ML071430540

Responses 52 - 56, to Master List for Audit Needs of NRC Request for Additional Information Re License Renewal Application

ML071430540
Person / Time
Site:	Wolf Creek
Issue date:	05/09/2007
From:	Wolf Creek
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ET 07-0017
Download: ML071430540 (624)

Text

52. A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known. Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).-Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.* More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Request 106 Please provide a map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Maps and well descriptions can be obtained from the Kansas Geological Survey web site: http://www.kgs.ku.edu/kgs.html Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.The other 20% is from ground water, primarily from the Ozark Plateau aquifer. In the southeastern part of the basin in Cherokee and Crawford Counties water users withdraw from the Ozark aquifer. Various locations exist through out Coffey County and the Neosho River Basin where wells are used to withdraw water from the alluvial aquifers.Alluvial aquifers are not a significant source of ground water in the basin as the output is low.Uses of ground water range from domestic use, livestock watering to public water supplies.

Reference:

Neosho Rive basin Plan updated 11/04 Ground-Water levels in Kansas, A briefing to the Kansas Legislature House of Agriculture and Natural Resource Committee, January 17, 2007 Page 1 of 1 Kansas WWC5 Well Viewer I 0 Q ii'..* .J 1 1 4 1.**Overview Map Lyon;0 Legend single we" Mltliple wels Y-id (i gpm)between 0.00 and 5.00 between 5.00 and 10.00 between 10.00 and 100.00 unknown Yield County Boundary* *0* gi~ *p 0*Ky Ur f 4 GfeenweoPC 0 Wyodown;*r*IL http://drysdale.kgs.ku.edu/kgs/Wwc5/sprint-cfm 0/420 02/14/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page I of 5 Water wel I County: Coffey..,. Select location of well to view details.Hyr ology]j .. Q j Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records.Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.Viewna2e:

1112113114115116117118 Well Static Est.Water YedOhr Ato T-R-S Owner Depth Level Yield nd.eOther Action Ascend. Ascend. II Taken_Desc. Dsc. Desc.De-sc.L Ii9S, R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart, 18 ft. 13.1 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 4 Inc. well/observation/piezometer 2 NE NE SE R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart, 16.62 Monitoring MW Constructed 4_ Inc. 20 ft. well/observation/piezometer 1 SW NE SE T19s, R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart, 20 ft. 15.8 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 4 Inc. well/observation/piezometer 6 SW NE SE MASec. Coastal Mart, 20 ft. 0 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 4 Inc. well/observation/piezometer 5 SW NE SE Tl9S.R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart, 20 ft. 0 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 4! Inc. well/observation/piezometer 4ýSW NE SE T9' Former R ESe Foer 14.17 Monitoring MW Plge R14ESec. Coastal Mart 14. 6.23 ft. Plugged 4 ft. well/observation/piezometer 3 SWNESE 9138 r-19S. Former R Se Coastal Mart20.12 Monitoring MW Plugged_4 Costl3 ar ft." .8f. well/observation/piezometer I1 lge SW NE SE 9138 1i1, Former RI4E Se 19.63 4.48 ft. Monitoring MW Plugged 4 9138 ft. well/observation/piezometer 5 SW NE SE9Former 184MoirngW R E4ESec. Coastal Mart 4.45Monitoring MW Plugged F 9138 well/observation/piezomete4 SW NE SE http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 T9 Former RFome4E, Sec. 18.34 768 ft Monitoring MW Plugged 4 9138 ft. well/observation/piezometer 2 NE NE SE 9SFormer R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart 19.74 Monitoring MW Plugged_4 9138 ft. 6.2ft. well/observation/piezometer 6 SW NE SE R14E, Sec. Coastal Mart, 15 ft. 9 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 4 Inc. well/observation/piezometer 3 SW NE SE Rl4E, Sec. TRAYLOR 25.5 ft. 8 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 6_!SWSESE R14E, Sec. TRAYLOR 30 ft. 10 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 6 SWSESE T1g9S, R14E Sec. LEBO 1.Monitoring 9 IMPLEMENT well/observation/piezometer Constructed SESESE .....R14E, Sec. GRIQUI 30 ft. 25 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 9 NENWNE H Ri4E Sec. LEBO 15 ft. 5.51 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed

_9 IMPLEMENT LSESESE R14E, Sec. LEBO 15f .ftMonitoring LEO15 ft. 5.4 ft. MoioigConstructed E9 IMPLEMENT well/observation/piezometer

ýSESESE TA 9S'9R14ESec.

LEBO 15 ft. 5.26 ft. Monitoring Constructed 9 IMPLEMENT well/observation/piezometer SESESE T19S, RIM4E,Pe_.

LEBO 15 ft. 4.83 ft. Monitoring Constructed 9- IMPLEMENT well/observation/piezometer SESESE RVI4E, Sec.9 LEBO IMPLEMENT 15 ft.4.73 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructed http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort-by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 5 ISESESE II I1 R14E, Sec. LEBO 15 ft. 5.95 ft. MonitoringConstructed 9 IMPLEMENT.

well/observation/piezometer SESESE R14ESec. LEBO Mntrn IMPLEMN 15 ft. 5.13 ft. MonitoringConstructed 9 IMPLEMENT well/observation/piezometer SESESE T19SI R4,Sec. ekr 12 Meeker, 60 ft. .5 gpm. Domestic Constructed NWNW Bruce P NW ___R14ESec WOODS 35 RANCH INC 110 ft. 65 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructed SWSWSE R15E, Sec. PETRO Monitoring STP CT27 ft. 14 ft. Monitouctng 2 STOPP CNT well/observation/piezometer NWSWNW R15E, Sec. PETRO 27 ft. Monitoring Constructed 2 STOPPING well/observation/piezometer NWSWNW Ti9S, R15E, Sec. PETRO 27 ft. 14 ft Monitoring 2 SHOP CNTR well/observation/piezometer NWSWNW Ii9S.RISe27 ft. 13 ft. Monitoring Constructed 2 STOPP CNT well/observation/piezometer NWSWNW _R15E, Sec. PETRO Monitoring 2 STOPP CNT well/observation/piezometer NWSWNW RI5E, Sec. Beto, 27.5 ft 49 ft Monitoring 2 Incorporated well/observation/piezometer Plugged SW SWýNW __ __ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _ __ _ __ ___ _ _TR_19Z SISec R15ýE,,_$ec 2 SW SW Beto, Incorporated 27.5 ft.4.2 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Plugged http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 INW II 11 11 II R15E, Sec. Lybarger Oil 19 ft. 5 ft. Monitoring Constructed 3 well/observation/piezometer SE SE NE T 19_Sý, R .15ESee. Lybarger Oil 20 ft. 8 ft. MonitoringConstructed 3 well/observation/piezometer SE SE NE R15E, Sec. Lybarger Oil 21 ft 5 ft Monitoring 3 well/observation/piezometer Constructed SE SE NE R15E, Sec. Lybarger Oil 21 ft. 4 ft. Monitoring Constructed 3 well/observation/piezometer SE SE NE Ti9S, R15E, Sec. Lybarger Oil 20 ft. 12 ft. Monitoring

-3 ybreOi2f.

12.well/observation/piezometer Constructed SE SE NE R15ESec.Monitoring

!R15E, Sec. Lybarger Oil 20 ft. 15 ft. Monitouctng 3 L well/observation/piezometer Constructed SE SE NE R15E, Sec.RE CLARKSON 180 ft. 98 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructed 13 NENENE _____ __ __ __ _________R15E, Sec.31 Jesse Rogers 150 ft. 32 ft. Domestic Constructed NW SW SW __ ___ L R16E4 Sec. Feverbon, 120 ft. 80 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructed 4 Tom SE SW SW T_T19-S, RI6E, Sec. Kennert, 100 ft. 45 ft. 3 gpm. Domestic Constructed 6 Oscar SE SE SE R16E, Sec. O'BANNION 180 ft. 28 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructed 7 SWNWNW 11 11 1 11 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort-by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 TI 9S, R16E, Sec.7 SWNW 64 ft.23 ft.2 gpm.Domestic Constructed Ri6E, Sec. GLASGOW 60 ft. 0. Domestic Constructed 7 gpm.NWNWNW T19S R16E, Sec. Thimmesch, 7 K evin 120 ft. 23 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructed NW SW Kevin SW R16E. Sec. BAILEY 90 ft. 22 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructed 7 NWNWSW R16E0 Sec. 240 ft. 160 ft. 3 gpm. Domestic Constructed SESENE T19_MS R16E, Sec.I11 SESESE WALLACE 230 ft.155 ft.15 gpm.Domestic Constructed R16E, Sec. 20 220 ft. 146 ft. Public Water Supply Constructed 11 gpm.N2NWNE View page: 111I211I3_11I411I511I611I7 11 8 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page I of 5 Fwr-wel County: Coffey lDatabasej Select location of well to View details.Hydrology Query .. Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records. Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: 1 2 2113_ 11 4 11_5 11 6 II7 Well Static Est.Water Depth Ler Yield Other Action T-R-S Owner Ascend. Level Ascend. Well Use ID Taken Desc. Desc.Desc.T19S&R16E. Sec. 220 ft. 144 ft. 15 Public Water Supply Constructec 11 gpm.SWNENW R16E, Sec. COON 240 ft. 150 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructe(12 SESWSE R16E, Sec. 12 LIABLE 240 ft. 155 ft. 12 Domestic Constructec 12 gpm.SESWSW i16ESe. CITY OF 195 ft. 36 ft. Public Water Supply Constructec 14 WAVERLY gpm.SWNENE Tlg9s'R16E, Sec. 20 14 233 ft. 100 ft. gpm. Public Water Supply Constructec SESESE Ii9S_1 R16ES.15 BARTLETT 260 ft. 205 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructec SENENE R1ESec.15 Drum, Robert 12 ft. 12 ft. Domestic Plugged SE NE SE R16E, Sec. Drumm, Bob 100 ft. 11 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructec 15_SE SE NE 16 240 ft. 90 ft. 20 Domestic Constructec 16 gpm.NWNWSW http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2 .dispCountyf cnty=31 &sort by=&fpg..02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 T19S R16E Sec. Stanley, John 80 ft. 30 ft. 10 Domestic Constructec 1_6 gpm.NE NE NW Tl1P9S'140 ft. 40 ft. 10 Domestic Constructec 17 gpm.NENENE T19S.17 Pankey, Ward 100 ft. 60 ft. 2 gpm. Domestic Constructec NW SW NE R16E. Sec. SCHMIDT 80 ft. 23 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 18 SESESE 220 ft. 90 ft. 23 Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructec 20 gpm.NENENE T195.R16E, Sec. LYBARGER 23 L 8 ft. 6.12 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec 23 OIL NENENE&16E,, Sec. LYBARGER 13 ft. 6.2 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec 23 OIL NENENE Ri6,Sec. LYBARGER 14.6 ft. 5.34 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec 23 OIL NENENE!T19S, R16E, Sec. Lybargeroil 10.61 7.03 f Monitoring 23 ft. 7.03eoilwell/observation/piezometer NE NE NE R263 Sec. LYBARGER 15 ft. 8.6 ft. 0 gpm. Other. Constructe(23 OIL. Cosute NENENE R1 , Sec. LYBARGER osrce 23 Sc L 14.6 ft. 6.78 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec 23 OIL NENENE _______ _____ __________

