 Spotfin Shiner 1 66.0 .. .. 4.0 4.0 Subtotal 206 421.0 25 Gizzard Shad 66 76.0 41.0-148.0 6.0 395.0 Emerald Shiner 1714 60.4 43.0-102.0 2.0 3492.0 Subtotal 1780 3887.0 TOTAL 2131 4713.0 ANNUAL GRAND TOTAL 175513 210139.2 aTwo hauls through station.a 900 arc with a 100-ft bag seine (1/4-in bar mesh) at each-168 -

TABLE 51 SUMIARY OF FOOD HABITS OATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 30 APRIL 1979 I-'-FOOD ITEM4S a 4 -4,... : : '. a Whte asJ O 44 128.0 Yelo-Prc-0 .17.7 15.019101 i : C Subtoatal3 3 a SPECIES -LENGTH ( t m- a-ucaa V if) ~ -B-3Eea hnr.4. 0 45.8Ja10-6a

-. .adaaa.3 U0U a U Freshwater D 10-0U 133.5 00.2 3_~. Mean Rae L .)2~.) 343)~~ , ~a~.3-26 Emerald Shiner 11 10a 6'9.2-- 41.0-161.0 F F'Freshwater Drum 17 0 134.8 107.0-195.0 Spottail Shiner 31 0 108.5 57.0o-188.0111 White. Bass 1 0 128.0 --- I I I I Yellow Perch 3 0 1573.7 152.0-191.01 1 1 ,1 -" Subtotal 63 t0 ._'._, 8-13 Emerald Shiner 4 0 57.8 51.0- 56.01___Freshwater Drum 19 0 133.5 100.0-270.0

___Soottail Shiner' 12 25.0 92.6 77.0-127.0 --___White Bass 3 0 -135.7 134.0-139.01

___Yellow Perch 5 0 1159.2 113.0-215.0

____Subtotal 43 0.1 TOTAL 106 <0.1 L ., .1 aPresented as mean number of food items per fish bItem present but not numerically quantifiable 0 0 T ---

0 TABLE 52

SUMMARY

OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 24 MAY 1979___FOOD_ ITE14S SPECIES M LEN GTH (mam) f--, S n I-c 02. wee en0 Mea --, .I en en 2 --3-26 Emerald Shiner 3 100.0 58.0 56.0- 62.0 64 0.3 1 --1 1 1 1 X1 Freshwater Drum 7 57.1 18S.1 122.0-244.0 2 ¶ 1 x Spottafl Shiner 8 100.0 98.6 80.2-130.0 I20 256 2 -_ W h it e Ba s s 2 100 .0 156 .0 12 6 .0 -18 6 .0 m, d Yellow Perch 13 00.0 170.7 146.0-197.0 27 252 42 0.3 X1 S u b t o t a l Z3 8 6 .9 , : B-13 Emerald Shiner 1 100 53.0 5E 2- 1 : Freshwater Drum 7 42.8 108.0 99.0-113.0 1 1 -2 X Spottail Shiner 8 100 77.3 66.0- 81.0 2A -White Bass z 50.0 121.5 110.0-133.0 i Yellow Perch 1 100 146.0 2 25590744 --' 2 S u b t o t a l 1 9 7 3 .7 3 .i7, I T O T A L 4, 8 1 ..epresented as mean number of food items per fish bItem present but not numerically quantifiable TABLE 53

SUMMARY

OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 2Z JUNE 1979 I-.-4 I-.FOOD ITEM~S 3-2 Emerald Shiner 0 1 1 F F) IT -!,,-15 9 Subtotal 14 ,1 l1O0:. ...II 8-13 Emerald Shiner 0 In I X F r e s h w a t e r Dr u m 1 1 0 1 0. 0 -12, S-ottald Shiner 0 J1I I White Bass 1 10. 2 2 4. i-_ Yellow Perch 11 81.8 154. 3 13.0-191.01 i Subtotal 12 L003.3 01 L -1 L TOTAL S 26 1 92.3 _ I_pr__sented as mean number of food items per fish bItem present but not numerically quantifiable O

I-4 TABLE 54

SUMMARY

OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 31 JULY 1979 FOOD ITEMS SPECIES .LENGTH (am) 2~~. !38 1:5,._*,.:

0. Mean Range Td .0: 3-26 Emerald Shiner 0 _ _Freshwater Drum K 0.. 133.0 ___. I ___, , l i 1 2 1 X1_ Spottail Shiner 23 73.9 104.3 80.0-130.0 14 2 14 T -F D 1 1 White Bass .0 o ----'- -- ----,- -Yellow Perch 27 100.0 168.1 120.0-205.0 Subtotal 51 88.2 1 8-13 Emerald Shiner 0 ---Freshwater Drum 0 ,-Soottail Shiner 2 100.0 114.0 111.0-117.0 2 0. 31612 40.- U 13 x White Bass I ---'Yellow Perch 24 100.0 167.8.. 120.0-202.0 0.2 174 6 0. ,I 0.1 Subtotal 26 100.0 _ .ITOTAL 177 192.2 _ _ _ _ _li ---- -aPresented as mean number of food items per fish bItem present but not numerically quantifiable

"-.TABLE 55 SUflIARY OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 31 AUGUST 1979-FOOD ITEMS.SPECIES LENGTH (am) 0 I-" )w 0 ý 7 3- SE Emerald Shiner L G .Freshwater Drum 16+ ) 5 0 9 5918 44.0- 88.o It 873-3.-I0 0 *I0 00.Spottail Shiner 8 1 00.0 1 9 o.2 i White B-ss 3 16.7 OU63.0 60.0- 67.0 0 1001 9 1 i Yello Perch 25 072.0 1059.0 66,0-2100, 0.5 0. 04 o.x', Subtotal 52 (69,.2I 3-]3 Emerald Shiner 0 i___i Freshwater Drum 15 573.3 7.9 16.0-120.0 8 .1 .3 1 4 0. -- ,1 Spotta.l Shiner 1 0.1 X K White Bass 4 50.0 135.3 60.0-195.0 1 4 36 0 I x Yellow Perch 27 72.0 159.6 631.0-215.0

-0 3 0 0 K Subtotal 6 5 82.6 , I S TO T A L 1 9 8 1 7 _5.5 .:( I SPresented as mean number of food items per fish Item Present but not numerically quantifiable 4

0 I-.TABLE 56 SUMIARY OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 25 SEPTEMBER 1979 FOOD] I-!SPCE v v ,( 1 " u SPECIES 9 LENGTH (nm)3-26 Emeral Shiner 0 Freshwater Drum 1 100.0 200.0 _____ _ '__________Spottail Shiner 15 100.0 101.3 71.0-121.0 o.3 2 __ _0.4 5.5 0.7____White Bass 5 80.0 64.0 42.0-124.0 oo, fetlow Perch 1 0 165.0I___Subtot'al 2.2 90.9 .6-13 Emerald Shiner .0___Freshw~ater Drum 0" Spottail Shiner 19 10 101.3 59.0-132.0 1I 1 0.2 o 0 2 o. _ ______White" Bass .i 7 71.4" 53.3 44.0- ,67.0. O___Yellow Perch ] 7 42.9 173.1_ 151.0-187.0 0.3. 5 i.3l " i*; .___Subtotal

33. 81.8 i;I___TOTAL " 55 85.4 ' i ' [_. { _apresented as mean nbrof food items fish b~tt 5 present but not numerically quantifiable TABLE 57 SUIMIARY OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWLa 30 OCTOBER 1979-,- I.SPECIES w c:11;-I-LENGTH (mm)Mean Range r E>.0 4-0 I.L FOO0 I L 0 r >C 0 E !2,U0!-In 3-26 Emerald Shiner 0~Freshwater Drum 0 ... , Spottail Shiner I 10 ..56 -IB0 o 1 0(. 1 White Bass 0 .__. " .___Yellow Perch 4 0 125.3 120.0-134.0

_!!2II!!I 4- -Subtotal 15 86.6 1 ll 4141 li-4 ,.,, , 0-11 r ý 1,4 ý1,4 l I me_ -a r I-,-4.-4-4I+----( 1 T I I it I I l i rresnwater Drum ! I 1 _ _ 1 1 1 ) t I _ _ _ _ 1 L __i xx x X C #4.41 ck4 r inn Re; o x7 A..1~ fl I 0.5) 2 21 2J.White Bass 1 100 215.0 --- -Yellow Perch 3 66.7 154.0 126.0-196.0 0.5 0.,_ Subtotal 10 90. 0______ TOTAL 25 88.0 _. ' "J..K i0 apresented as mean number of food items per fish bltem present but not numerically quantifiable 9I TABLE 58 SUWARY OF FOOD HABITS DATA OF FISH COLLECTED AT LOCUST POINT WITH A 16-FT TRAWL'6 NOVEMBER 1979!-FOOD ITEMS , v Tean Rnge 3-26 Fmrald Shiner, 1 ' 0 63.----..D- ----Freshwater Dr 0 Spottail Shiner I0 100 ! 66.0-129.0 Whte'Bass 0 , Yellow Parch a Subtotal 11I 90.9 i !8-13 Emerald Shiner 0 Freshwater Drum. a Spottall Shiner 0 I White Bass 0'Yellow Perch 0i , i Subtotal .0 .00 TOTAL 113 90.9 1 1l ANNUAL GRAND TOTAL 440 --- 3 i -"Presented as mean number of food Items per fish bItem present but not numerically quantifiable" 1 "

TABLE 59 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET CATCHES 1 OF SELECTED SPECIES FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCHARGE (STATION 13)ALEWIFE Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev April 0 10 3 5 ...... 0 ---May 0 44 30 20 0 0 0 0 June 0 43 19 19 0 1 1 1 July 0 159 49 68 0 0 0 0 August 0 72 14 32 0 6 3 4 September 0 200 87 102 1 136 48 76 October 4 322 117 178 36 88 41 44 November 0 47 16 22 41 52 47 8 D ec e m b e r -- -.--- 0 ..... .. ... ... .Mean 1 112 37 40 11 .40 18 23 CHANNEL CATFISH April May June July August September October November December Mean I I 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 18 5 2 0 0 4 0 1 2 6 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 3 7 2 1 0 0 2 0 3 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 4 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 FRESHWATER DRUM April 0 17 4 9 4 ---May 0 4 1 2 1 1 1 0 June 3 9 5 3 20 75 48 39 July 1 50 18 20 0 14 7 10 August 0 12 5 5 0 6 3 4 September 0 11 4 5 0 3 1 2 October 0 7 4 4 0 0 0 0 November 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 December ---... 0 .........Mean 1 14 5 5 3, 14, 8 16 1 Results presented as a 24-hour bottom set contiguous panels of the number of fish per unit effort, where with an experimental gill net 125 ft long1/2, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bow mesh.one unit of effort equals consisting of five 25-ft 2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.-177 -

TABLE 59(cont'd)

PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET CATCHES 1 OF SELECTED SPECIES FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCHARGE (STATION 13)GIZZARD SHAD Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev April 0 3 1 1 --- I ---May 0 9 4 4 1 5 3 3 June 4 9. 8 3 9 22 16 9 July 7 50 30 15 3 13 8 7 August 40 184 103 63 7 109 58 72 September 3 168 76 68 1 114 55 57 October 24 155 106 71 0 291 103 162 November 1 51 26 26 9 11 10 1 Decem ber --- 7 ---.. ..... ... ..Mean 10 79 40 43 4 81 32 37 SPOTTAIL SHINER April 58 142 97 43 --.--- 58 ---May 66 1331 482 574 12 224 118 150 June 0 85 29 39 0 4 2 3 July 0 29 8 12 0 14 7 10 August 2 58 15 24 4 21 13 12 September 0 25 10 11 18 75 44 29 October 31 35 33 2 4 27 15 12 November 0 64 21 29 24 26 25 1 D e c e m b e r ---. .. 5 .... ... ... ... ..Mean 20 221 78 154 9 56 35 38 WALLEYE April 0 3 1 1 ...... 0 ---May 0 2 1 1 0 1 1 1 June 0 4 2 2 0 1 1 1 July 0 15 3 7 0 4 2 3 August 0 2 1 1 0 8 4 6 September 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 October 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 November 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 December -- --- 0 ---.--- --- ...Mean 0 4 1 1 0 2 1 1 IResults presented as* a 24-hour bottom set contiguous panels of the number of fish per unit effort, where one unit of effort equals with an experimental gill net 125 ft long consisting of five 25-ft1/2, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bow mesh.2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1970.-178 -

TABLE 59 (cont'd)PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET CATCHES 1 OF SELECTED SPECIES FROM LAKE ERIE IN THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION DISCHARGE (STATION 13)WHITE BASS Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev April 0 3 1 1 --- --- 0 ---May 0 3 1 1 0 2 1 1 June 0 6 3 3 8 43 26 25 July 0 6 3 3 4 25 15 15 August 1 29 9 12 0 7 4 5 September 1 11 5 5 0 2 1 1 October 1 4 2 2 0 6 2 3 November 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 December --- --- 0 ------Mean 0 8 3 3 2 12 6 9 YELLOW PERCH April 10 119 55 47 --- 24 ---May 9 109 48 44 9 40 25 22 June 3 95 47 39 2 28 15 18 July 5 125 37 50 35 76 56 29 August 33 100 65 28 43 313 178 191 September 32 160 73 50 43 71 53 15 October 18 158 67 79 7 18 12 6 November 0 28 8 14 6 7 7 1 D e c e m b e r .... ..0 .... ... ... ... ..Mean 14 112 44 26 21 79 46 56 1 Results presented as the number of fish per unit effort a 24-hour bottom set with an experimental gill net 125 contiguous panels of 1/2, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bow mesh , where one unit of effort ft long consisting of five equals 25-ft 2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.-179 -

I.TABLE 60 PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER DISCHARGE, AND FOUR CONTROL DATA1 FROM THE VICINITY STATION INTAKE, STATIONS STATION 3 Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev April 89 197 143 7.6 --- --May 49 176 113 90 .98 319 209 165 June 113 263 188 106 102 239 171 97 July 110 219 165 77 71 222 147 107 August 220 396 308 124 241 267 254 18 September

--- 312 --- 178 481 331 151 October --- 31 178 108 74 November --- 43 162 197 180 25 D e c e m b e r .... .... ...... ... ... ... ..Mean 116 250 182 99 126 272 184 82 STATION 8 April 8 52 26 19 --- 33 ---May 32 2077 676 959 20 134 77 ;81 June 62 260 154 98 69 , 196 133 90 July 85 179 122 45 86 262 174 124 August 89 166 135 38 122 208 165 61 September 61 343 203 124 174 221 191 26 October 55 652 257 342 25 93 57 34 November 4 112 49 52 12 35 24 16 December ---.--- 19 ..............

Mean 50 480 182 202 73 164 107 67'Results presented as a 24-hour bottom set contiguous panels of number of fish per unit effort, where one unit of effort equals with an experimental gill net 125 ft long consisting of five 25-ft 1, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bar mesh.2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.-180 -I TABLE 60 (continued)

PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET DATA 1 FROM THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION INTAKE, DISCHARGE, AND FOUR CONTROL STATIONS STATION 13 Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max' Mean Std Dev April 88 269 166 75 --- -- 88 ---May 120 1381 573 558 29 270 150 170 June 49 232 125 77 112 122 117 7 July 94 254 163 82 85 138 112 37 August 136 327 237 84 186 387 287 142 September 73 382 270 141 122 366 206 138 October 104 691 337 312 7 433 178 225 November 6 208 76 94 85 93 89 6 December 14 --- ---Mean 84 468 218 166 89 258 153 68 STATION 26 April 60 191 126 93 --- 47 ---May 44 481 46 3 34 127 81 66 June 114 238 17,6 88 101 175 138 52 July 41 131 '106 92 118 258 188 99 August 143 293 218. 106 345 348 347 2 September

....... 269 41 637 336 298 October --- ---.... 54 71 61 9 November --- 298 28 48 38 14 December --- --- ---Mean 177' 91 103 238 155 126 1Results presented as a 24-hour bottom set contiguous panels of number of fish per unit effort, where one unit effort equals with an experimental gill net 125 ft long consisting of five 25-ft J, 3/4, 1, 11/2, and 2-inch bar mesh.2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.-181 -

TABLE 60 (continued)

PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL GILL NET DATA 1 FROM THE VICINITY OF THE DAVIS-BESSE NUCLEAR POWER STATION INTAKE, DISCHARGE, AND FOUR CONTROL STATIONS STATION 28 Pre-Operational Data 2 Operational Data 3 Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev April 23 46 35 16 --.--- 31 ---May 31 36 34 4 24 205 115 128 June 110 214 162 74 97 177 137 57 July 124 138 131 10 198 228 213 21 August 173 220 197 33 252 273 263 15 September

--- 316 --- 146 280 219 68 October --- 83 143 120 33 November 120 30 106 68 54 December ---... ......------......

Mean 92 131 142 98 119 202 146 80 STATION 29 April 38 190 114 107 --- -- 58 ---May 77 535 306 324 101 207 154 75 June 146 313 230 118 117 163 140 33 July 148 360 254 150 116 272 194 110 August 227 315 271 62 151 355 253 144 September

--- 510 --- 107 277 205 88 October --- 147 250 215 59 November 137 66 199 133 94 D e c e m b e r .... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..Mean 127 343 260 130 115 246 169 .61 IResults presented as a 24-hour bottom set contiguous panels of number of fish per unit effort, where one unit of effort equals with an experimental gill net, 125 ft long consisting of five 25-ft 2, 3/4, 1, 1i2, and 2-inch bar mesh.2 Results from samples collected from 1973 through August 1977.3 Results from samples collected from September 1977 through 1979.-182 -

TABLE 61 ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*.I..May I May 9 May 31 3 8 13 29 Mlean 3 8 13 29 Mean 3. 8 13 29 Mean Carp Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Common Stage 1 Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Emerald Stage I Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Freshwater Stage I Drum Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal" Gizzard Stage 1 254.5 74.5 118.4 93.6 135.22 Shad Stage 2 115.1 11.4 46.7 87.6 65.21.Stage 3 Surface 657.5 166.2 260.0 322.2 351.45 Bottom 81.6 5.7 70.2 40.2 49.44 Subtotal**

369.6 85.9 165.1 181.2 200.44 Logperch Stage 1 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.25 Stage 2 0,6 0.15 Stage 3 Surface 1.7 0.6 0,57 Bottom 0.9. 0.23 Subtotal**

0.9 0.5 0.3 0.40 Rainbow Stage 1 1.2 2.6 0.94 Smelt Stage 2 4.9 7.5 3.8 2.3 4.62 Stage 3 Surface 8.0 12.3 9.2 3.4 8.26 Bottom 1.8 4.9 3.7 1.1 2.86 Subtotal**

4.9 B.6 6.4 2.3 5.56 Unidentified Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Unidentified Stage I Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Unidentified Stage I Sunfish Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Walleye Stage I Stage 2 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.28 Stage 3 1.7 0.3 2.1 0.8 1.21 Surface 1.1 1.5 0.65 Bottom 2.6 0.6 5.5 0.6 2.34 Subtotal**

1.9 0.3 2.8 1.0 1.49-183 -

TABLE 6 1 (Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*STATION ....I may 9 May 31 SPCS3 8 13 29 Wn 8 113 29 Mea'n 8 13 °29 1 Mean White Stage 1 0.8 '0.3 4.4 1.37 Bass Stage 2 2.3 0.5 2.6 1.3 1.69 Stage 3 Surface 5.0 1.2 11.2 2.5 4.70 Bottom 1.3 0.5 2.8 1.1 1.42 Subtotal**

3.2 0.8 7.0 1.3 3.06 Yellow Stage 1 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.4 0.24 9.5 6.0 1B.4 20.8 13.65 Perch Stage 2 29.5 22.5 62.3 64.7 44.75 Stage 3 4.1 8.3 14.9 3.6 7.73 Surface 0.4 0.09 0.9 0.22 52.1 36.2 65.3 105.7 65.08 Bottom 1.1 0.27 34.2 37.2 125.8 71.5 67.19 Subtotal**

0.2 0.05 0.5 0.4 0.24 43.2 36.7 95.5 89.1 66.13 Fish Egg Surface 1.0 0.4 0.36 0.5 0.13 Bottom 0.5 0.12 Subtotal**

0.5 0.5 0.24 0.3 0.07 Freshwater Surface Drum Egg Bottom Subtotal" Total Stage 1 0.2 0.05 0.5 0.4 0.24 265.1 81.9 144.1 114.7 151.44 Ichthyoplankton Stage 2 152.7 41.9 116.2 156.1 116.72 Stage 3 5.8 8.6 17.0 4.4 8.93 Eggs 0.5 0.5 0.24 0.3 0.07 Surface 0.4 1.0 0.4 0.46 0.5 0.9 0.36 725.4 215.9 345.7 435.9 430.70 Bottom 0.5 0.12 1.1 0.27 121.6 48.9 208.8 114.6 123.48 Subtotal**

0.2 0.5 0.5 0.29 0.8 0.4 0.31 423.5 132.4 277.2 275.2 277.09*Data presented as no./10003.

Stage 1 = proto-larvae, no rays in finjfinfold.

Stage 2 meso-larvae.

first ray seen in, median fins. Stage 3 -mete-larvae, pelvic fin bud Is visible. ISampling at stations 26 and 2B was inadvertently omitted in 1979.**This is the subtotal of the larval stages. It is the mean of the surface and bottom densities.

-184 -

TABLE 61(Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*.Carp Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal" Comon Stage 1 0.1 0.1 D.03 0.1 0.D4 Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface 0.1 0.1 0.06 0.3 0.07 Bottom SubtOtal**

0.1 0.1 0.03 0.1 0.04 Emerald Stage I 6.4 1.8 7.6 5.4 5.04 0.2 11.4 2.2 1.4 3.79 Shiner Stage 2 1.3 2.2 1.8 0.6 1.49 3.S 1.1 1.5 1.53 Stage 3 1.7 2.5 3.4 1.7 2.32 Surface 12.7 6.4 17.0 10.3 11.61 2.9 23.9 11.1 8.0 11.48 Bottom 0.6 1.5 1.8 1.8 1.43 0.9 10.9 2.3 1.2 3.81 Subtotal**

6.7 4.0 9.4 6.0 6.52 1.9 17.4 6.7 4f 75A Freshwater Stage 1 0.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.49 0.1 0.04 Drum Stage 2 0.6 0.15 Stage 3 Surface 0.36 0.25 Bottom 0.5 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.72 1.4 0.36 Subtotal**

0.3 0.3 0.8 0.6 0.49 0.7 0.18 Gizzard Stage 1 103.9 90.5 290.4 195.1 169.99 78.5 22.2 61.8 14.4 44.20 66.8 20.9 45.8 45.4 44.71 Shad Stage 2 11.6 6.6 12.4 16.5 11.77 10.6 3.5 9.1 7.0 7.54 4,8 1.7 7.0 7.5 5.25 Stage 3 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.48 0.5 0.5 .0.6 3.2 1.19 Surface 30.9 158.1 84.4 126.0 99.85 16.3 7.1 30.8 3.7 14.47 24.2 34.4 45.9 96.7 50.28 Bottom 200.1 36.1 521.3 297.2 263.67 161.8 44.5 112.8 40.8 89.98 120,0 11.8 60.7 15.6 52.03 Subtotal**

115.6 97.1 302.8 211.6 181.76 89.1 25.8 71.8 22.3 52.23 72.1 23.1 53.3 66.1 51.16 Logperch Stage 1 0.4 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.61 Stage 2 0.4 0.10 0.1 0.02 Stage 3 Surface D.8 0.20 Bottom 0.7 2.4 '1.8 1.22 0.2 0.04 Subtotal**