__T195, RI 6E,_23 Sgec.LYBARGER OIL 8 ft.6.58 ft.0 gpm. Other Constructec http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 5 INENENE II 11 1 11 R16E, Sec. LYBARGE 23 L 8 ft. 6.45 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec 233 OIL NENENE T199S, R16E, Sec. LYBARGER 2 L 14.6 ft. 5.75 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructe(23 OILCosrte NENENE _____ __ __ __ ________________

R 16ES ec .10 24 PAXISON 250 ft. 163 ft. Domestic Constructec 24 gpm.SWSWSW R16E, Sec. MOCHAMER 250 ft. 145 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructec 24 NENENW Tl_19S_R16E Sec. Sidebottom, 29 Donnie 140 ft. 73 ft. I gpm. Domestic Constructec NW NW NW I R16E, Sec.29 Sidebottom, 140 ft. 73 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructec NW9 N Donnie NW NW Ri2KSe 240 ft. 160 ft. 6 gpm. Domestic Constructec 18 SWSWNW _R17E, Se9 .JAMES 38 ft. 27 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 19 NWNWSW R17E Sec, JAMES 26 ft. 18 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 19 NWNWSW R17&I ec, Donna Scott 207 ft. 123 ft. Domestic Constructec 21 NE NE NW _._R_17ESec.

21 PARKER 200 ft. 67 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructec NESESE http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 T19S, R17E, Sec.31 SENWNW 265 ft.0 ft.5 gpm.Domestic Constructec PATTERSON 218 ft. 170 ft. Domestic Constructec 32 gpm.NENESE 17,See R17E, Sec. WORLEY 260 ft. 180 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructec 33 NENWNW T2T , Sec. U.S. Army 23 Corps of 16 ft. 12 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructec NWNWNW Engineers M14E, ee. WOODS 2 RANC WNC 13.5 ft. 10.5 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 2 RANCH INC SWNWNE T2290S&I14E_ Sect COMBES 25.5 ft. 16.5 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 12 SWSWNE Ta20S_R14E, Sec.12 .COMBES 21 ft. 15 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged SENWSE T205_R,14ES.124L Sec. COMBES 15 ft. 5 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 12 NWNWSE T20S 25R4E Sec. HIGHT 96 ft. 86 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 25 NESWSW T20S, R14E, Sec. 112 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged_27 NENE R15E, Sec. SAUERESSIG 160 ft. 33 ft. 7 gpm. Domestic Constructec 6 NENESW T2OS, RI9 Sec.19 CORBIN 60 ft.13 ft.2 gpm.Domestic Constructec http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 IqFNT1,J1pl I II II T290S, RI5E, Sec. WCNOC 24 ft. 15 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 24 SWSWSW T20S R15E, Sec. WCNOC AS 20 ft. 12 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 24 AGENT SWSWSW R5,Sec.25 WCNOC 25 ft. 18 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged NENWNW T20SJ, R1 E, Sec. WCNOC 20 ft. 15 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 26 SWNWNE T20S R15E Sec. COMBES 24 ft. 5 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 33 : CNNWNW R5,Sec.34 WCNOC 25 ft. 16 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged SWNENE View page: 111I211I311I411I511I611 711 8 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page I of 5 N3M Water Well IDatabasei Hydrology]

Uuer:iL County: Coffey Select location of well to view details.Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records. Only 50 records displaved at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: 1112 113 114 115 116 17 11 S Well Static Est.Water Yield T-R-S Owner Depth Level Asend Well Use Other Action Ascend. Ascend Acend. ID Taken Desc. Desc. Desc.T20S, R16E. Sec. TOMPKINS 12 ft. 3 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 5 NWNWNW T2_2_0S R16E, Sec. 25 240 ft. 146 ft. Public Water Supply ConstructE 1_2 gpm.SESENE T290S, R16E, Sec. 197 ft. 135 ft. 30 Public Water Supply Constructc 12 gpm.NWNENE R16E, Sec. 197 ft. 136 ft. Public Water Supply Constructc 12 gpm.NWNENE R16E, Sec. WCNOC 20 ft. 14 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 24 SESENW T20S, R26E, Sec. 150 ft. 115 ft. 20 Domestic Constructc 25 gpm.NENENE T20S, R16E, Sec. SMITH 140 ft. 60 ft. 12 Domestic ConstructE 36 gpm.SESESE R17E, 230 ft. 145 ft. 12 Domestic Constructc 5 gpm.SWSWNW T205, RI7E, Sec.8 SW NW Runkle, Ed 207 ft. t 160 ft.Domestic Constructc http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fjpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 NW 11 11 II T2RSe 18 MILLER 140 ft. 80 ft. 20 Domestic Constructc 18 gpm.SESESW T2__0S, R17E. Sec.20 FEHR 210 ft. 70 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructc 20 SESENE R17E, Sec. Young, Duane 33 and Dua 50 ft. Domestic Constructc SW-S and Loretta SW SW T21SW R14E, Sec. PENDLEY 70 ft. 6 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructc 4 ISWSWSW _ __ _ _ _ _ I___ ___ ___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ____T2_S, R4,Sec.4 Macala Davis 21 ft. 18 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged NE SE NE T21S.14,Sec.19 ANDERSON 160 ft. 15 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructc NWNWNW __T21 S RESec.24 STRONG 95 ft. 18 ft. 2 gpm. Domestic Constructc 24 SESESE T21!S, R15E, 40 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged NWSESE T21iS, R15E, 24 ft. 13 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged SESE T21 S_RISE, Sec.1 KG&E 30 ft. 14 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged SESENE T2 IS, R15E, Sec. 37 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 2 NENWNE i 11 II II 11 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg...02/1 3/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of.5 R15E, Sec.2 NENE 25 ft.0 ft.0 gpm. 1lOther Plugged T21 R1 5E, Sec.RE SAUERESSIG 50 ft. 21 ft. 7 gpm. Domestic Constructc 10 NWNWSE T21IS, R15KSe 60 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 1_31 NWNWSW __RI5E, Sec.SMITH 18 ft. 7 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged SWSWNW __________

______ ___________

______iT2_1NS, R15ESec.Monitoring R15E Se.Chris Chaney 150 ft. 0 ft. Monitorin 11 well/observation/piezometer Plugged SW NE NW...2.. 70 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged rSESWSE *__RT21 S, 13 3 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged SWNESE T21S, R15E, Sec.14 Scheile, Carl Z. 40 ft. 16 ft. 30 Lawn and Garden -Constructk NENW gpm. domestic only NW __ L 1E Sec George Turner 155 ft. Heat Pump (Closed Constructc 14 Loop/Disposal)

SW SE NE T21 S.RI5ESec, Kansas Dept. of 25 ft. 15 ft. Domestic Plugged 14 Transportation NW NW RISE Sec R15E, ec. HESS 30 ft. 10 ft. 5 gpm. Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructc 16 SESESW T21i S RI5,Sec.1100 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&f pg...02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 17 SESESE BIRKBECK 28 ft.6 ft.gpm.Domestic Constructc T21 S, R15E, Sec.19 19 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructc NW SW SW 1 T21iS R15E, Sec.19 33 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructc SW SW SW T215 Se RiSE. Sec. 24 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructc 19 NC SW SW __T21lS, R1iiSe. 30 ft. 16 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructc 1215 NWNWNEJ R15E, Sec. f. f 20 Lawn and Garden -222 , 30 ft. 15 ft.: gp : d m si nyConstruct(22 gpm. domestic-only'NENWSE :__T21iS, R15E Sec. NAYLOR 38 ft. 19 ft. 6 gpm. Lawn and Garden -Constructc 22 domestic only SWSWSE T2 IS,~R15E, Sec. 30 ft. 16 ft. 25 Lawn and Garden -Constructc 22 gpm. domestic only NENESE RISE Sec. 25 ft. 14 ft. 50 Lawn and Garden -Constructc 22 gpm. domestic only NENESW T21 S 2 COOPER 60 ft. 7 ft. 10 Domestic Constructc

_22 gpm.SESWNE T2IS, R15E_,Sec.