0.4 1.2 0.9 0.4 0.71 0.1 0.02 Rainbow Stage 1 8.0 0.3 0.4 2.20 0.1 0.02 Smelt Stage 2 0.7 0.37 0.1 0.03 Stage 3 0.2 0.04 Surface 5.5 0.7 1.53 0.1 0.03 Bottom 12.0 0.9 3.22 0.1 0.1 0.07 0.3 0.08 Subtotal**

8.7 0.3 0.4 2.37 0.1 0.1 0.05 0.? 0.-P Unidentified Stage I Stage 2 0.2 0.05 Stage 3 Surface 6.4 0.09 Bottom Subtota"*

0.2 0.05 Unidentified Stage 1 Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal" Unidentified Stage 1' 0.1 0.02 Sunfish Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom 0.2 0.04 Subtotal*

0.1 0.02 Walleye. Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

-I-185 TABLE 6 1(Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*, S IJune 5 June 21 July 5 S3ECISa3 13 29 N ean 3 8 a 13 29 Mean TI 8 13 29 Mea n White Stage 1 0.4 0.11 0.1 0.1 0.03 Bass Stage 2 0.2 0.1 0.08 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.17 Stage 3 0.2 0.04 Surface O. 1 0.03 Bottom 0.8 0.21 0.5 0.2 0.1 0.19 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.43 Subtotal**

0.4 0.11 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.11 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.21 Yellow Stage 1 .3.3 3.6 8.9 5.6 5.35 Perch Stage 2 1.0 1.6 0.5 3.6 1.68 Stage 3 0.3. 0.8 1.6' 1.6 1.08 Surface 3.3 3.3 6.2 6.5 4.80 Bottom 5.9 8.5 15.9 15.2 11.40 Subtotal*" 4.6 5.9 11.0 10.8 8.10 Fish Egg Surface 1.6 0.40 Bottom 79.3 2.1 20.35 Subtotal**

39.6 1.1 0.8 10.37 Freshwater, Surface 0.5 0.4 0.24 Drum Egg Bottom 0.3 0.07 Subtotal**

0.1 0.3 0.2 0.15 1.Total Ichthyoplankton Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Eggs Surface Bottom Subtotal**

107.5 102.9 301.0 201.5 178.25 12.6 9.3 12.9 20.1 13.72 0.3 0.8 1.6 1.6 1.08 39.6 1.1 0.8 10.37 34.2 166.8 92.8 133.3 106.79 286.0 61.2 539.8 313.3 300.06 160.1 114.0 316.3 223.3 203.42 84.3 12.2 0.I 0.1 29.4 164,0 96.7 24.2 70.3 20.5 49.83 5.8 11.0 7.7 9.15 0.1 0.9 0.9 0.48 0.3 0.2. 0.15 13.5 49.0 14.8 26.69 46.5 116.0 43.6 92.54 30.0 82.5 29.2' 59.62 66.9 32.3 48.2 46.8 48.57 5.1 5.4 9.0 9.2 7.15 2.2 3.0 4.0 5.2 3.60 27.0 58.7 57.3 104.6 61.92 121.4 22.7 65.0 17.7 56.71 74.2 40.7 61.2 61.2 59.32 I*Data presented as no./IOm 3.Stage 1 = proto-larvae, no rays in fin/finfold.

Stage 2 = meso-larvae, first ray seen in median fins. Stage 3 meta-larvae, pelvic fin bud is visble. .Sampling at stations 126 and 28 was inadvertently omitted in 1979.**This Is the subtotal of the larval stages. It is the mean of the surface and bottom densities.

186 -Qý TABLE 61(Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*.l 1 I Cnmmon Stage I Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Emerald Stage 1 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.23 0.1 0.03 Shiner Stage 2 0.2 0.4 0.1 1.8 ,0.64 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.13 Stage 3 0.3 2.3 0.65 0.9 0.7 0.1 0.43 Surface 0.9 1.1 0.6 4.8 1.83 1.9 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.91 Bottom 0.3 0.3 4.2 1.21 0.4 0.7 0.26 Subtotal**

0.5 0.7 0.4 4.5 1.52 1.1 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.5B Freshwater Stage 1 1.1 0.2 2.0 0.1 0.83 Drum Stage 2 0.9 0m1 0.27 Stage 3 1.0 0.24 Surface 0.6 1.7 0.58 Bottom 5.3 0.3 2.5 0.2 2.09 Subtotal" 3.0 0.2 2.1 0.1 1.34 Gizzard Stage 1 17.4 33.2 5.4 11.1 16.79 29.4 6.6 62.0 19.9 29.50 Shad Stage 2 7.3 6.0 1.9 17.5 8.19 2.7 0.2 9.7 3.7 4.06 Stage 3 5.6 0.2 1.5 0.6 1.99 0.6 0.1 0.17 0.2 0.06 Surface 49.2 59.2. 11.3 46.5 41.52 9.4 51.1 9.2 17.42 0.5 0.11 Bottom 11.4 19.7 6.5 12.0 12.39 55.9 13.7 92.3 38.3 50.04 Subtotal**

30.3 39.4 8.9 29.2 26.96 32.6 6.8 71.7 23.7 33.73 '0.2 0.06 Logperch Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Rainbow Stage 1 0.9 0.22 Smelt Stage 2 0.5 0.5 D.24 Stage 3 Surface 0.5 0. 12 Bottom 0.6 0.9 1.8 0.01 Subtotal**

0.5 0.5 0.9 0.40 Unidentified Stage I Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Unidentified Stage i Shiner Stage 2 Stage 3 0.2 0.04 Surface Bottom 0.3 0.0B Subtotal**

0.2 0.04 Unidentified Stage 1 Sunfish Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Walleye. Stage 1 Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

-187 -

TABLE 61(Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -.1979*Stage I: Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom Subtotal**

1.2 1.5 0.9 1.2 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.32 0.37 0.28 0.32 Yellow Stage 1 Perch Stage 2 0.3 0.06 Stage 3 Surface Bottom 0.5 0.13 Subtotal**

0.3 0.06 Fish Egg Surface Bottom Subtotal**

Freshwater Surface, 5.8 1.45 Drum Egg Bottom 7.8 0.9 1.3 0.9 2.73 Subtotal" 3.9 0.4 3.5 0.5 2.09 Total Stage 1 20.2 33.4 8.1 11.6 18.32 29.5 6.6 62.0 19.9 29.52 0.9 0.22 Ichthyoplankton Stage 2 8.4 6.4 2.2 19.3 9.09 2.8 0.3 9.7 3.9 4.19 0.8. 0.5 0.31 Stage 3 7.9 0.5 1.5 3.1 3.24 1.5 0.7 0.1 0.1 0.6D 0.2 0.06 Eggs 3.9 0.4 3.5 0.5 2.09 Surface 53.4 60.3 19.6 51.2 46.12 11.3 1.0 51.3 9.6 18.33 0.5 0.5 0.23 Bottom 27.4 21.2 11.2 17.6 19.37 56.2 14.3 92.3 38.3 50.29 1.3 0.9 1.8 0.94 Subtotal**

40.4 40.8 15.4 34.4 32.74 33.8 7.7 71.8 24.0 34.31 0.8 0.5 1.1 0.59*Data presented as no./1O0m 3.Stage I -proto-larvae, no rays in fin/finfold.

Stage 2 -meso-larvae, first ray seen in median fins. Stage 3 meta-larvae, pelvic fin bud is visible.,Sampling at stations 26 and 28 was inadvertently omitted in 1979.**This is the subtotal of the larval stages. It is the mean of the surface and bottom densities.

-188 -

TABLE 61(Con't)ICHTHYOPLANKTON DENSITIES AT LOCUST POINT -1979*I --TATION August 15 MIean sPIES aii 1 13 9 Ma n 3 8 113 129 Mean 3 8 13 29 Mean White Stage 1 0.09 0.03 0.49 0.15 Bass Stage 2 0.28 0.05 0.29 0.15 0.19 Stage 3 0.12 0.03 0.04 Surface 0.66 0.12 1.12 0.15 0.51 Bottom 0.32 0.05 0.43 0.22 0.25 Subtotal**

0.49 0.08 0.77 0.18 0.38 Yellow Stage 1 1.35 1.00 2.73 2.64 1.93 Perch Stage 2 3.06 2.43 6.28 6.84 4.65 Stage 3 0.44 0.91 1.65 0.52 0.88 Surface 5.58 4.03 7.14 11.32 7.02 Bottom 4.12 4.63 14.16 8.68 7.90 Subtotal**

4.85 4.33 10.65 10.00 7.46 Fish Egg Surface 0.05 0.10 0.16 0.04 0.09 Bottom 7.93 0.21 0.05 2,05 Subtotal**

3.99 0.16 O.0B 0.05 1.07 Freshwater Surface 0.63 0.04 0.17 Drum Egg Bottom 0.81 0.09 0.13 0.09 0.28 Subtotal**

0.40 0.04 0.38 0.07 0.2?Total Stage 1 57.43 28.18 63.38 41.59 47.64 Ichthyoplankton Stage 2 .0.1 0.03 19.38 6.98 16.15 21.63 16.04 Stage 3 0.1 0.3 0.5 0.22 1'77 1.38 2.53 1.50 1.82 Eggs 4.39 0.20 0.46 0.11 1.29 Surface 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.44 88.18 51.88 61.65 75.11 69.20 Bottom 0.2 0.06 77.78 21.60 103.40 54.76 64.38 Subtotal**

0.1 0.4 0.5 0.25 82.98 36.74 82.52 64.93 66.79*Data presented as no./IOm 3.Stage I = proto-larvae, no rays in fin/finfold.

Stage 2 = meso-larvae, first ray seen in median fins, Stage 3 = meta-larvae, pelvic fin bukd is visible. Sampling at stations 26 and 28 w6s Inadvertently omitted in 1979.**This is the subtotal of the larval stages. It is the mean of the surface and bottom densities.

!-190 -

TABLE 62 RESULTS OF ICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTIONS AT TOUSSAINT REEF -1979*DATE May 1 May 9 May July July July Aug. Aug. MEAN SPECIES 31 5 12 20 3 16 Emerald Stage 1 261.5 3.6 33.13 Shiner Stage 2 16.5 9.0 0.6 0.3 3.30 Stage 3 6.3 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1 1.00 Surface 550.4 25.8 1.9 1.0 0.3 72.42 Bottom 18.2 1.0 0.3 2.44 Subtotal" 284.3 13.4 1.1 0.6 0.1 37.43 Freshwater Stage 1 0.2 0.1 0.04 Drum Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface 0.3 0.03 Bottom 0.3 0.04 Subtotal**

0.2 0.1 0.04 Gizzard Stage 1 28.3 0.3 3.5 4.4 4.56 Shad Stage 2 3.1 1.3 0.5 0.7 0.71 Stage 3 0.5 0.3 0.10 Surface 38.3 3.3 0.5 3.9 5.75 Bottom 24.5 1.0 7.4 7.1 5.00 Subtotal**

31.4 2.1 4.0 5.4 5.37 Rainbow -Stage I 0.5 0.06 Smelt Stage 2 0.2 0.03 Stage 3 Surface 1.0 0.05 Bottom 0.4 0.13 Subtotal**

0.7 0.09 Unidentified Stage 1 0.2 0.03 Percid Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface Bottom 0.5 0.06 Subtotal**

0.2 0.03*Walleye Stage 1 1.8 0.22 Stage 2 Stage 3 Surface 0.8 0.11 Bottom 2.7 0.33 Subtotal**

1.8 0.22 Yellow Stage 1 0.8 21.6 2.79 Perch Stage 2 27.9 3.48 Stage 3 3.7 0.46 Surface 55.3 6.91 Bottom 1.5 51.0 6.57 Subtotal"*

O.B 53.2 6.74 Eggs Surface 1.6 0.28 Bottom 2.3 0.20 Subtotal*

1.9 0.24 Drum Eggs Surface 21.2 2.65 Bottom 3.0 0.38 Subtotal"*

12.1 1.51 TOTAL Stage 1 2.8 50.4 262.0 7.0 4.5 40.83 Stage 2 31.2 17.8 9.6 1.3 0.3 7.52 Stage 3 3.7 6.8 0.8 0.8 0.3 0.1 1.56 Eggs 1.9. 12.1 1.75 Surface 2.3 0.8 94.0 553.6 47.5 6.0 1.0 0.3 88.20 Bottom 1.6 4.7 76.5 19.5 11.5 7.4 15.14 Subtotal*

1.9 2.8 85.3 286.6 29.5 6.6 0.6 0.1 51.67*Data presented as no./lOOm3.

Stage I = proto-larvae, no rays in fin/finfold.

Stage 2 lmeso-larvae, first ray seen in median fins. Stage 3 = mete-larvae, pelvic fin bud is visible.**This is the subtotal of the larval stages. It Is the mean of the surface and bottom densities.

-191-TABLE 63 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR APRIL 1979 Dates: Field 5-1-79 Laboratory 5-2-79 Parameters Station No. 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature (0C) 10.5 io0o 11.0 10.0 11.5 10.5 10.0-11.5 10.6 0.6 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 9.0 9.5 10.0 9.5 9.5 9.5 9.0-10.0 9.5 0.3 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 450 450 400 410 420 435 400-450 428 21 Transparency (m) 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.35-0.40 0.37 0.03 Depth (m) 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0-4.0 3.0 1.0 Solar radtation (ft-candles) 3500 0.02 1200 0.01 5000 0.01 0.01-5000 1617 2145 Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i) 50.8 50.8 48.4 46.4 48.0 50.0 46.4-50.8 49.1 1.8 Magnesiunm (m.g/1) 14.9 15.1 12.0 13.4 14.4 13.4 12.0-15.1 13.9 1.2 Sodium (mJ/I) 13.5 14.4 12.7 13.2 13.0 14.4 12.7-14.4 13.5 0.7 Chloride (mg/i) 30.5 30.3 25.5 26.0 27.0 27.3 25.5-30.5 27.8 2.1 Nitrate (mg/1) 5.5 5.9 4.4 5.4 6.2 6.4 4.4-6.4 5.6 0.7 Sulfate (mg/i) 46.0 46.0 44.0 44.0 46.0 46.0 44.0-46.0 45.3 1.0 Phosphorus (mg/i) 0.01 0.20 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01-0.20 0.05 0.08 Silica (mg/i) 1.59 1.42 0.71 0"83 1.18 1.29 0.83-1.59 1.17 0.34 Total Alkalinity (mg/i) 107 109 103 104 109 107 103-109 107 2.5 D.OD. (mg/1) 4 6 3 4 4 4 3-6 4 1.0 S-spended Solids (mg/i) 70 140 31 50 74 59 31-140 71 37 Dissolved Solids (mg/i) 168 164 145 140 146 150 140-168 152 11 Turbidity (F.T.U.) 78 84 37 67 72 75 37-84 69 17 pH 8.2 8.11 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1-8.2 8.1 0.04 Conductivicy (umhos/cm) 450 465 410 420 440 440 410-465 438 20 S 0 llJ.i....TABLE 64 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOP, MAY 1979 Dates: Field 5-24-79 Laboratory 5-25-79 Parameters Station No. 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature (0C) 18.0 17.9 18.1 17.8 18.2 18.0 17.8-18.2 18.0 0.1 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 9.4 9.2 9.3 9.2 9.0 9.0 9.0-9.4 9.2 0.2 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 280 285 290 290 280 285 280-290 285 14 Transparency (m) 0.45 0.40 0.40 0.40-0.45 0.42 0.03 Depth (m) 2.1 3.8 3.0 2.1-3.8 2.9 0.9 Solar radiation (ft-candles) 2400 71 1100 0.17 5000 0.01 0.01-5000 1429 1987 Laboratory Determtnations:

Calcium (rmg/i) 36.4 36.8 36.0 36.0 36.0 36.0 36:.0-.36.8.;

36.2 0.3 Magnesiunm (m-g/1) 8.4 8.2 8.2 8.2 8.9 8.6 8.2-8.9 8.4 0.3 Sodium (mg/i) 8.4 8.4 8.9 8.6 8.9 8.9 8.4-8.9 8.7 0.2 Chloride (mg/i) 18.8 17.8 20.0 20.0 19.8 17.8 17.8-20.0 19.0 .1.1 Nitrate (mg/i) 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.7 1.7 1.7 1.4-1.7 1.6 0.2 Sulfate (mg,)/1) 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 ;- 22.5 0.0 Phosphorus (mg/i) 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.05-0.08 0.07 0.01 Silica (mg/I) 0.09 0.11 0.11 0.07 0.13 0.07 0.07-0.13 0.10 0.02 Total Alkalinity (mg/i) 94 93 94 89 90 92 89-94 92 2 SO.D. (mg/i) 3 4 3 4 3 3 3-4 3 0.5 Suspended Solids (mg/1) 85 84 83 86 88 89 83-89 86 2 Dissolved Solids (mg/i) 232 226 238 236 232 224 224-238 231 5 Turbidity (F.T.U.) 62 65 41 55 68 75 41-75 61 12 pH 7.9 7.9 7.8 7.7 7.7 7.5 7.5-7.9 7.8 0.2 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 300 295 295 295 295 285 285-300 294 5" " "

.,- .Jr- .........TABLE 65 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR JUNE 1979 Dates: Field 6-21-79 Laboratory 6-22-79 Parameters Station No, 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean tandard'Surface Bottom Surface 8ottom 1 Surace _ottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature (OC)Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)Conductivity (umhos/cm)

Transparency (m)'Depth (m),pSolar radiation (ft-candles)

I.aboratory Deter'minations:

Calcium (mg/i)Magnesium. (rmg/1)Sodium (mg/1)Chloride (mrg/i)Nitrate (mg/l)Sulfate (mg/I)Phosphorus (rmg/i)Silica (rag/l)Total Alkalinity (mg/1)S.O.D. (mg/I)Suspended Solids (mg/I)Dissolved Solids (rmg/I)Turbidity (F.T.U.)plH Conductivity (umhos/cm) 21.0 9.1 300 0.40 1500 37.6 9.1 9.2 15.0 6.1 29.0 0.14 0.22 100 6 65 166 62 8.5 310 21.0 9.1 310 2.0 90 37.6 9.4 9.2 15.2 6.1 29.0 0.09 0.25 99 6 65 168 65 8.7 300 21.5 9.1 300 0.45 3200 36.8 9.4 9.2 15.2 5.3 29.0 0.03 0.29 98 3 44 160 41 8.5 300 21.0 8.8 300 4.0 0.02 37.2 9.6 9.2Z 15.2 7.3 29.0 0.02 0.28 100 4 43 164 40 8.3 305 22.5 9.3 305 0.40 2000 37.2 10.1 7.6 15.2 0.9 29.0 0.06 0.18 100 6 58 168 47 8.6 310 21.5 8.5 300 2.8 0.1 37.6 9.8 7.6 15.5 7.7 29.0 0.03 0.22 100 5 56 174 49 8.5 310 21.0-22.5 8.5-9.3 300-310 0.40-0.45 2.0-4.0 0. 02-3200 36.8-37.6 9.1-10.1 7.6-9.2 15.0-15.5 0.9-7.7 z£ 0 0.02-0.14 0.18-0.29 98-100 3-6 43-65 160-1 74 40-65 8.3-8.7 300-310 21A~9.0 302 0. 42 2.9 1132 37.3 9.6 8.7 15.2 5.6 29.0.0.06 0.24 99 5 55 167 51 8.5 306 0.6 0.3 4 0.03 1.0 1328 0.3 0.4 0.8 0.2 2.4 0.0 0.05 0.04 0.8 1 10.5 0.1 5 0 Si 0 S TABLE LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR :JULY 1979 Dates: Field 7-31-79 Laboratory 8-2-79 Parameters Station No. 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Fietd Measurements:

Temperature (0C) 25.0 24.5 25.0 24.0 25.0 25.0 24.0-25.0 24.8 0.4 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 7.9 6.6 8.6 7.6 8.8 8.8 6.6-8.8 8.1 0.9 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 275 280 265 275 280 275 265-280 275 5 Transparency (m) 0.80 0.85 0.85 0.80-0.85 0.83 0.03 Depth (m) 1.5 4.3 3.2 1.5-4.3 3.0 1.4 cn Solar radiation (Ft-candles) 1900 150 1300 10 4200 20 10-4200 1263 1636 Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i) 32.0 37.2 37.2 36.0 33.2 33.6 32.0-37.2 34.9 2.2 Magnesium (rmg/i) 13.9 10.1 10.3 9.6 12.0 12.2 9.6-13.9 11.4 1.6 Sodium (mgg/i) 8.0 7.6 7.6 8.0 8.0 8.0 7.6-8.0 7.9 0.2 Chloride (mrg/i) 15.0 12.5 13.0 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5-15.0 13.0 1.0 Nitrate (mgr/!) 10.7 6.8 8.5 7.7 8.9 9.3 6.8-10.7 8.7 1.3 Sulfate (mg/i) 30.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0-30.0 28.3 0.8 Phosphorus (mg/I) 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.11-0.12 0.12 0.01 Silica (mg/i) 1.03 0.57 0.65 0.45 0.48 0.65 0.45-1.03 0.64 0.21 Total Alkalinity (mg/i) 93 96 97 955 94 95 93-97 95 1.4 S.O.D. (mg/i) 1 3 2 2 2 3 1-3 2.5 1 S.4spended Solids (mg/i) 46 12 14 10 24 16 10-46 20 13 Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 228 240 196 174 182 182 174-240 200 7j-Turbidity (F.T.U.) 70 54 57 52 35 34 34-70 50 14 pH 8.0 8.2 8.1 8.4 8.5 8.5 8.0-8.5 8.3 0.2 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 230 240 240 230 230 235 230-240 234 5 TABLE 67 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR AUGUST 1979 Dates: Field 8-29-79 Laboratory 8-30-79 Parameters Station No, 1 Station No. 8 1 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature (0C) 21.0 21.0 22.0 21.5 22.0 21.5 21.0-22.0 21.5 0.5 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 7.8 7.9 8.5 8;3 8.1 8.1 7.8-8.5 8.1 0.3 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 245 250 250 250 260 260 245-260 253 6 Transparency (m) 0.50 0.50 0.45 0.45-0.50 0.48 0.03 Depth (m) 1.0 4.0 2.3 1.0-4.0 2.4 1.5 Solar radiation (ft-candles) 2700 1200 2100 16 3000 29 16-3000 513 1077 Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i) 33.2 32.8 32.8 32.0 33.2 33.2 32.0-33.2 32.9 0.5 Magnesium (mg/i) 7.4 7.4 7.2 7.7 8.4 8.4 7.2-8.4 7.8 0.5 Sodium (mg/i) 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.5 7.3 8.3 7.3-8.3 7.6 0.4 Chloride (mg/l) 11.0 11.0 10.8 10.8 12.3 12.3 10.8-12.3 11.4 0.7 Nitrate (mg/1) 2.0 2.7 2.7 2.7 3.1 3.1 2.0-3.1 2.7 0.4 Sulfate (mg/i) 28.5 28.5 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.5 28.0-28.5 28.3 0.3 Phosphorus (mg/i) 0.03 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02-0.04 0.03 0.01 Silica (mg/I) 0.11 0.16 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.02 0.02-0.16 0.08 0.06 Total Alkalinity (mg/i) 97 96 91 96 93 93 91-97 94 2 B.OD. (mg/i) 2 2 2 2 2 3 2-3 2.3 0.5 iJspended Solids (mg/I) 15 18 20 18 25 22 15-25 20 3 Dissolved Solids (mg/I) 174 184 184 184 198 194 174-198 186 9 Turbidity (F.T.U.) 13 13 14 13 18 16 13-18 14.5 2 pH 8.7 8.7 8.8 8.7 8.6 8.7 8.6-8.8 8.7 0.1 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 260 260 260 225 270 270 225-270 258 17 0 s TABLE &8 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR SEPTEMBER 1979 Dates: Field 9-27-79 Laboratory 9-28-79 Parameters Station No. 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature (0C) 18.0 18.0 18.5 18.0 18.5 18.5 18.0-18.5 18.3 0.3 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 9.1 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.3 9.0 9.0-9.3 9.1 0.1 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 283 .282 284 284 285 284 282-285 284 1 Transparency (m) 1.00 1.15 1.15 1.00-1.15 1.10 0.09 Depth (m) 1.0 3.3 2.2 1.0-3.3 2.2 1.2 Solar radlation (ft-candles) 4400 2500 3200 10 2900 40 10-4400 2175 1782 Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i) 32.4 32.8 33.6 33.2 33.2 33.2 32.4-33.6 33.1 0.4 Magnesium (mg/I) 9.1 8.9 9.4 10.1 9.8 9.8 8,19-0.10.1 9.5 0.5 Sodium (m:a/I) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 -8.0 0.0 Chloride (mg/i) 13.8 13.5 14.0 13.5 14.5 14.0 13.5-14.5 13.9 0.4 Nitrate (mrg/i) 2.40 3.06 2.00 2.40 3.40 1.70 1.70-3.40 2.5 0.6 Sulfate (mg/i) 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 28.0 -28.0 0.0 Phosphorus (mg/l) 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01-0.04 0.02 0.01 Silica (mg/I) 0.04 0,04 0.09 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.04,0,409, :: 0.73 1.60 Total Alk<alinity (mg/i) 90 91 89 90 90 91 89-91 90 1 G.O.D. (mg/i) 4 4 3 3 3 3 3-4 3.3 0.5 Suspended Solids (rmg/I) 14 15 11 11 8 12 8-15 12 2 Dissolved Solids (mg/l) 194 176 188 178 188 .176 176-194 183 8 Turbidity (F.T.U.) 10 12 10 10 10 11 10-12 10.5 0.8 pH 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.8 8.9 8.9 8.8-8.9 8.9 0.05 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 270 280 250 250 270 260 250-280 263 12-1 "- ..- .... .-.