COOPER 60 ft. 7 ft. 0 gpm. Irrigation Constructc 22 NWSESE T2IS, RIE, Sec.22 BURLINGTON UNIF 92 ft.7 ft.0 gpm.Irrigation Constructe http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 INESWNE 11 I1 I1 T215E Sec,2 RiSE. Sec. WOODS 38 ft. 15 ft. 20 Domestic Constructc 22 gpm.SWSWSW T2_I S.R15E, Sec. Clark, Lyle 36 ft. .5 gpm. Domestic Plugged 22 NW SE SW R15E SecMonitoring 225, S Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 14.7 ft. Construct 222 well/observation/piezometer NE NE SE RI 5E, Sec. Conoco Inc. 19.6 ft. 12.9 ft. Monitoring Constructc 22 well/observation/piezometer NE NE SE T21S, R15E, Sec. Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 13.6 ft. Monitoring Constructc 22 well/observation/piezometer LNE NESE lT21 lS, RI5,Sec.Mntrg Conoco Inc. 21 ft. 15 ft. MonitoringConstruct 22 well/observation/piezometer NE NE SE R 1 5 E , S e c .1 .3M n t r n 22Cooonc 206t.15.13 Monitoring Constructe 22 Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. well/observation/piezometer SWSW NW.View page: 1112113114115 116 117_ 18 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http ://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2 .dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Pagel of5*Water Wefll Hydrology Query County: Coffey Select location of well to view details.Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records. Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: l_ 2 11_3114 11_5__16 -7 8 8 Well Static Est.Water Depth Ler Yield Other Action T-R-S Owner Level Ascend. Well Use ID Taken Acn.Ascend.

Desc. Desc. Desc.T21S.R151, Sec. Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 15.6 ft. Monitoring Constructe 22 well/observation/piezometer SE SE NE T2 ThS R22E, Sec. BURLINGTON 92 ft. 7 ft. 0 gpm. Irrigation Constructe 22 NESWNE RI5E, Sec. LYON-23 COFE 270 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 233 COFFEY EL13 NWNWSW T21 S, RI5E, Sec. Monitoring 23 Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 15.8 ft. o rinConstructe NW NW well/observation/piezometer Cntut NW SW T2_1!N-RI5E, Sec.23 Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 14.4 ft. Monitoring Constructe NW NW well/observation/piezometer ISW R15E_, Sec.23 Conoco Inc. 20.6 ft. 15 ft. Monitoring Constructe SW SW well/observation/piezometer T21S, R5E Sec. COFFEE CO 5 Monitoring Constructe 24 LANDF well/observation/piezometer NENESE T2 IS RI SE Sec J.HAWKES 204 ft. 75 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructe 24 HARRIS SESW II U l 11 +' I-IF http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.di spCounty?f_cnty=31

&sort by=&f pg...02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 R15E, Sec.24 CNSENE COFFEY COUNTY 17.2 ft.0 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructe T21 S, R15E, Se2. COFFEY 6 ft. 0 ft Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer CNSENE T21S, R15E, Sec. COFFEE CO 8 Monitoring Constructe 24 LANDF well/observation/piezometer NENESE T21 S, R15E, Se2. COFFEY 21 ft. 19.9 ft. Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer SWSWNE T21 S, R15E,$ec.39.5 ft. 15.2 ft. Constructe 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer NESWNE 1T21 S R25E, Sec. COFFEY 37 ft. 34.2 ft. Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer Constructe SWSWNE _______ ___ ______ ______________

____T21 S, RI 5E, Sec. COFFEY 24 ft. 2.3 ft. Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer NESENW T21 S, R15E, Sec. COFFEY 45 ft. 9 ft. Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer SENE T21 S, R15E, Se2. COFFEY 45 ft. 7 ft. Monitoring 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer SENE T21!S, R15E. Sec. Monitoring Constructe 24 Coffey County 48 ft. well/observation/piezometer SE SE NW T21 S R 15 E, F c. Coffey County 20.5 ft. 20.4 ft. Monitoring Constructe 24 well/observation/piezometer NE SE NW T21 S RI 5E,_Sec.24 NW SE Coffey County 50ft.50.1 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructe http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortby=&f pg...02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 5 NW 11 .1 II n1 T21S~, RI5E ec. COFFEY Monitoring 2_4 COUNTY 57 ft. 0 ft. Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructe SESENW T21S, RI 5E, Sec. COFFEY Monitoringe 2CO TY 25 ft. 0 ft. Monitoucng 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer NESENW T21S, R15E, Sec. COFFEY 46 ft. 15.3 ft. Monitoring Constmcte 24 COUNTY well/observation/piezometer T21 S, RISEN R15E, Sec. Mntrn 24 Coffey County 12.2 ft. Monitoring Cntut 24 SW well/observation/piezometer Constructe NW __RI5E, Sec. Coffey County 20.1 ft. Monitoring 24 well/observation/piezometer T214, R15E, Sec. Monitoring 24 Coffey County 23.9 ft. 9 ft.. Monitrin / Plugged NW SE well/observation/piezometer NW __T21S, R15E, Sec. Coffey County 15 ft. Monitoring Constructe 24 well/observation/piezometer NE SE NW T21! S, R15E, Sec. Monitoring 24 Coffey County 14 ft. 9 ft. well/observation/piezometer Constructe NE SE NW T21 S RL5- Sec. Coffey County 33 ft. Monitoring Constructe 24 well/observation/piezometer NE SE NW T2I_ S, RI5E Sec. .24 Coffey County 14 ft. Monitoring Cntut 2NW sw well/observation/piezometer Constructe NE T2I.S.R245_E, 24_Sec_.COFFEE CO LANDF 7 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructe http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fpg...

02/I3/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 INENESE I1 II T21 S, RiSE, Sec. ROBESON 25 ft. 15 ft. 3 gpm. Domestic Constructe 26 NENENW T21S, RISE Sec RI5E, Sec. Sandra Monitoring 26 Rickabaugh 8.5 ft. 3.25 ft. well/observation/piezometer Plugged SW NW S-W T21S..R12E6Sec.

Sandra Monitoring 26 Rickabaugh 7.5 ft. 4.92 ft. well/observation/piezometer Plugged SW NW T2iS, R15E, Sec. Sandra Monitoring SWN2icaag 9 ft. 2.17 ft. Monitorin 26 Rickabaugh well/observation/piezometer Plugged SW N 1SW __ __ _ __ _ _ __ _ I _ __ I _ __ I _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _T2 IS, R15E, Sec. SMITTY'S Monitoring 26 APCO well/0bservation/piezometer SWSWNW " T21S R15E, Sec. UNITED OIL 9.5 ft. 3.02 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer NWSWSW T21 S.R1 5E, Sec. UNITED OIL 9 ft. 2.82 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer SWNWSW T21S, RI5E, Sec. UNITED OIL 8.5 ft. 2.1 ft. Monitoring Constructe 2U6 well/observation/piezometer SWNWSW RISE SecMntn R1ESec. UNITED OIL 9.5 ft. 4.27 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer SWNWSW T21_$S R15E. Sec. UNITED OIL 7.5 ft. 2.39 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer SWNWSW T26S, 26 UNITED OIL 10 ft.2.26 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructe http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fjpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 ISWNWSW II T2 IS, RI5E, Sec. UNITED OIL 9 ft. 1.59 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer NWSWSW T2 I S R5E, Sec. UNITED OIL 7.5 ft. 1.19 ft. Monitoring Constructe 26 well/observation/piezometer SWNWSW T2_11 S, RI 5E, Sec. SMITTY'S 11 f 9.62 f Monitoring Constructe 26 APCO well/observation/piezometer SWSWNW R15E, Sec 2__66 Sandra Monitoring Plugged SW NW Rickabaugh 9.5 ft. 1.49ft. well/observation/piezometer SWN Ri6E. Sec. Rickabaugh, 7.5 ft. 4 Monitoring MW Plugged SW NW Sandrawell/observationpiezometer 5 R 5E, Sec. Sandra Monitoring 26 10 ft. 2.08 ft. Plugged SW NW Rickabaugh well/observation/piezometer T2I S, Sec RI 5E, Sec. HAYES 65 ft. 7 ft. 10 Domestic Constructe 27 gpm.NESWNE 1 S,12 RISE. Sec. Dee Francis 33 ft. 24 ft. 12 Domestic Constructe 27 gpm.SE SE NW View page: 1 I21I3114I15I1617 II8 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Pagel1 of 5 Wtr County: Coffey______, Dantabase I Select location of well to view details.Hydrotogy QuCnC lick on colum n heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records. Only 50 records displaved at a time--sort will affect ALL records.V iew page: 1_[ 2_[ 311 114 11I5 116 J1 7_ 118_Well Static Est. C Depth Yield Other Action T-R-S Owner Ascend. Level Ascend. Well Use ID Taken Desc. Asc. Desc.______ ___Desc. L_______________

__.____T21_ SS R15E, Sec.27 Massoth 29 ft. 12.5 ft gpm.12 Domestic Constructed 2 NE SE T21 S, R15E, Sec. Kewley, 10 D 27 Mike 55 ft. 20 ft. Domestic Constructed SW NW Miegpm.2 SW__ Kewley,__

10__ ___ ___ _ _ _ _T2 1I_,S..R15E, Sec. Johnson, 12 27 Alvin J. and 50 ft. 21 ft. 12 Domestic Constructed 2 NW SW Doris M. gpm.SWI R15E, Sec. Smitty's 17.06 Monitoring Plugged 0 27 Apco 20 ft. well/observation/piezometer 2 NE NE SE T21 S R15E, Sec. UNITED 10 ft. 2.13 ft. Monitoring Constructed 2 27 OIL well/observation/piezometer1 SENESE R15E,9.5 ft. 2.81 ft. Monitoring C 27 OIL well/observation/piezometer Constructed I SENESEISMITTY'S 2oiorn 20 ft. 17.7 ft. Monitoring Constructed 2 27 APCO well/observation/piezometer NENESE T-2-1 S-RISE S-ec. SMITTY'S 12 ft. 0 ft. Monitoring Constructed 2 27 APCO well/observation/piezometer SESENE IT21_S II II II http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortby=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 R15E, Sec.27 SESENE SMITTY'S APCO 16.25 ft.18 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructed 2 1 T21 S, R15E, Sec. SMITTY'S 13.5 ft. 13.23 Monitoring Constructed 2 27 APCO ft. well/observation/piezometer C SESENE T2_I S.R1 5E, Sec. SMITTY'S 13 ft. 11.22 Monitoring Constructed 2 27 APCO 13. well/observation/piezometer 1 SESENE _____ ___ ___ ___ __________

__ __ __T21S, RI 5E, Sec. SMITTY'S 13 ft. 11.54 Monitoring Constructed 2 2_7 ft. well/observation/piezometer 1 SESENE ....United 215E Se Telephone Co. of S 13.5 ft 11.27 Monitoring MW Constructed3 27 Central ft. well/observation/piezometer 7 2 NESENE ena_Kansas, Inc.. _ _ L United T21S, .Telephone R15E Sec. Co. of S 14.5 ft. 11.71 Monitoring MW Constructed 3 27 ft. well/observation/piezometer 6 2 NE SE NE ntral________ jKansas, Inc.T2 IS, United T2Sec Telephone R15E Sec. of S 20 ft 17.83 Monitoring MW Const 2 27 Central ft. well/observation/piezometer 5 2 NE SE NE Central_Kansas, Inc. __1___United T21S e Telephone R15E Sec. Co. of S 14.5 ft. 13.07 Monitoring MW Constructed 2 27 ft. well/observation/piezometer 4 2 NE SE NE Central_Kansas, Inc.T_21 S United Telephone---- Co. of S 18.5 ft. 16.18 Monitoring MW Constructed 2 27 Central ft. well/observation/piezometer 2 2 NE SE NE_Kansas, Inc.United R15 Sec. Telephone.........

Co. of S 19.5 ft. 18.26 Monitoring MW Constructed 2 27 Centralft.

well/observation/piezometer 3 2 NE SE NE_______Kansas, Inc.T_2 1S R15_E Sec.United Telephone 16.18 Monitoring MW 2 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort-by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 5 27 NE SE NE Co. of S Central Kansas, Inc.ft.well/observationlpiezometer 1 2 18.5 ft.Constructed T2 _T!lS R15E, Sec. SCHARFFE 65 ft. 7 ft, 0 gpm. Irrigation Constructed 0 272 NWNWSE T21 R15E,28 Se. BULL 65 ft. 1 ft. 10 Domestic Constructed 2 28 gpm.1 NENWSE _T2_TI ~S.R.15E, Se. Steve 12 1 28 Bartholomew 60 ft. 26 ft. gpm. Domestic Constructed 2 SE NE SE T2_1S, R1 5E. Sec. 1 28 Danny Hess 42 ft. 9 ft. 15 Domestic Constructed 2 NE NE gpm._T21_£S, R15ESe. 0 33 CHAMBERS 95 ft. 7 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructed SESENW _ __T21ES R15E, Sec.Da n0 33 Botkin 60 ft. Domestic Plugged 2 SW SW T21S, RI_5E, Sec. BULL 90 ft. 14 ft. 2 gpm. Domestic Unknown 0 33.SWSWSw _____ ______ _________________

____121S, R15.E Sec. 30 ft. 9 ft. 9 gpm. Domestic Constructed 2 N2NW RIS Sec 2 535 ft. 15 f. 25 Domestic Constructed 0_35. gpm.NENWNE _T2IS, 4 1_6E,__Sec.

WCNOC 20 ft. 15 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 1 4 1 S E$WSW_T2 1S RI6E. ,_Sec.2 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 7 NWNENE 33 ft.Oft.0 gpm.Other Plugged 1 T216E Se, !R16E7 Sec. 65 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 71 SESWNW _WOLF 10 R16E, Sec. CREEK 17 ft. 6 ft. Dewatering Constructed 7 NUCL gpm. 1 NCSWNE T2_16 Se WOLF R16E, Sec. REEK 18 ft. 6 ft. 10 Dewatering Constructed 0 NCSWNE NUCL gpm.T2_ _1S, WOLF 10 RI 6E, Sec. CREEK 17 ft. 6 ft. 10 Dewatering Constructed 0 7 NUCL gpm. I NCSWNE T21 Se WOLF 10 R16E, Sec. CREEK 12 ft. 6 ft. Dewatering Constructed 0 7 gpm.1 NCSWNE NUCL T21 S.SSec WOLF 10 0 7 CREEK 19 ft. 6 ft. Dewatering Constructed 1 NCSENE NULC gpm.T2I S, WOLF Rl16E. Sec.,OL 10 0 7 CREEK 17 ft. 6 ft. Dewatering Constructed 1 NCSENE NUCL T2 , WOLF Rl6E. Sec. WOF10 0)7 CREEK 19 ft. 6 ft. 10 Dewatering Constructed 1 7N NUCL gpm.NCSENE RI 6E,.Sec. WOLF 10 0 7 CREEK 18 ft. 6 ft. Dewatering Constructed 1 NCSENE NJJCL T2 IS~, R76E, Sec.. 50 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 2 7 1 ,SESWNE RI6ESec..

36 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 3 W7 , I ,SWNENE II 11 11 ii http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 T12TS, R16E Sc.7 NE SWNE 0 gpm.50 ft.Oft.Other Plugged 1 1 R16E, Sec. 2 7 50 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1 SWNENE 8 120 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1_81 NENWNE R16E, Sec. 2_8 55 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1 NENESW_T2_ I-S, R16E, Sec. 2 8 60 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1 NENE T2_1~S.R16E, See. 2 8 105 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1 NESESW ,_ _ _ __ _T21S, R16E, Sec. 37 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 0 8 1 NENWSW RI16E Sec. 2 8 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 1 SENWSE T21S, R16E, ee. 35tPugd 1_8 35 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugg 1 SWNESW __View page: 1112_ 13 114_ 15110117 118 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortPby=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Pagel of 5 waterweJ County: Coffey Database~

Select location of well to view details.Hydrology L.+/-nJ Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records. Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: 1 I2 3 114 115 16 7 Static Well Est. C(WaterYilWels T-R-S Owner Depth Level Yield WellUse Other Action tAscend. Ascend Ascend. ID Taken Desc. Desc.Desc.T21S, R16E8 Sec. 40 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 8 1 SWNWSE T21&S R16E, Sec. 78 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 8 19 INESENW R8 ,ee. 30 ft. 0 ft. 0'gpm. Other Plugged 19 NWSESW T21 S, R16E, Sec. 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 17 8 19 NENWSE T2 I S R16E, 70 ft. 34 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 24_9 19 NESWNW T16E,_Sec.

16 R16E2 Sec. 10 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 NWSESE 12 8 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 SESWSEE TT211S, R1 Sec. 95 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 13 1 NENENW T2!I5, RI6EIE Sec. 1f0 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 16 13 19 NENENW http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortby=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 5 R16E, Sec. 01 19 18 ft. O ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed SW SW SWI R16E, Sec. 40 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 31 19 NENWNE T21S, R16E, Sec. 01 19 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 19 NW SW SW L IL T21 S, R16E, Sec. 01 19 38 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 19 NWSW_SW1 R16E, Sec. 52 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed01 29 19 NC _ _T 2 1 S .0 1 R16E, Sec. 70 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed01 29 19 NC T21 S~R16E, See. 01 29 62 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 19 SW SW NW IL T21 S,01 R16E, Sec. 18 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 1 29 19 SW SW NEI R16E, Sec. 31 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 29 19 S2 SENW R16E Sec. 01 29 62 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed NC SW NW IL RI 6Eec., 20 ft.0 ft.0 gpm.Other Constructed 01 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort-by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 5 29 NC 19 T21IS, R16E, Sec. 01 30 20 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed NC NW NW IL T2_1NS0 R16E, Sec. 49 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SW T21S, R16E, Sec. 24 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC NW T21 NS,______Sec.