TABLE 69 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR OCTOBER 1979 Dates: Field 1030-79.Laboratory 11-1-79 Parameters Station No. 1 Station No. 8 Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Surface Bottom Deviation Field Measurements:

Temperature

(°C) 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.5 8.0-8.5 8.1 0.2 Dissolved Oxygen (ppm) 11.3 11.4 10.2 9.5 10.3 10.4 9.5-11.4 10.5 0.7 Conductivity (umhos/cm) 320 315 350 350 330 335 315-350 333. 15 Transparency (m) 0.45 0.45 0.50 0.45-0.50 0.47 "0..f03 Depth (m) 1.0 3.5 2.8 1.0-3.5 2.4 1.3 Solar radiation (ft-candles) 2200 130 1600 0.01 1700 0.02 0.01-2200 938 1002 co L Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i) 36.8 36.4 36.4 36.8 36.0 36.0 36.0-36.8 36.4 0.4 Magnesinum (mg/il) 9.8 10.3 11.0 10.3 10.6 10.1 9.8-11.0 10.4 0.4 Sodium (mg/i) 13.5 13.5 13/5 13.5 13.5 13.5 -13.5 0.0 Chloride. (mg/l) 21.0 21.0 22.0 22.0 21.0 21.0 21.0-22.0 21.0 0.5 Nitrate (mg/i) 0.9 0.6 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.4 0.6-1.4 2.3 3.3 Sulfate (mg/i) 35.5 36.0 35.5 35.5 35.3 35.3 35.3-36.0 35.5 0.3 Phosphorus (mg/i) 0.11 0.13 0.08 0.11 0.06 0.08 0.06-0.13 0.10 0.03 Silica (mg/I) 0.18 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.07 0.04-0.18 0.07 0.06 Total Alkalinity (mg/i) .101 100 104 102 100 100 100-104 101 2 i..O.D. (mg/i) 2 2 3 2 3 3 2-3 2.5 0.5 Sispended Solids (mg/l) 42 28 15 25 41 79 15-79 38 22 Dissolved Solids (mg/i) 190 186 192 190 180 178 178-192 186 6 Turbidity (F.T.U.) 53 52 38 32 43 42 32-52 43 8 pH 8.6 8.6 8.7 8.8 8.5 8.6 8.5-8.7 8.6 0.1 Conductivicy (umhos/cm) 325 322 330 332 320 322 320-332 325 5 s 9l IL S TABLE 70 LAKE ERIE WATER QUALITY ANALYSES FOR NOVEMBER 1979 Dates: Field 11-28-79 Laboratory 11-30-79 Parameters Station No 1 Station No. 8 [Station No. 13 Range Mean Standard Surface B9ottom Surface Bottom jSurface Bottom Deviation.

Field Measurements:

Temperature (0C)Dissolved Oxygen (ppm)Conductivity (umhos/cm)

LO Transparency (m)Depth (m)Solar radiation (ft=-candles)

Laboratory Determinations:

Calcium (mg/i)Magneslumn (mg/l)Sodium (mrg/I)Chloride (mg/I)Nitrate (mg/i)Sulfate (mg/i)Phosphorus (mg/i)Silica (rmg/i)Total Alkalinity (mg/i)SO.D. (mg/i)SJspended Solids (rmg/1)Dissolved Solids (mg/I)Turbidity (F.T.U.)pH ConductiviLy (umhos/cm) 6.0 12.7 260 0.30 100 42.0 10.8 8.9 22.8 8.5 30.8 0.05 0.82 101 2 38 146 34 7.3 390 6.0 12.6 255 1.0 12 42.0 11.3 8.4 22.3 6.5 30.0 0.06 0.85 103 4 23 200 35 7.4 390 6.5 12.2 245 0.35 800 37.6 11.0 8.0 18.5 4.5 28.0 0..09 0.34 95 3 112 180 62 7.3 340 6.5 12.2 245 3.5 0.0 37.6 9.4 8.0 17.5 6.8 26.0 0.09 0.35 96 2 87 176 58 7.5 340 6.5 12.3 245 0.35 100 37.6 9.6 9.2 18.0 7.7 26.0 0.12 0.37 99 5 145 182 64 7.0 335 6.5 12.1 250 2.5 0.85 36.8 10.8 8.0 18.3 7.3 26.0 0.11 0.31 99 4 156 180 64 6.9 335 6.0-6.5 12.1-12.7 0.30-0.35 1.0-3.5 0. 0-800 36.8-42.0 9.4-11 .3 8.0-9.2 17.5-22.8 4.5-8.5 26.0-30.8 0.05-0.12 0.31-0.85 95-1 03 2-5 23-156 146-200 34-64 6.9-7.5 335-390 6.3 12.4 250 0.33 2.3 169 38.9 10.5 8.4 19.6 6.9 27.8 0.09 0.51 99 3 94 177 53 7.2 355 0.3 0.2 6 0.03 1.3 313 2.4 0.8 0.5 2.3 1.4 2.2 0.03 0.26 3 1 55 18 14 0.2 27 TABLE 71 MEAN VALUES AND RANGES FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS TESTED IN 1979 1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.13.12.13.14.15.16.17.18.19.20.Parameter Temperature Dissolved Oxygen Conductivity (field)Transparency Solar Radiation Calcium Magnesium Sodium Chliioride Nitrate Sulfate Phosphorus Silica Total Alkalinity BOD Suspended Solids Dissolved Solids Turbidity Hydrogen-ions Conductivity (lab)A0. r, I -Mean 16.1 9.5 301 0.55 1279 37.4 10.1 9.5 17.7 4.4 30.6 0.2 1.17 97 3 49 185 44 8.3 309 199 Range 6.0-25.0 6.6-12.7 245-450 0.30-1.15 0.0-5000 32.0-50.8 7.2-15.1 7.3-14.4 0 0.8-30.5.0.6-10.7 22.5-46.0 0.01-0.20 0.02-1.59 89-109 1-6 8-156 140-240 10-84 6.9-8.9 225-465 Units oc ppm umhos/cm m ft-candles mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/l mg/i mg/l mg/l mg/I mg/l mg/i mg/l mg/l F.T.U.pH umhos/cm 0-200 -

S TABLE 32 DISSOLVED OXYGEN DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (ppm) -Operational Data (ppm)Month ....Min Max Mlean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 11.8- 11.8 11.8 0.0 ---April 11.0 13.2 11.9 0.9 9.5 9,5 9.5 0.0 May 7.2 10.4 9.1 1.4 9.2 12.4 10.8 2.3 June 7.0 10.2 8.1 1.5 7.2 8.8 8.0 1.1 July 4.8 8.9 6.6 1.7 6.1 7.6 6.9 1.1 August 6.0 9.1 7.4 1.3 8,3 8.4 8.4 0.1 September 8.6 9.3 8.9 0.4 8.2 9.2 9.1 0.1 October 10.0 11.2 10.5' 0.6 9.5 11.4 10.7 1.0 November 11.0 12.1 11.5 0.6 10.2 12.2 11.5 1.1 December 11.4 14.1 12.8 1.9 ---Mean 9.9 2.1 9.4 1.6 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 11.8 1-1.8 11.8 0.0 --April 11.8 12.8 12.3 0.5 9,5 9.5 9.5.. 0 May 8.6 10.0 9.4 0.6 9.0 12.0 10.5 2.1 June 6.8 10.1 8.5 1.4 5.7 8.5 7.1 2.0 July 4.5 8.4 6.6 1.6 8.3 8.8 8.6 0.4 August 6.6 9.3 7.7 1.2 8.1 8.2 8.2- 0.1 September.

8.2 9.3 8.6 0.6 8.7 9. Z 8.6 0.4 October 10.4 11.3 11.3 0.8 10.4 1i.5 11.0 0.6 November 11.3 12.'2 11.7 0.5 4.8 12.1 9.6 4.2 December 14.1 10.2 12.2 2.76 ---Mean _10.0 2..1 9 *1 1.3-201 -

TABLE -73 HYDROGEN-IONS (pH) DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES S.INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data QH units) Operational Data '(pH units)Month _ _m_Min Max -'lean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 8.1- 8.1 8.1 0.0 --.April -7.7 8.3 .8.1 .0.3 8.1 8.1 a8.1 0.0 May 7.8 .8.4 8.2 0.3 7.7 8.0 7;.9 0.2 June ý8.0 .8.6 -8.3 0.3 8.3 8.6 8.5 0.2 July 8.1 9.Q .8.5 0.4 8.4 8.4 8.4 0.0 August .8.5 *8.9 8.8 0.2 8.7 8.7 .8.7 0.0 September 7.8 8.6 8.2 0.4 " 8.6 8.8 8.7 0.1 October 8.2 w8.9 8.6 .0.4 8.0 8.8 8.4 0.4 November .7.6 8.4 8.0 .0.4 8.0 7.8 0.3 December 8.1 8.3 8.2 0.1 ....Mean _ _ _ .3 .__ _8.3 0.3 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 7.8 7.8 7.8 0.0 ....April 7.7 *8.5 8.1 0.4 8.1 8.1 8.1 0;0 May 7.8 8.6 8.3 0,.3 7.5 8.3 7.9 0.6 June 7.8 8.6 8.3 0.4 8.5 8.6 8.6 0.1 July .8.0 8.7 *8.4 .0.4 8.1 8.5 8.3 0.3 August 8.0 8.7 8.4 .0.3 8.7 8.7 8.7 0.0 September

.8.3 8.5 .8.4 0.1 .8.5 8.9 .8.7 0.2 October -8.4 8.8 8.6 .0.2 8.0 8.6 8.2 0.3 November .7.7 .8.4 .8.0 .0.7 6.9 8.1 7.6 0.6 December 7.9 8.4 8.2 0.4 ...Mean "1 8.3 0.2

8.3 0.4-202 -

TABLE.74 TRANSPARENCY DATA FOR WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (m) Operational Data (m)Month I Min Max' Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.00 ---April 0.10 0.50 0.34 0.20 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.00 May 0.35 1.00 0.70 030 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.10 June 0.50 .0.60 0.60 0.05 0.35 0.45 0.40 0.10 July 0.40 1.10 0.70 0.30 0.75 0.85 0.80 0.10 August ý0.45 1.30 0.90 0.40 0.50 0.95 0.70 0.30 September 0.60 0.80 0.70 0.10 0.40 1.15 0.72 0.40 October .0.50 0.80ý .0.60 0.17 0.45 0.60 0.53 0.10 November 0.30 0.50 0.43 0.12 0.35 0.80 0.62 0.20 December 0.40 0.40 -0.40 0.00 -.-Mean 0.55 0.22 0.56 0.18 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.00 -...April 0.10 0.40 .-0.25 0.13 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.00 May 0.30 0.70 .0.60 0.20 0.20 0.40 0.30 0.10 June 0.30 0.50 0.50 0.10 0.30 0.40 0.35 0.10 July 0.30 0.95 0.61 0.33 0.55 0.85 0.70 0.20 August 0.50 1.00 0.77 0.25 0.45 0.70 0.58 0.20 September.

0.50 0.65 0.58 0.08 0.40 1.15 0.68 0.40 October 0.40 0.65 0.53 0.13 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 November 0.30 0.60. w0.45 0.15 0.35 0.80 0.55 0.20 December 0.40 0.45 0.43 0.04 -Mean 0_ 48 0.19 0.49 0.14-203 -

TABLE 75 TURBIDITY DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (F.T.U.) Operational Data (F.T.U.)Month .Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 145.0 145.0 145.0 0,0 ----April 12.0 105.0 46.3 42.8 67.0 67.0 67.0 0.0 May 5.5 21.0 14.9 6.7 46.0 55.0 50.5 6.4 June 10.0 53.0 26.3 18.6 40.0 57.0 48.5 12.0 July .3.0 53.0 16.9 24.2 14.0 53.0 33.0 26.9 August 2.0 23.0 10.5 9.0 13.0 18A0 15.5 3.5 September 5.0 10.0 9.3 4.0 10.0 27.0 18.3 8.5 October 7.0 18.0 11.7 5.7 13.0 32.0 20.7 10.0 November 13.0 36.0 21.7 12.5 8.0 58.0 26.0 27.8 December 16.0 47.0 31.5 21.9 --Mean _33.4 1_40.8 34.9 18.5 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 148.0 148.0 148.0 0.0 ....April 18.0 110.0 54.5 42.7 75.0 75.0 75.0 0.0 May 8.5 28.0 17.9 8.0 52.0 75.0 63.5 16.3 June 7.0 25.0 17.5 8.2 49.0 54.0 51.5 3.5 July 4.5 45.0 19.4 18.6 15.0 34.0 24.5 13.4 August 2.0 24.0 12.3 .9.5 16.0 17.0 16.5 0.7 September 4.0 16.0 10.0 6.0 11.0 47.0 28.7 18.0 October -9.0 22.0 13.7 7.2 7.0 42.0 23.3 17.6 November 13.0 33.0 19.7 11.6 8.0 64.0 28.0 31.2 December 21.0 54.0 37.5 23.3 --Mean 35.1 41.9 11 38.9 21.5-204 -

TABLE -46 SUSPENDED SOLIDS DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/I) Operational Data (mg/i)Month" Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 148.0 148.0 148.0 0.0 -..April 13.0 80.0 46.8 36.7 50.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 May 10.0 26.0 16.3 7.1 50.0 86.0 68.0 25.5 June 9.0 60.0 30.3 25.1 43.0 63.0 53.0 14.1 July 1.0 33.0 21.3 14.0 10.0 14.0 12.0 2.8 August 8.0 19.0 12.5 5.5 11.0 18.0 14.5 5.0 September 6.0 15.0 10.0 *4.6 11.0 37.0 26.0 13.5 October 9.0 14.0 12.0 2.7 18.0 27.0 23.3 4.7 November 11.0 28.0 20.7 8.7 32.0 87.0 68.7 31.8 December 17.0 21.0 19.0 2,8 --Mean 33.7 41.6 39.4 23.3 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 170.0 170.0 170.0 0.0 --April 15.0 101.0 58.5 41.9 59.0 59.0 59.0 0.0 May 17.0 34.0 22.8 7.6 49.0 89.0 69.0 28.3 June 7.0 67.0 35.0 29.5 44.0 56.0 50.0 8.5 July .3.0 52.0 28.5 21.0 16.0 18.0 17.0 1.4 August .8.0 24.0 16.3 7.9 12.0 22.0 17.0 7.1 September.

10.0 27.0 17.0 8.9 12.0 104.0 47..3 49.6 October 10.0 26.0 18.0 .8.0 13.0 79.0 40.7 34.3 November 19.0 34.0 25.3 7.8 27.0 156.0 74.3 71.0 December 23.0 23.0 23.0 0.0 ----Mean 40.4 47.5 46.8 21J5-205 -

TABLE 77 CONDUCTIVITY DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE-(STA.

NO. 8)1 Pre-Operational Data (pmhos/cm)

Operational Data (jmhos/cm)

Month Min Max'Mean Std Dev 1 i Min Max 1.4

4 -*4 f March April May June July August September October November December Mpan 410.0 287.0 280.0 285.0 260.0 233.0 217.0 233.0 230.0 283.0 410.0 340.0 365.0 310.0 305.0 285.0 267.0 298.0 300.0 297.0 410.0 314.5 310.8 292.8 280.0 253.8 246.3 272.0 262.7 290.0 293.3 0.0 27.9 39.0 11.7 22.9 22.1 26.1 34.4 35.2 9.9 46.8 410.0 290.0 295.0 275.0 250.0 222.0 265.0 245.0 410.0 320.0 300.0 300.0 295.0 284.0 350.0 320.0 Mean 410.0 305.0 297.5 287.5 272.5 262'. 0 316.7 278.3 Std Dev 0.0 21.2 3.5 17.7 31.8 34.7 45.4 38.2 46.5 1 303.7 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 392.0 392.0 392.0 0.0 ---April 272.0 360.0 312.8 43.9 435.0 435.0 435.0 0.0 May 270.0 365.0 312.5 42.3 285.0 320.0 302.5 24.8 June 286.0 340.0 309.8 24.9 300.0 303.0 301.5 2.1 July 220.0 300.0 268.5 34.2 275.0 300.0 287.5 17.7 August 245.0 280.0 262.8 17.3 260.0 295.0 277.5 24.8 September 215.0 264.0 244.7 26.1 230.0 315.0 276.3 43.0 October 238.0 324.0 280.7 43.0 265.0. 335.0 310.7 39.6 November 230.0 306.0 268.0 38.0 25,0.0 330.0 283.3 41.6 December 285.0 3QO.O 292.5 10.6 ---Mean 296.2 39.4 309.3 52.3-.206 -

.TABLE 78 DISSOLVED SOLIDS DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES I" INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/I) Operational Data (mg/l)Month Min Max' 'Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 318.0 318.0 318.0 0.0 ..- -April 158.Q 284-.0 206.0 55.3 140.0 140.0 140.0 0.0 May 124.Q 230.0 178.0 47.2 186.0 236.0 211.0 35.4 June 89.0 178.0 131.3 45.3 164.0 180.0 172.0 11.3 July 136.0 180.0 164.5 20.8 174.0 174.0 .174.0 0.0 August 152.0 226.0 171.5 36.4 174.0 184.0 179.0 7.1 September 128.0 214.0 166.0 43.9 146.0 .180.0 168.0 19.1 October 158.0 186.0 170.7 14.2 146.0 190.0 164.0 23.1 November 140.0 174.0 156.0 17.1. 158.0 184.0 172.7 13.3 December 140.0 160.0 150.0 14.1 --Mean _ 181.2 51.8 172.6 19.5 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March A 310.0 310.0 310.0 0.0 --April 182.0 396.0 244.0 102.4 150.0 150.0 150.0 0.0 May 116.0 232.0 176.0 51.3 192.0 224.0 208.0 22.6 June 90.0 194.0 137.0 51.1 174.0 .194.0 196.0 20.7 July 136.0 190.0 164.0 27.0 160.0 182.0 171.0 15.6 August .150.0 228.0 170.0 38.7 178.0 194.0 186.0 11.3 September 140.0 170.0 153.3 15.3 158.0 196.0 176.7 19.0 October 176.Q 194.0 182.0 10.4 152.0 178.0 163.3 13.3 November 142.0 184.0 158.0 22.7 162.0 192.0 178.0 15.1 December 148.0 164.0 156.0 -1.3 .-_Mean .. .. ... 185.0 52.4 178.5 18.3 207 -

TABLE CALCIUM DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)M Pre-Operational Data (mg/i) Operational Data (mg/l)Month Min Max Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 50.8 50.8 50.8 0.0 ---April 32.8 46.4 40.6 6.1 46.4 46.4 46.4 0.0 May 34.0 40.0 37.0 2.6 36.0 38.4 V.2 1.7 June 34.0 38.0 34.9 1.8 36.8 37.2 37.0 0.3 July 32.0 34P4 336.- J1.1 36.0 36.0 36.0 0.0 August 2g.2 39.2 32.8 4.3 32.0 35i6 33.8 2.5 September 32.0 36.0 33.9 2.0 30.4 34.8 32.8 2.2 October 31.6 37.2 33.9 -3.0 32.4 36.8 34.0 2.4 November .31.2 37.6 34.9 .3.3 32.8 37.6 35.7 2.6 December .31.2 34.0 32.6 2.0 ---Mean 36.5 5.6 6__ 4.3 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 50.4 50.4 50.4 0.0 ....April `33.6 50.4 41.7 7.0 50.0 50.0 0.0 May 34.0 41.6 37.4 -3.5 36.0 36.0 36.0 0.0 June 34.0 38.4 35.9 1.9 36.8 37.6. 37.2 0.6 July 32.0 36.4 34.1 1.9 33.6 38..8 36.2 3.7 August 29.6 40.4 33.6 4.7 33.2 35.6, 34.4 1.7 September.

32.Q 36.0 33.3 2.3 31.2 33.2 32.1 1.0 October. 32.0 41.2 34.2 3.9 32.8 36.0 34.1 1.7 November 31.2 34.8 33.2 1.8 32.8 38.8 36.1 3.1 December 31.2 35.2 33.2 2.8 ----Mean 36.7 5.5 37.0, 5.5 I-208 -

TABLE 80 CHLORIDE DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE (STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/l)Operational Month I t -~4- 1 Min Max Mean Std Dev Mi n Max Data (mg/l)Mean Std Dev H- *-~-------------.4 1 .1.1- 4 4-March April May June July August September.

October November December Mean 22.0 18.0 18.0 15.5 16.0 13.5 16.0 15.8 13.0 15.0 22.0 26.8?0.0 20.3 19.5 18.3 17.2 18.8 16.5 15.8 22.0 20.6 18.7 17.9 18.0 16.1 16.7 17.4 14.7 15.4 17.8 0.0-4.2 1.0.2.3 1.8.2.0.0.6:1.5 1.8 0.6 2.3 26.0 20.0 15.2 12.5 10.8 13.5 14.3 15.0 26.0 21.0 20.5 23.0 19.5 17.5 22.0 20.0 26.0 20.5 17.9 17.8 15.2 15.8 19.4 17.5 18.8 0.0 0.7.3.7 7.4 6.2 2.1 4.4 2.5 3.4 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 22.0 22.0 22.0 0.0 -, --_April 18.0 26.5 20.8 3.9 27.-3 27.3 27.3 0.0 May 17.6 20.0 18.9 1.3 *17.8 21.0 19.4 2.3 June 16.3 22.5 18.8 2.9 15.5 .20.5 18.0 3.5 July .16.8 20.0 18.2 1.7 12.5 22.0 17.3 6.7 August 13.5 18.3 16.1 2.0 12.3 19.0 15.7 4.7 September 14.5 17.2 15.9 1.4 14-.0' 19.5 16.7 2.8 October* 16.8 21.0 18.4 2.3 15.8 21.0 19.3 3.0 November 13.0 16.0 14.7 ..1.5 17.3 21.5 19.0 2.2 December 15.0 16.3 15.7 0.9 -...Mean _ _,18.0 2.4 _ 19.1. 3.6 209 -

TABLE-81x SULFATE DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES

.INTAKE.-(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (.mg/i) Operational Data (mg/i)Month Min Max .ean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 10.5 10.5 10.5 0.0 ----Aprijl 24.0 37.0 30.8 6.0 44.0 44.0 44.0 0.0 May 25.0 30.0 28.3 2.2 22.5 26.0 24.3 2.5 June 21.0 30.5 26.4 4.3 29.0 33.5 31.3 3.2 July 20.5 26.5 24.0 2.6 23.5 28.0 25.8 3.2 August 18.5 23.0 20.6- .1.9 28.0 28.0 28.0 0.0 September.