01 R16E, Sec. 48 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 1 30 19 NC T2_1NS, R16E, Sec. 01 30 28 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 19 NCNW 19 NW __L_ ....R16E, Sec. 18 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SE NE R16E, Sec. 01 30 48 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 1 NC NW 19 T21 S, RI6E Sec. 01 30 25 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 1 NC NW 19 NW L .1 L T 21 -S-Sec. 26 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SE NE T21.S, R16_E,- Sec. 20 ft Oft. 0 gpm Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SENE __r21is 11 1 II II II http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.di spCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 5 RI 6E, Sec.30 NC SE NE 78 ft.0 ft.0 gpm.01 19 Other Constructed T216E Se, D R36E, Sec. 98 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 01 30 19 NE SW NE T21S, R16E3 Sec. 30 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SW NE T21$ 1S0 R16E, Sec. 01 30 70 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 19 NC SW NE R16E, Sec. 70 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 NC SW NE R16E3 Sec. 78 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other. Constructed 01 30 19 SW SE NE _T21 S, RI6E0 Sec. 18 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 SE SWNE T21S R16E3 Sec. 48 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Constructed 01 30 19 SE NW NW iT2_1 S, R 1 6 E , S e c .2 2 3_0 24 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 19 NW NE SE R6, .22 30 120 ft. 0 ft. 0 gpm.. Other Plugged 19 SWSWNE_2 , S c Sjec 01 3_4 WCNOC 25 ft. 8 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 19 SWNENW T21 S, RIOE, Sec. WCNOC 25 ft. 8 ft. 0 gpm. 'Domestic Plugged 01 34 19 SWNENW _____________________________

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=3 1&sort by=&fjpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 5 T21S, R16E, Sec.35 NWNWNE 51 ft.GIESEY 20 ft.10 gpm.Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructed 19 T21 S R17E, Sec.3 Grant 10 3 Corley 3 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged 19 NW NW R17E, Sec.3 Grant (unstated)/abandoned Plugged 1 NW NW Corley Pg SWLL T21 S, R17E, Sec. Grant 12 3 Corley 1 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged 19 SE SE SW T21S,______Sec.

15 01 R17E8 Sec. LOWE 90 ft. 32 ft. 15 Domestic Constructed 19 8_ gpm. 1 NWNENW *_*T21 S kl7,Sec. 3 30 8 ANDRESS 100 ft. 50 ft. 9 gpm. Domestic Constructed 19 8 '1 NWNWNW T21 S, R17E, Sec. A&B 50 ft. 6.5 ft. Monitoring Constructed 17 10 Johnson well/observation/piezometer 20 NE NE NW R17E Sec. A&b 1 1__0 Johnson 144 ft. 64 ft. Test hole/well Plugged 20 NE NE NW View page: 1112 113114 115116117 11$Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Pagel of6-ae iW~eIi jDatabasej Hydrologyý LQuerj County: Coffey Select location of well to view details.Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File I 375 records. Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: 1 112 11 3 114 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 Well Est.Depth Ler Yield Other Action Ascend. Ascend. Ascend. Well Use ID Taken Desc. Desc.Desc.T21 S R17ESec. A&b 1 10 Johnson 24 ft. Test hole/well Plugged 7 NE NE NE T2_1S, R17E, Sec. A&B Domestic Constructed 10 Johnson 2o NE NE NW R1 7E, Sec. Kenneth 20 ft. 8 ft. Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructed NW NW Hubbell T21 S, R1 7E, Sec. Kenneth C 10_E Hubbell 18.5 ft. 6 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged NW NW ISE II RIME Sec. Kenneth 1__E0 Hubbell 9 ft. 1 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged 101 NW NW ISELL T2T211S, R10E Hubbennet 101 ft. 8 ft. Domestic Constructed I NW0N Hubbell1 I2SE R16M Sec. DUNCAN 51 ft. 7 ft. 8 gpm. Domestic Constructed I 1 _61 NWNENW T21S, Sec Lawn and Garden -Plugged 16-DUNCAN 50 ft. 4 ft. 1 gpm. domestic only Pug NWNENE http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 6 T212S.R17E, Sec.17 SW SW SW Brad Payer 46 ft.16 ft.Domestic Constructed (4 T2j1 S, R17E, ec.z 200 BAKER 100 ft. 23 ft. 4 gpm. Domestic Constructed NENWNW T21 S R17E, Sec. WOODS 15 22 BUCK 120 ft. 65 ft. Domestic Constructed I 2BUKgpm.1 NWNWSW T21S, R17E, Sec.22 Tim Burger 50.5 ft. 11 ft. (unstated)/abandoned Plugged SE SW NE T21S, R17, ec.(22 Tim Burger 100 ft. 60 ft. 4 gpm. Domestic Constructed NE NW SE T2IS*_R 17E, Sec.-1 27 W.J. Trail, 100 ft. 28 ft. Domestic Constructed SW SW Jr.NW __ L 11 ___T21 Sec 2_78,See.

60 ft. 6 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructed1 28 SESESE T2_T22S R14E, Sec.13 ERBE 155 ft. 0 ft. 1 gpm. Domestic Constructe SESWNW T22%s 2_8R1 4E-, Sec. Rodgers Oil 15f.MonitoringCosrce,.

SW8S Co., Inc. 15f.well/observation/piezometer Cosrutd~Sec.28-E Sec. Rodgers Oil Monitoring Constructed 7 SW SW Co., Inc. well/observation/piezometer z SW SW SW ___________

_____L ______1 ____________

___L L____I T22S, R14E8Sec.Rodgers Oil Co., Inc.20 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructed z z http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 6 SW SW SW R14E8 Sec. Rodgers Oil 13.75 Monitoring C 28Cosrce SW SW Co., Inc. ft. well/observation/piezometer o SW L__ __ _ 11__ L___ L___ ____________

__ _ _ _T22S R24E, Sec. Rodgers Oil 15Monitoring Constructed 2SW SW Co., Inc. well/observation/piezometer 2S R14E, Sec. Rodgers Oil 28 Company, 15 Uft Moiorn MW Constructed.~

SW SW Inc. well/observation/piezometer 10 SW SW Lnc.T22SW RI4E, Sec. Rodgers Oil 284E, Sec.Romp , 13 fMonitoring MW Constructed 2 SW28SW Inc.CmaY 13f.well/observation/piezometer 8 2 28 Company, 17Oft. Monitoring MW Constructed SW SW Inc. well/observation/piezometer 13 SW T22S, R14EE Sec. Rodgers Oil 28 Company, 11 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed NW NW Inc. well/observation/piezometer 9 NW _j IL R14E. Sec.28 Rodgers Oil 14 ft. Monitoring Constructed SW SW Co., Inc. well/observation/piezometer SW I T22,S__ Sec.28 Rodgers Oil 15 ft. Monitoring Constructed SW SW Co., Inc. well/observation/piezometer SW 1 LLI T22S, R3 E. Sec. WHITE 17 ft. 9 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 33 1 SWNWNW T2 2S$, 11 II 11 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 4 of 6 R14E, Sec.33 NWNW NW Rodgers Oil Company, Inc.14 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer MW I11 Constructed z T222S R14E, Sec. Rodgers Oil 33 Company, 17 ft. Monitoring MW Constructed 7 NWNW Inc. well/observation/piezometer 12 z NW L L IL T22S, R_2E, Sec 52 ft. 19 ft. Domestic Constructed SESESE T22NS.Ri E, Sec. TRUELOVE 22 ft. 11 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged 9 1 NENESW RI5E, Sec. Jim Thweatt 120 ft. Domestic Plugged 22 SW'SE SW ,__R15E, Sec. Lawrence 1 26 160 ft. 50 ft. I gpri. Domestic Constructed NW SW Crouchz NW SW NE IL TZZS, RISE. Sec. Jamie 1 28 Wiliamse 40 ft. Domestic Plugged 28 Williams7 SE SE NE T22S, R16E, Sec. HOSS 16 ft. 10 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged 5 1 SESESE R16E, Sec. Williams, 60 ft. 12 ft. 12 Domestic Constructed 5 Dallas gpm.SE NE SE T22S.R56ESec. Williams, 60 ft. 8 ft. 15 Domestic Constructed 5 Brian gpm.NE NE NW ,_ _T22S, R76E, Sec ROHR 44 ft. 30 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructed 71 SWNWSE T225 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=3I&sort by=&f-pg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 5 of 6 R16E, Sec.16 SE SE SE Lawkton, Allen 27 ft.14 ft.7.5 gpm.Domestic Constructed C R2_6.2Se Hall, Darin R16E, Sec. and 35 ft. 20 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructed.7 S16 Stephanie SE SE SE T22S R16E, Sec. Williams, 50 ft. 20 ft. 10 Domestic Constructed 16 John gpm. 2 NE NE NW rz222s, R16E, Sec. ROHR 48 ft. 32 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Constructed 18 NWNWNE R16E, Sec.26 Meats, Mike 50 ft. 26 ft. 7 gpm. Domestic Constructed SW SW MW SWI 1 ILI NW _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _r22s., R16E, Sec. 17 26 Meets, Mike 60 ft. 27 ft. Domestic Constructed NW SW gpm.NW _ _ _ __T2_22_2 R16E, Sec. Snider, .ft. 12 Domestic Constructed 28 Richard gpm.SE SE NW T22S.R16E, Sec. 45 ft. 20 ft. 100 Lawn and Garden -Constructed 34 gpm. domestic only NE T22S, RI 6,ESec. LUNEY'S 25 ft. 21.21 Monitoring Constructed 1 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer I NESWSE T222S RI 6E, Sec. LUNEY'S 25 ft. 20.25 Monitoring Constructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer I NESWSE T225 R 6ES Sec. LUNEY'S 26 ft. 20.88 Monitoring Constructed 1 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer C NESWSE View page: 1 112 1 114 115116117 118 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&fpg...

02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http ://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

Page 6 of 6 http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?fcnty=31

&sortby=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page I of 3 W[tewell County: Coffey Select location of well to view details.Hydro I.gy] [ ..j .Click on column heading to sort.Save Data to File 375 records.Only 50 records displayed at a time--sort will affect ALL records.View page: 1 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 Well Static Est. I Depth Water Yield Other Action T-R-S Owner Ascend Level Well Use Ascend. Ascend. ID Taken Ds.Desc. Desc.TT222S, R16E, Sec. LUNEY'S 28 ft 21.01 MonitoringConstructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer NESWSE ,,.T22S, R16E, Sec. Williams, 34 Mark 28 ft. 5 gpm. Domestic Constructed NE NW NW ,I L_ __ I IL_T22S, R16E Sec. Winn, 60 ft. 30 ft. 15 (unstated)/abandoned Constructed 34 Kenneth gpm.NE NW NE T2_2S Sutherland, R16E, Sec. Shane and 32.5 ft. 21 ft. 35 Lawn and Garden -Constructed 34 Ellen gpm. domestic only SW NW NE T22S, R16E, Sec. LUNEY'S 21.21 Monitoring 25 ft. Constructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer NESWSE T22S, R16E, Sec. LUNEY'S 20.86 Monitoring 346GARAGEConstructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer NESWSE T22S, R96L Sec. LUNEY'S 22.02 Monitoring Constructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer NESWSE T22S, Rl6E, Sec. LUNEY'S 21.23 Monitoring 345GAfAGEConstructed 34 GARAGE ft. well/observation/piezometer NESWSE T22S5 RI 6E,_ Sec.34 LUNEY'S GARAGE 25 ft.20.98 ft.Monitoring well/observation/piezometer Constructed http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sort by=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 2 of 3 INESWSE 11 11 i1 i1 R16E, Sec. 100 34 37 ft. 22 ft. gpm. Irrigation Constructed NE T2_22S , R16E, Sec. LE ROY 40 ft. 17 ft. 80 Industrial Constructed 34 CO-OP gpm.SESWSE T22&2 R17E, Sec. MCKINLEY 140 ft. 42 ft. 3 gpm. Domestic Constructed 4_SW T2_22S.R17E, Sec. Louis P. 19 ft. 1 ft. Domestic Plugged 8 Meyer NE NE NW T23S.R14E, Sec.2 S BAHR 33 ft. 27 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Pluggedý2 NENENE T23S. ,.R5,Sec.4 SIRICO 37 ft. 20 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged NCSENW T23-S R15E, Sec.4 S SIRICO 17 ft. 10 ft. 0 gpm. Other Plugged NCSENW T23S.______Sec 100 R16E, Sec. 40 ft. 20 ft. Domestic Constructed 1 gpm.NWNWNW_T23S, R16E, Sec.1 BEARD 23 ft. 5 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged NENENE R16E, Sec. Donaldson, 41 ft. 22 ft. 7.5 Lawn and Garden -Constructed 3 D.J. gpm. domestic only SE NW NE R16E, Sec. KANSAS 5 DEPT. OF 16 ft. 0 gpm. Domestic Plugged NENWNW http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortby=&f pg... 02/13/2007 KGS--Water Wells Query Answer--County:

Coffey Page 3 of 3 R16E, Sec.5 SWSW 65 ft.16 ft.15 gpm.Domestic Constructed

{T23S, R16E, Sc. 15 9 Meats, Don 217 ft. 60 ft. Domestic Constructed 9 gpm.SW SW NE T23S, R17E, Sec. 80 8Gleue, Greg 60 ft. 20 ft. Domestic Constructed W2 SW T23S R17E, Sec. Gleue Seed 8 Gleue 40 ft. 25 ft. .5 gpm. Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructed SW NW Company TSe R17E, Sec. Gleue Seed 20 8 GWeuomSeed 40 ft. 11 ft. 20 Feedlot/Livestock/Windmill Constructed

, NW SW Company gpm.~~~~View page: 1 11 2'11. 3 11 411511 6117118 Kansas Geological Survey Comments to webadmin@kgs.ku.edu URL=http ://www.kgs.ku.edu/Magellan/WaterWell/index.html Display Programs Updated July 29, 2004 Data added continuously.

http://abyss.kgs.ku.edu/pls/abyss/wwc5.wwc5d2.dispCounty?f cnty=31 &sortby=&f pg... 02/13/2007

53. More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).-Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which resultswere compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.* A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.-More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

http://www.swt-wc.usace.army.mil/JOH Ncharts.html IlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 96 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.73 2 1039.81 3 1039.80 4 1039.69 5 1039.59 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.49 1039.37 1039.24 1039.19 1039.05 1039.05 1039.06 1039.05 1039.05 1039.06 1039.05 1039.05 1039.11 1039.10 1039.11 1039.10 1039.02 1039.05 1039.04 1039.04 1039.06 1039.03 1039.02 1039.03 1039.01 1039.00 1039.72 1039.77 1039.77 1039.70 1039.63 1039.53 1039.41 1039.29 1039.19 1039.10 1039.05 1039.06 1039.05 1039.05 1039.07 1039.06 i039.05 1039.05 1039.14 1039.11 1039.11 1.039.05 1039.05 1039.05 1039.04 1039.04 1039.05 1039.03 1039.04 1039.02 1039.01 1038.99 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 64802 65286 65286 64609 63932 62965 61805 60645 59677 58807 58324 58421 58324 58324 58516 58421 58324 58324 59194 58904 58904 58324 58324 58324 58227 58227 58324 58130 58227 58034 57937 57750 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 32 32 416 614 611 607 603 599 596 314 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 240 376 375 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 122 8106 261 0.050 0.050 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.040 0.050 0*.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.100 0.050 0.020 0.020 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.020 0.020 0.020 0..020 0.020 0.020 0.020 1.170 150 150 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 140 400 350 300 250 200 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 150 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0o.00 0.00 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.18 MAXIMUM 1039.82 MINIMUM 1038.92 5050 0.31 0.17 163 NORMAL= 0.84 65769 DATE= 2 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57123 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=10017 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R[Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pape.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8P PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.99 2 1039.02 3 1039.o1 4 1039.01 5 1039.02 6 1039.03 7 1039.05 8 1039.06 9 1039.08 10 1039.10 11 1039.10 12 1039.11 13 1039.10 14 1039.11 15 1039.12 16 1039.13 17 1039.10 18 1039.06 19 1039.08 20 1039.07 21 1039.06 22 1039.05 23 1039.05 24 1039.03 25 1038.98 26 1039.08 27 1039.03 28 1039.00 29 1038.95 1038.99 1039.00 1039.02.1039.01 1039.02 1039.03 1039.05 1039.06 1039.08 1039.09 1039.10 1039.11 1039.11 1039.11 1039.11 1039.13 1039.08 1039.09 1039.07 1039.06 1039.07 1039.06 1039.06 1039.05 1039.00 1039.03 1039.01 1039.00 1038.96 1038.96 57750 57840 58034 57937 58034 58130 58324 58421 58613 58710 58807 58904 58904 58904 58904 59097 58613 58710 58516 58421 58516 58421 58421 58324 57840 58130 57937 57840 57481 57481 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75`76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 122 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151 151.151 151 151 151 151 3525 122 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.030 0.050 0.030 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.150 0.100 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.070 2.090 INFLOW ADJ DSF 160 160 155 155 155 150 150 145 145 145 145 145 140 140 140 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 120 120 120 120 120 120 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.05 MAXIMUM 1039.18 MINIMUM 1038.95 3990 0.36 0.16 138 NORMAL= 0.90 59581 DATE=17 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57391 DATE=29 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=7914 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[F1Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pagt JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 96.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 .2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.97 2 1038.96 3 1038.92 4 1038.92 5 *1038.95 1038.96 1038.96 1038.95 1038.93 1038.92 1038.94 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.96 1038.93 1038.96 1038.96 1038.98 1038.94 1038.94 1038.94 1038.93 1038.91 1038.90 1038.90 1038.95 1038.94 1039.03 1039.08 1039.14 1039.15 1039.17 1039.17 1039.18 1039.20 1039.13 1039.12 1039.24 1039.20 1039.18 1039.20 1039.17 1039.22 1039.22 1038.93.1038.91 1038.96 1039.03 1039.06 1039.11 1039.12 1039.16 1039.19 1039.15 1039.20.1039.18 1039.14 1039.25 1039.15 1039.18 1039.18 1039.1.9 1039.20 1039.23*1039.26 57481 57481 57391 57213 57123 57302 57213 57481 57302 57302 57034 57213 57034 57481 58130 58421 58904 59000 59388 59677 59291 59774 59581 59194 60258 59291 59581 59581 59677 59774 60064 60354 121 106 106 86 75 75 75 76 76 76 46 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 61 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.150 0.150 0.120 0.080 0.050 0.100 0.130 0.200.0.070 0.190 0.150 0.150 0.150 0.100 0.100 0.050 0.100 0.060 0.020 0.010 120 115 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 90 90 90 90 400 250 200 200 150 150 120 120 120 120 200 120 120 120 120 120 250 180 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.65 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.07 MAXIMUM 1039.26 MINIMUM 1038.89 0 0 2107 3.030 4365 0.99 2.99 68 141 NORMAL= 2.06 60354 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 56854 DATE=II TOP FLOOD POOL i068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=8658 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION Rl]Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 96.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.25 2 1039.21 3 1039.10 4 1039.04 5 1038.97 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.00 1039.01 1039.01 1039.00 1039.01 1038.98 1038.98 1039.01 1038.99 1038.99 1038.99 1038.93 1038.94 1038.94 1038.91 1038.96 1038.93 1038.96 1038.94 1038.98 1038.93 1038.89 1039.04 1039.03 1038.97 1039.26 1039.24 1039.15 1039.12 1038.99 1039.00 1038.97 1039.01 1039.01 1039.02 1039.01 1038.94 1038.98 1038.87 1038.98 1038.96 1038.96 1038.91 1038.99 1038.98 1038.97 1038.97 1038.94 1038.93 1038.90 1038.93 1038.91 1038.83 1038.98 1038.98 1038.96 60354 60161 59291 59000 57750 57840 57571 57937 57937 58034 57937 57302 57661 56675 57661 57481 57481 57034 57750 57661 57571 57571 57302 57213 56944 57213 57034 56316 57661 57661 57481 76 377 526 355 75 76 76 76 76 76 75 46 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 31 23 31 31 31 31 2459 82 0.030 0.260 0.510 0.300 0.150 0.090 0.190 0.140 0.140 0.220 0.360 0.340 0.360 0.260 0.210 0.190 0.420 0.500 0.410 0.480 0.260 0.200 0.150 0.300 0.500 0.390 0.250 0.190 0.010 0.100 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 120 110 110 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 200 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.15 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.10 0.05 TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1038.98 0 7.910 3910 1.34 1.32 130 NORMAL= 2.92 MAXIMUM 1039.26 MINIMUM 1038.83 60354 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 56316 DATE=27 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=7755 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthl Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER. TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.96 2 1038.97 3 1038.96 4 1039.03 5 .1039.03 6 1039.93 7 1041.17 8 1043.00 9 1044.12 10 1044.67 11 1044.78 12 1044.32 13 1043.80 14 1043.00 15 1042.22 16 1041.49 17 1040.80 18 1040.25 19 1039.62 20 1039.08.21 1039.03 22 1039.00 23 1038.98 24 1039.05 25 1039.08 26 1039.14 27 1039.47 28 1041.26 29 1042.25 30 1042.38 31 1041.97 1038.96 1039.00 1039.00 1038.98 1039.03 1039.67 1040.91 1042.50 1043.82 1044.50 1044.81 1044.52 1043.95 1043.24 1042.48 1041..79 1041.06 1040.46 1039.70 1039.27 1039.01 1039.02 1038.97 1039.03 1039.10 1039.09 1039.23 1040.57 1042.08 1042.40 1042.13 1041.56 57481 57840 57840 57661 58130 64319 76578 92971 107356 115153 118752 115385 108795 100936 92758 85523 78087 72094 64609 60451 57937 58034 57571 58130 58807 58710 60064 73190 88511 91909 89042 83180 31 31 31 31 31 32 33 2518 4740 4831 4829 4740 5354 5558 5355-4498 3655 3354 3221 1655 374 298 151 151 151 152 154 2264 4455 4459 4361 71496* 2306 0.210 0.260 0.250 0.190 0.340 0.090 0.160 0.200 0.260 0.320 0.110 0.050 0.090 0.050 0.000 0.290 0.290 0.480 0.450 0.320 0.170 0.250 0.290 0.370 0..200 0.160 0.300 0.230 0.140 0.060 0.280 INFLOW ADJ DSF 150 150 150 800 3300 6400 8500 10000 8900 6800 3300 2000 1500 1400 1300*900 800 600 500 400 350 300 300 300 300 900 6800 10000 6400 3100 1440 RAINFALL..

INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.04 1.44 0.77.0.95 0.00 0.38 0.14 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50.0.51 0.56 0.35 0.67 0.01 0.32 0.11 0.00 0.06 1.53 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.44 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.00 MAXIMUM 1044.81 MINIMUM 1038.94 0 0 6.860 88040 5.29 6.79 2840 NORMAL= 4.43 118752 DATE=10 TOP CONSERVATION*POOL 1039.00 57302 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 174625 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.69 2 1041.95 3 1643.73 4 1045.44 5 1045.23 6 1045.44 7 1045.19 8 1044.36 9 1043.31 10 1042.26 11 1041.12 12 1040.02 13 1039.38 14 1038.52 15 1038.20 16 1037.93 17 1037.87 18 1037.38 19 1036.81 20 1036.24 21 1036.15 22 1036.25 23 1036.27 24 1036.35 25 1036.36 26 1036.38 27 1036.29 28 1036.28 29 1036.29 30 1036.26 1041.56 1041.68 1042.91 1044.95 1045.42 1045.38 1045.31 1044.66 1043.67 1042.64 1041.58 1040.41 1039.59 1038.85 1038.29 1038.02 1037.88 1037.56 1037.03 1036.46 1036.18 1036.23 1036.26 1036.30 1036.39 1036.34 1036.33 1036.26 1036.26 1036.27 1036.32 83180 84403 97325 120376 126183 125685 124815 117011 105697 94458 83383 71596 63545 56495 51476 49055 47898 45290 40969 36761 34706 35073 35293 35587 36247 35880 35807 35293 35293 35367 35733 RELEASES DSF POWER. TO¶0 4: 0 4 0 6 0 8.0 8 0 8 0 91 0 10: 0 9 0 9 0 8 0 6 0 5'0 3'0 2(0 1 0 2 0 21 0 2'o 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 304 438 918 788 757 788 831 124 650 151*611 734 750 610 044 995 592 830 682 337 328 141 141 141 254 543 661 432 314 314 0.120 0.170 0.180 0.300 0.030 0.320 0.050 0.160 0.230 0.180 0.240 0.180 0.410 0.250 0.230 0.180 0.250 0.220 0.160 0.230 0.360 0.290 0.280 0.390 0.190 0.400 0.250 0.210 0.190 0.190 5000 11000.18600 117.00 8600 8400 6000 4500 4000 3600 3000 2600 2200 1100 900 1500 1300 750 600 500 400 350 400 500 160 560 450 450 400 550 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.27 0.00 0.41 0.20 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 2.78 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.44 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.12 0.23 0.18 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.45 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.38 MAXIMUM 1045.56 MINIMUM 1036.14 0 122203 0 4073 6.840 100070 2.99 4.63 3336 NORMAL= 4.74 127925 34413 DATE= 4 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=21 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=198486 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION LMBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.27 2 1036.16 3 1036.00 4 1035.90 5 1036.03 6 1036.08 7 1036.14 8 1036.19 9 1036.27 10 1036.16 11 1036.09 12 1036.03 13 1036.04 14 1036.05 15 1036.11 16 1036.08 17 1036.07 18 1036.02 19 1036.03 20 1036.03 21 1036.10 22 1036.20 23 1036.02 24 1035.99 25 1036..02 26 1035.99 27 1036.02 28 1036.06 29 1036.08 30 1035.96 31 1035.95 1036.32 1036.20 1036.06 1035.94 1036.01 1036.06 1036.12 1036.09 1036.26 1036.20 1036.13 1036.05 1036.03 1036.03 1036.08 1036.09 1036.06 1036.04 1036.03 1036.04 1036.06 1036.03 1036.10 1035.99 1036.02 10.35.99 1036.00 1036.01 1036.07 1035.92 1035.95 1035.95 35733 34852 33826 32987 33458 33826 34266 34045 35293 34852 34339 33752 33605 33605 33972 34045 33826 33679 33605 33679 33826 33605 34119 33319 33532 33319 33385 33458 33898 32855 33053 33053 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0*0 0 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 481 652 286 95 96 96 96 96 323 438 435 210 96 96 208 265 26.5 153 96 96 96 212 264 263 264 152 96 96 96 95 95 6308 203 0.200 0.250 0.360 0.160 0.230 0.200 0.280 0.560 0.300 0.160 0.230 0.140 0.130 0.210 0.160 0.330 0.370 0.440 0.420 0.300 0.380 0.330 0.270 0.270 0.290 0.340 0.060 0..220 0.190 0.220 0.280 200 200 300 250 200 200 200 550 250 200 150 150 150 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 190 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0,00 0.00 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.26 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.24 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0:.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.05 0.64 0.35 0.00 0.01 0.91 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.13 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.05 MAXIMUM 1036.96 MINIMUM 1035.90 8.280 6690 2.77 3.75 216 NORMAL= 3.61 40430 DATE=22 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 32722 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=13269 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1035.92 2 1035.96 3 10'35.98 4 1035.96 5 1035.97 6 1036.01*7 .1036.07 8 1036.07 9 1036.05 10 1036.02 11 1036.11 12 1036.14 13 1036.12 14 1036.10 15 1036.09 16 1036.12 17 1036.50 18 1036.89 19 1037.38 20 1037.24 21 1036.66 22 1036.46 23 1036.25 24 1037..04 25 1039.25 26 1041.15 27 1041.51 28 1040.84 29 1040.00 30 1039.13 31 1038.74 1035.95 1035.97 1035.97 1035.98 1035.94 1036.00 1036.04 1036.06 1036.04 1036.02 1036.10 1036.14 1036.13 1036.10 1036.11 1036.12 1036.31 1036.74 1037.17 1037.26 1036.72 1036.59 1036.29 1036.57 1038.31 1040.54 1041.59 1041.11 1040.32 1039.45 1038.90 1038.45 33053 33186 33186 33252 32987 33385 33679 33826 33679 33532 34119 34413.34339 34119 34192 34266 35661 38816 42110 42844 38669 37715 35514 37568 51655 72891 83485 78595 70698 62191 56944 52909 RELEASES DSF POWER TO'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1.0 3: 0 4: 0 3'0 2.0 2 0 5 0 8: 0 8 0 7 0 6 0 3'0 2 0 62: 0 2 64 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 106 140 140 79 48 48 49 578 323 368 681 574 848 397 260 325 999 430 686 536 160 O05 EVAP INFLOW. RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.290 0.090 0.170 0.400 0.400 0.110 0.390 0.250 0.190 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.220 0.270 0.170 0.240 0.150 0.130 0.130 0.350 0.110 0.250 0.250 0.080 0.090 0.090 0.130 0.200 0.110 0.350 0.220 150 120 100 80 200 250 120 o00 100 300 200 150 150 150 150 780 1670 1740 2030 1240 3940 2620 3620 10000 16100 13600 6000 4000 2250 1100 585 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09.0.22 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 3.27 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.48 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.02 0.03 0.00 2.06 1.38 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 1.03 0.13 0.00 1.14 0.04 0.00 1.63 0.39 0.01 0.31 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.19 MAXIMUM 1041.59 MINIMUM 1035.92 6.340 73595 5.44 9.24 2374 NORMAL= 3.49 83485 32855 INFLOW DATE=26 TOP CONSERVATION.POOL 1039.00 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 VOLUME= 145973 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.24 2 1037.71 3 1037.19 4 1037.15 5 1037.10 6 1037.05 7 1037.09 8 1037.13 9 1037.16 10 1037.20 11 1037.17 12 1037.14 13 1037.09 14 1037.06 15 1037.08 16 1037.21 17 1037.15.18 1037.11 19 1037.17 20 1037.30 21 1038.00 22 1038.66 23 1038.89 24 1038.42 25 1037.87 26 1037.53 27 1037.81 28 1038.43 29 1038.81 30 1038.92 1038.45 1037.88 1037.37.1037.15 1037.12 1037.07 1037.05 1037.11 1037.16 1037.19 1037.17 1037.16 1037.11 1037.08 1037.08 1037.19 1037.17 1037.10 1037.14 1037.19 