20.0 22.5 21.0 1.3 20.5 28.0 23.5. 4.0 October 22.*0 28.0 25.7 3.2 18.0 35.5 25.2 9.2 November 19.0 24.0 21.2. 2.6 21.5 29.0 25.5 3.8 December 21.0 28.5 24.8 5.3 'Mean 23.3 5.6 28.5 DISCHARGE: .STA. NO. 13)March 10.0 10.0 10.0 o0.0 --April 27.3 -41.5 32.5 6.7 46.0 46.0 46.0 0.0 May 28.0 31.0 29.5 1.3 22.5 26.0 24.3 2.5 June 21.0 30.5 26.5 4.1 29.0 32.5 30.8 2.5 July 19.0 26.0 23.5 3.1 23.0 28.o 25.5 3.5 August 19.5 23.5 21.5, 1.7 27.5 28.5 ý28. 0 0.7 September 17.0 .22.0 19.7 2.5 20.0 28.0 23.3 4.2 October 22.5 30.5 26.7 4.0 15 .8 35.3 23.7 10.3 November 19.0 -25.5 21.7 3.4 23.0 29.0 26.0 3.0 December 21.5 27.0 24.3 3.9 i --Mean-__7"0 23.6 1 *6.2 .28.5 7.5 I-210 -

0 TABLE 82ýSODIUM DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data(mg/l)

Operational Data (mg/i)M o nth .... ,. .Min Max -Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 10.5 10.5 10.5 0.0 --April ;9.2 .12.7 10-.8 1.5 13.2 13.2 13.2 0.0 May 10.1 12.6 11.2 .1.1 8.5 8.6 8.6 0.1 June 8.4 10.7 9.9 .1.0 9.2 9..2 9.2 0.0 July -7.0 11.9 .9.6 2.0 , 8.0 10.7 9.4 1.9 August 6.4 10.3 8.6- 1.6 7.5 10.1. 8.8 1.8 September.

9.2 10.2 -9.7 -O-I0.5 -8.0 10.5. 9.0 1.3 October 9.0 15.3 12.2 .3.2 7.6 13.5 9.7 3.3 November .7.1 10.4 .8.3 .1.8 8.0 14.8 11.3 3.4 December 8.5 9.3 8.9 0.6 i ---Mean 10.0 1.2 9.8 _.91.2 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 10.0 10.0 10.0 0.0 --April 8.9 12.4 10.7 .1.7 14.4 14.4 14.4 0.0 May 10.1 13.5 11.7 1.7 8.0 8.9 8.5 0.6 June .8.0 11.0 9.9 1.3 7.6 .9.2 8.4 1.1 July 7.0 12.1 .9.6 2.2 8.0 10.1 9.1 J-5 August 7.1 10.3 8.7 1.3 8.3 10.1 9.2 1.3 September

.8.4 10.2 9.4 0.9 8.0 10.15 9.0 1.3 October .9.Q 15.3 12.4 3.2 8.4 13.5 10.3 2.8 November 7.1 10.4 8.4 1.8 8.0 14.8 11.3 3.4 December 10.0 10.7 10.4 0.5 Mean 10.1 1.2 10.0 2.0-211 -

TABLE -'83 MAGNESIUM DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES.INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Month Pre-Operational MMin Max I Data (mg/l I Operational Data (mg/l)* lean *Std bey Min 14 -------------

~-+ ___________

-1 4 I I March Apri.1 May June July August September.

October November December Mean 11.3-.5.8 7.1..7.9 8.2.5.5.6.5.7.20:5.0.5.3 11.3ý8.4 10.6 10.3 9.4.7.7-7.7* 8.90-7.7:8.4.11.3.7.2.9.1.8.9 9.0.6.8.7.1.7.8-3.6.7-56.9-8.1 0.0.1.1 1.2.1.2.0.5.0..9 0.6.93.1.5 2.2 1.5 13.4 8.2 9.6 9.6 7.7 7.0 7.2 8.2 Max 13.4 8.6 9.6 11.0 9.8 10.1 10.3 9.8 Mean 13..4 8.4 9.6 10.3 8.8 8.4 8.5 9.1 Std Dev 0.0 0.3 0.0 1.0 1.5 1.6 1.6 0.8 1-7 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13) -'March 11.5 5 11 1i.5 0.0----5.8 9.1 7.1 "-1.5 13.4 13.4 13.4 0.0 May .7.7 10.3 .9.0. .1.1 8.6 .8.6 -8.-6 0.0 June .7.7 " 9_6 8.5 0..8 9.8 10.1 10.0 0.2 July 8.9 .9.4 9.2 .0.2 '11.5 .12.2 .11.9 0.5 August 5.3 7.2 '6.7 1.0 8.4 9.6 9.0 .0.8 September 6.7 .7.7. -7.4 .0.6 .7.7 9.8 8.91 1.1 October .7.9a. .8.2 .8.0 -0.2 8.2 10,.1 8.9 1.0 November .7.2 8.6 7.8 '0.7 1 8.2 10.8 9.5 1.3 December 7"4 7.9 77 0.4. ----Mean ..8.3 .1.4 ._ 10.0 1.7-212 -

TABLE 84 TOTAL ALKALINITY DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE .(STA. NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/i) Operational Data (mg/i)Month oMin Max I-lean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 110.0 110.0 110.0 0.0 ----April 88.0 101.0 94.5 5.3 104.0 104.0 104.0 0.0 I May 92.0 101.0 95.0 4.1 89.0 89.0 89..0 0.0 June 91.0 97.0 94.3 3.2 89.,0 100.0 94.5 7.8 July 86.0 92.0 88.8 2.5 95.0 100.0 9.7.5 3.5 August 84.0 92.0 87.5- 3.7 96.0. 96.0 96.0 0.0 September.

89.0 104.0 95.7. 7.6 86.0 95.0 90.3 4.5 October 90.0 97.0 93.7- .3.5 92.0 102.0 96.7 5.0 November 87.0 94.0 90.3. 3.5 90.0 *100..0 95..3 5.0 December .87.0 93.0 90.0 4.2 -. 6 9 -Mean ___ __94.0 6.3 _ ___ ___ 96.0' 4.DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 110.0 110.0 110.0 0.0 -.. .April 87.0 98.0 94.8 5.3 107,0 107.0 107.0 0.0 May 91.0 104.0 96.5 5.8 91.0 92.0 9.1.5' 0.7 June 95.0 96.0 95.5 0.6 90.0 100.0 95.Q 7'.1 July 89.0 96.0 92.0 .2.9 95.0 100.0 97.5 3.5 August 85.0 94.0 88.3 4.0 93.0 98.0 95,.5 3.5 September 88.0 96.0 92.7 .4.2 88.0 96.0 91.7. 4.0 October 92.0 111.0 98.3 11.0 92.0 100.0 95.7 4.0 November 90.0 95.0 91.7 :2.9 92.O 99.0 95.8 3.5 December 90.0 95.0 92.5 3.5 ---Mean 95.2 '5.9 j 96.2 4.8-213 -

TABLE 1 NITRATE DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES II INTAKE .(STA.. NO. 8)I Pre-Operational Data (mg/li .. Operational Data (mg/i) -Month II_. ____MI4n Max" --lean Std Dev Min" Max. Meah ..Std.. Dev March 17.00 17.00 17.0a1 0.00. -,-April 1..99. 14.90 7.46 6.19.- 5.40 5.40 5.40 0.00 May 0.15 13.50 6.-30 .5.50 1.70 14.20 8.00 8.80 June .0.00 8.00 4.201 .4.00 7;30 8.70 8.00. 1.00 July 0.00 3,70 .3.80 -3.30 5;10 7".70 6.40 1.80 August 0.OQ .1.20 .0.40 .0.6Q 1.40 2.70 2.10 1.00 September.

0.00 2.70 " 1.0 .1.50 0.60 2.40. 1.60. 1.00 October :0.50 8.00" 3.40 4.10 0.30 1.20 0.80 0.50: 'November 1.50 2.60 1.97. .,0.57 5.10. 7.90. 6.60 1.40 December -2.40 3.60 3.00 0.85 " _Mean 4-.90 4.79 1 4.86- 2.93 DISCRARGE' (STA. NO. 13)March 17.00 17.00 17.00 0.00 ._ ._Apr1i .1.20.. 17.00 7.81 *7.41 6.40 6.40 6.40 0.00 May 0.15 13.50 .6.80. -.5.50 1.70- 12.00 "6.90 7.30 June 0.,00 ,7.70 .4.30 3.80 7.70 .11.50. 9.60 2.70 July .0. .00 8.40 .3.70 .3.70 4.50 9.30 6.90 3.40 August .0.00 1.20 .0.50 .0.50 2.30 3.10 2.7.0 -0.60 September 0.00 -2.70 1.20 1.40 0.30 1.70 1.20 0.80 October 0.50 .7.70 :3.13 -3.,97 O.3_ 2.00 1.20 0.90 November 0.90" .5.10 .3.00 2.10 .6.5Q .7.30 7.00 0.50 December 2.00 -3.70 2.90 1.20- ----Mean " 5.03 4.76 -5.24 3.12-214 -1, TABLE 86 PHOSPHORUS DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE.'(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/i)Operational Data (mg/l)Month 1 9 -.J4 $ I Min Max-.1 F4ean Std Dev Mi n Max U ______ -+/- .Z-~ -*March April May June July August September October November December Mean 0.28 0.,06 0.02.0.01 0.00ý0.02 0.01 0.28 0.12-0.27 0.04:0.0,7.0.06 0.05:0.05.0.03.0.07 0.28 0.09.-,0.09-0.03 0.04.0.04.:0.02..0.02.0.02ý0.04 0.07 0.00 0.03.0.12 0.02.0.02.0.02:0.03.0.02.0.01 0.04 0.08 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02.0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.04 0.12 0.02 0.04 0.11 0.09 Mean 0.02 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.05 Std Dev 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.04 0.04 0.02 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 0.26 0.26 .0.26 0.00 ---Apri1 0.02 0.10 0.06 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 May 0.02 .0.44 0.13 0.21 0.01 0.08 0.05 0.05 June :0.01 .0.05 .0.04 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.01.July .0.03 0.09 0.06 0.03 0.02 0.12 0.07 o.07 August 0.01 .0.06 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 September

.0.00 0.07 0.03 .0.04 0.02 0.07 0.0 0.03 October 0.00 0.06 0.03 -0.03 0.03 0.08 0.0 0.04 November .0.02 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.0 0.05 December .0.02 0.06 0.04 0:03 ---Mean 0.07 0.07 A 0.05 0.02 t 1.-215 " I TABLE 87 SILICA DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/i) Operational Data (mg/i)Month I I Min Max -Mean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March ........April 0.10 3.09 0.96 1.43 0.83 0.83 0.83 0.00 May 0.00 0.23 0.10 0.10 0.07 1.36 0.72 0.91 June 0.17 0.74 0.47 0.28 0.28 0.55- 0.42. 0.19 July 0.40 1.20 0.77 0.36 0.44 0.45 0.45 0.01 August 0.11 0.38 0.27 0.17 0.04 0.23 0.14 0.13 September.

0.06 0.71 0.32 0.34 0.09 0.28 0.16 0.11 October 0.06 0.19 0.12 0.07 0.04 0.13 0.07 :0.05 November 0.03 0.12 0.09 .0.05 0.07 0.59 0.34 0.26 December .0.19 0.24 0.22 0.04 ----Mean ....__ ,0.37 0.31 .0.39 0.27 DISCHARGE (STA. O. 13) -March ApriI May June July August September October November December Mean 0.06.0.0 0.16 0.33 0.10 0.06.0.09 0.03 0.16:3.50 0.29 0.78 0.91-0.44 0.59 0.19.0.16 0.98 0.13 0.46 0.57 0.27 0.28 0.13 0.10 0.21 0.35 1.68 0.12.0.26 0.25 0.18 0.28 0.06 0.07 0.07 0 28 1.29 0.07 0.22 0.47 0.02 0.07 0.07 0.11 1.29'1.41 0.62 0.65 0.19 0.36 0.10 0.64 1.29 0.74 0.42 0.56 0.11 0.22 0.09 0.35 0.47 0.00 0.95 0.28 0.13 0.12 0.15 0.02 0,27 0.40 l I F v B I E I B 0-216 -

TABLE 88 BIOCHEMICAL OXYGEN DEMAND DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES I-INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (mg/i) Operational Data (mg/i)Month __" Min Max' .1:ean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 .- -Apri.l .0.92 4.00 2.70 1.30 4.0 4.0 4.Q 0.0 May 0.50 3.0 :1.40 1,10 4.0 2.0 3.0 1.4 June 1.00 .3.10 2.00 1.20 4.0 3.0. 3.5 0,7 July 2.00 .4.00 .3.00 .1.00 2.0 3.0 2.5 0.7 August 3.00 .3.00 .3.00 0.00 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 September.

2.00 3.00 .2.33 .0.58 1.0 3.0 2.3 1.2 October .2.00 .3.00 2.233 .0.58 2.0 4.0 2.7 1.2 November 1.00 2.00 1.70 .0.60 2.0 2.0 2.0 0,0 December .1.00 .2.00 1.50 0.71 ----Mean " 2._30 0.63 2.8 0.7 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March 3.00 3.00 3.00 0.00 ... ..April 2.00 4.50 3.40 .1.10 440 4.0 4.0 0.0 May 0.60 4.00 .2.4D0 -1.50 2.0 3.0 2.5 0.7 June 1.0.0 0 00 2.10 0.90 3.0 5.0 4.0 1.4 July .1.00 3.00 2.30 -1.20 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 August 2.00 4.00 .3.00 0.80 2.0 3.0 2.5 0.7 September 2.00 3.00 22.67 0.58 20 4.0 3.0 1.0 October ý2.00 4.00 3.00 1.00 3.0 4.0 3.7 0.6 November .2.00 3.00 2.30 .0.60 1.0 4.0 2.3 1.5 December .1.00 2.00 J1.50 0.71. -Mean .2.57 0.56 .. 13.13 0-.7-217 -

TABLE 89 TEMPERATURE DATA FOR BOTTOM WATER IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES.INTAKE.(STA.

NO. 8)Pre-Operational Data (0 c) .. Operational Data (°C)Month I Mmin Max' -'ean Std Dev Min Max Mean Std Dev March -----April 6.0 10.0 .7.7 1.7 10.0 1O0.O 10.0 0.0 May 14.0 20.0 15.8 2.8 10.4 17.8 14.1 5.2 June 18.0 21.5 20.0 1.5 21.0 24.2. 22..6 2.3 July 22.0 24.0 22.6 1.0 24.0 24,0 24.0 0.0 August 22.0 24.2 23.1 .1.2 21.5 23.0 22.3 1.1 September.

18.0 20.5 19.3 .1.3 18.0 21.7, 19.8 1.9 October 9.01 13.0 11.2 2.0 8.0 11.2 9.5 1.6 November 5.0 10.0 8.2 2.8 4.0 10.2 6.9 3.1 December .-Mean " 16.0 6.3 16.2 6.8 DISCHARGE (STA. NO. 13)March ..... _ -_April 7.5 10.0 .8.6 1.1 10.5 10.5 10.5 0.0 May 14.0 20.0 15.8 .2.8 10.4 18.0 -14.2 5.4 June 19.0 21.0 20.2 1.1 21.5 24.7 23.1 2.3 July 22.0 24.1 22.9 0.9 23.5 25.0 24.,3 1.1 August 21.5 24.5 23.0 1.5 21.5 23,0, 22.3 1.1 September 18.0 20.5 19.2 1.3 18.5 22.1 19.9 1.9 October .8.5 13.0 11.0 2.3 8:.&5 11.5 9.9 1.5 November 5.0 10.5 .7.9 2.8 4.0 10.1 6.9 3.1 December.

Mean 16.1 -6.2 .16.4 6.8-218 -

0 TABLE 90 LOCUST POINT PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY (mgC/m 3/hr)FOR 1979 FIELD SEASON DATE DEPTH (meters)STATION 3 8 13 14 1~ + f _______ --25 June 24 August 12 October 0.5 1.0 2.0 3.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 0.5 1.0 2.0 101.0 37.0 3.1 138.0 137.0 25.0 82.0 20.0 4.5 125.0 89.0 0.5 185.0 106.0 13.0 80.0 37.0 9.8 172.0 47.0 1.6 165.0 92.0 9.2 87.0 40.0 7.6 167.0 62.0 1.5 153.0 84.0 11.0 84.0 30.0 7.0.1~-219 -

TABLE 91 1979 RATIOS OF PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY AT STATIONS 8, 13, AND 14 TO PRODUCTIVITY AT STATION 3 (MEAN OF 0.5-METER AND 1-METER DEPTHS)DATE STATION 13 14'25 June 0.89 0.92 0.96 24 August 1.06 0.93 0.86 12 October 1.16 1.25 1.12 Mean of All Cruises 1.04 + 0.14 1.03 + 0.19 0.98 + 0.13-22Q. -

I-TABLE 92 1979 RATIOS OF PRIMARY PRODUCTIVITY AT STATION 13 TO PRODUCTIVITY AT STATION 14 DATE DEPTH RATIO OF STATION 13 (METERS) PRODUCTIVITY TO STATION 14 PRODUCTIVITY 25 June 0.5 1.03 1.0 0.76 24 August 0.5 1.08 1.0 1.10 12 October 0.5 1.04 1.0 1.33 Mean of all dates and both 0.5-meter and 1-meter depths: 1.06 + 0.18 mq--221 -

TABLE 93

SUMMARY

OF 1979 ILLUMINATION VS. DEPTH PROFILES AT LOCUST POINT (ILLUMINATION IS GIVEN IN FOOT-CANDLES)

.1 DATE DEPTH .STATION (meters) 3 8 13 14 25 June surface 3000.00 500.00 1000.00 4000.00 0.5 450.00 150.00 350.00 500.00 1.0 60.00 50.00 55.00 90.00 1.5 15.00 13.00 5.00 30.00 2.0 2.00 4.00 1.00 5.50 2.5 0.20 0.50 0.90 3.0 0.25 0.35 24 August surface 1500.00 2700.00 4100.00 4400.00 0.5 610.00 1200.00 1400.00 1500.00 1.0 280.00 340.00 360.00 410.00 1.5 75.00 170.00 93.00 200.00 2.0 34.00 64.00 33.00 65.00 2.5 11.00 25.00 12.00 33.00 12 October surface 800.00 450.00 800.00 750.00 0.5 250.00 220.00 350.00 310.00 1.0 73.00 100.00 110.00 140.00 1.5 19.00 30.00 33.00 50.00 2.0 6.50 11.00 15.00 20.00 2.5 4.70 6.00 7.60 3.0 1.80 2.70 3.60-222 -

I-TABLE 94

SUMMARY

OF 1979 SECCHI DEPTHS (IN METERS) AT LOCUST POINT DATE STATION 3 8 13 14 25 June 0.30 0.25 0.25 0.20 24 August 0.65 0.60 0.50 0.50 12 October 0.50 0.80 0.80 0.80-223 -

TABLE 95 OPERATIONAL WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS FALLING OUTSIDE OF THE RANGE OF PRE-OPERATIONAL VALUES AT STATION 13 I.Nearest Number of Standard Deviation Units Outside the Pre-operational Range PARAMETER MONTH Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Sum of Difference Dissolved Oxygen -5 +1 0 0 0 0 0 7 Hydrogen-ions(pH) 0 0 0 0 0 +2 -1 0 + .1 Transparency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 Turbidity 0 +4 +3 0 0 +2 0 0 + 9 Suspended Solids 0 +5 0 0 0 +2 +2, +5 +14 Conductivity

+2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 + 2 Dissolved Solids 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 0 -1 Calcium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +1 +71 Chloride 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +2 + 2 Sulfate +1 -3 0 0 +3 +1, 0 0 +'2 Sodium +1 -1 0 0 0 0 0 +1 + I Magnesium

+3 0 +1 +13 +2 +2 +4 +1 +26 Total Alkalinity

+2 0 '0 +1 0 0 0 0 + 3 Nitrate 0 0 +1 0 +3 0 0 +1 + 5 Phosphorus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 +3 + 3 Silica 0 +4 0 0 0 0 0 +3 + 7 Biochemical Oxygen Demand 0 0 +1 0 0 0 0 0 + 1 Temperature 0 0 +2 0 0 0 0 0 + 2 dc..

TABLE 96 MEAN WATER QUALITY VALUES FOR PRE-OPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL PERIODS IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE INTAKE AND DISCHARGE STRUCTURES IT'PRE-OPERATIONAL OPERATIONAL PERCENT CHANGE PARAMETER UNITS Sta. 8 Sta. 13 Sta. 8 Sta. 13 Sta. 8 Sta. 13 Dissolved Oxygen ppm 9.9 10.0 9.4 9.1 -5.1 -9.0 Hydrogen-ions pH 8.3 8.3 8.3 8.3 0.0 0.0 Transparency m 0.55 0.48 0.56 0.49 +1.8 +2.1 Turbidity F.T.U. 33.4 35.1 34.9 38.9 +4.5 +10.8 Suspended Solids mg/l 33.7 40.4 39.4 46.8 +17.0 +15.8 Conductivity pmhos/cm 293.3 296.2 303.7 309.3 +3.5 +4.4 Dissolved Solids mg/l 181.2 185.0 172.6 178.5 -4.7 -3.5 Calcium mg/l 36.5 36.7 36.6 37.0 +0.3 +0.8 Chloride mg/l 17.8 18.0 18.8 19.1 +5.6 +6.1 Sulfate mg/l 23.3 23.6 28.5 28.5 +22.3 +20.8 Sodium mg/I 10.0 10.1 9.8 10.0 -2.0 -1.0 Magnesium mg/i 8.1 8.3 9.6 10.0 +18.5 +20.15 Total Alkalinity mg/l 94.0 95.2 96.0 96.2 +2.1 +1.1 Nitrate mg/l 4.90 5.03 4.86 5.24 -0.8 +4.2 Phosphorus mg/i 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.05 -42.9 -28.6 Silica mg/i 0.37 0.35 0.39 0.47 +5.4 +34.3 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) mg/i 2.30 2.57 2.80 3.13 +21.7 +21.8 Temperature C 0 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.4 +1.3 +1.9 FT " '

FIGURES 0-226 -

ML11227A196

Text

2.1.1 General

2.2 SENSORY

2.3 SIGNAL

2.5 SYSTEM

2.6 ANCILLARY

2.7 ELECTRICAL

4.0 REFERENCES

1.0 SYSTEM

1.1 SYSTEM

1.2 DESIGN

1.2.4 Surveillance

1.2.7 Quality

1.2.9 Environmental

2.0 SYSTEM

2.1 DESIGN

2.1.1 General

2.1.2 discusses

2.7 ELECTRICAL

3.0 SYSTEM

3.1 Section

4.0 REFERENCES

4.1 DESIGN

4.4.2 Regulatory

Dear Sir or Madam:

Dear Mr. Pervical:

Subject:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Dear Lake Erie Basin Water Withdrawer:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

SUBJECT:

Enclosure:

Subject:

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

SUMMARY

Navigation menu

Search