1037.70 1038.47 1038.83 1038.54 1038.12 1037..63 1037.75 1038.24 1038.71 1038.89 1038.72 52909 47898 43740 41947 41702 41294 41132 41621 42029 42272 42110 42029 41621 41376 41376 42272 42110 41539 41865 42272 46430 53089 56316 53717 49952 45860 46838 51027 55240 56854 55330 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A: DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 2431 2321 1169 522 520 343 144 144 144 267 333 333 207 144 144 389 522 521 523 895 1182 1236 2508 3103 2969 1415 581 1217 1250 2275 29750 992 0.220 0.220 0.210 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.140 0.140 10.130 0.200 0.270 0.250 0.230 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.050 0.220 0.110 0.070 0.160 0.150 0.150 0.080 0.200 0.110 0.040 0.140 0.130 0.130 4.890 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 200 150 150 600 320 280 700 800 3000 4600 2900 1300 1200 900 1900 2700 3400 2100 1550 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.32 0.00 0.00 1.11 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 1.43 0.03 0.05 1.19 0 2.0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.50 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.60 MAXIMUM 1038.92 MINIMUM 1037.05 32150 3.39 4.03 1072 NORMAL= 3.76 57123 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 41132 DATE= 6 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=63769 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly-Chaiis Selection Page.JOHN REDMOND LAKE MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.57 2 1038.12 3 id37.63 4. 1037.38 5 1037.44 6 1037.46 7 1037.47 8 1037.51 9 1037.53 10 1037.60 11 1037.61 12 1037.63 13 1037.66 14 1037.68 15 1037.68 16 1037.69 17 .1037.57 18 1037.61 19 1037.61 20 1037.56 21 1037.61 22 1037.81 23 1037.88 24 1038.25 25 1038.57 26 1038.70 27 1038.86 28 1038.82 29 1038.60 30 1038.63 31 1038.59 1038.72 1038.27 1037.79 1037.45 1037.40 1037.44 1037.46 1037.48 1037.50 1037.61 1037.62 1037.62 1037.66 1037.68 1037.69 1037.68 1037.64 1037.66 1037.65 1037.58 1037.62 1037.68 1037.85 1038.09 1038.45.1038.66 1038.82 1038.85 1038.71 1038.62 1038.57 1038.66 55330 51296 47164 44392 43985 44310 44474 44637 44800 45697 45778 45778 46105 46268 46348 46268 45941 46105 46023 45452 45778 46268 47653 49682 52909 54793 56226 56495 55240 54434 53985 54793 RELEAS DSF POWER.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A 3139 3018 1980 866 533 535 536 536 538 54.1 439 344 345 345 345 344 344'344 343 343 216 147 147 694 1011 1024 1031 1027 1019 1012 730 23815 768 0.220 0.220 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.130 0.120 0.140 0.100 0.180 0 140 0. 210 0.210 0 200 0.200 0.160 0.170 0.200 0.150 0.000 0.150 0.050 0.050 0.110 0.220 0.140 0.130 0.130 0.070 0.130 0.110 INFLOW ADJ DSF 1160 970 600 700 730 650 650 640 1030 620 490 560 480 430 340 220 480 340 300 290 480 860 1200 2400 2000 1760 1200 410 650 810 1160 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00'0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.15 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.35 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.28 0.03 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.92 MAXIMUM 1038.86 MINIMUM 1037.38 0 0 4.430 24610 3.22 1.66 794 NORMAL= 2.56 56585 DATE=27 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 43822 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=48813 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pagee.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.69 2 .1038.70 3 1038.71 4 1038.69 5 1038.78 6 1038.85 7 1038.98 8 1039.20 9 1038.98 10 1038.95 11 1038.90 12 1038.88 13 1038.89 14 1038-.78 15 1038.90 16 1038.85 17 1039.84 18 1042.06 19 1045.03 20 1047.18 21 1047.85 22 1047.71 23 1047.58 24 1047.42 25 1047.16 26 1046.91 27 1046.64 28 1046.36 29 1045.96 30 1045.83 1038.66 1038.71 1038.69 1038.67 1038.77 1038.81 1038.95 1039.09 1039.06 1038.97 1038.92 1038.88 1038.87 1038.82 1038.87 1038.83 i039.35 1041.13 1043.96 1046.60 1047.77 1047.77 1047.62 1047.45 1047.25 10.47.01 1046.74 1046.45 1046.12 1045.87 1045.82 54793 55240 55061 54882 55778 56137 57391 58710 58421 57571 57123 56764 56675 56226 56675 56316 61224 78799 108906 141353 157500 157500 155387 152993 150177 146798 143210 139364 134990 131781 131159 585 585 585 586 588 591 294 863 1264 1261 1257 1255 1252 961 528 373 242 163 888 3427 4206 4190 4171 4148 4117 4083 4044 4000 3954 3934 58394 1946 0.070 0.110 0.110 0.100 0.030 0.000 0.070 0.100 0.040 0.040 0.040 0. 040 0.140 0.0-50 0.020 0.090 0.080 0.090 0.010 0.070 0.040 0.040 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.050 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 840 525 520 1050 770 1240'1000 720 840 1050 1080 1250 1040 1190 370 2870 9130 15300 17300 11600 4200 3100 3000 2800 2400 2300 2100 1800 2350 3650 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.36 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 0.00 2'.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0'. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.14 1.65 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.15 0.24 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.33 MAXIMUM 1047.85 MINIMUM 1038.66 1.640 97385 2.77 2.61 3246 NORMAL= 1.64 158626 DATE=21 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 54793 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=193160 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION Rtack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly_ Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 96 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW.RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH.1 1045.83 2 1045.67 3 1045.55 4. 1045.16 5 1044.75 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1044.23 1043.69 1043.08 1042.49 1042.27 1042.12 1041.93 1041.72 1041.50 1041.28 1041.10 1040.78 1040.68 1040.39 1039.99 1045.82 1045.75 1045.61.1045.33 1044.92 1044.38 1043.88 1043.31 1042.72 1042.34 1042.16 1042.00 1041.79 1041.60 1041.39 1041.19.1040.89 1040.65 1040.53 1040.12 1039.85 131159 130289 128546 125062 120029 113760 108021 101712 95307 91272 89361 87662 85523 83587 81448 79410 76379 73987 72792 68706 66059 65093.64319 63739 62965 63159 63739 64802 66059 67026 67413 67413 3931 3910 4485 4743 4662 4569 4463 4347 3155 2046 2031.2013 1994 1974 1954 1934 1907 2040 2084 1628 1088 1083 1078 667 462 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030.0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.050-0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 3500 3040 2740 2220 1510 1680 1290 1130 1130 1090 1180 940 1030 900 930 420 700 1450 50 300 600 700 800 300 570 0.54 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02.0.09 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0o00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1039.80 1039.75 1039.72 1 039.67 1039.64 1039.61 1039.53 1039.53 1039.53 1039.55 1039.56 1039.61 1039.64 1039.72 1039.76 1039.85 1039.88 1039.95 1039.99 1039.99 1039.99 1039.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 327 153 154 154 452 626 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030*620 700 800 650 660 625 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.54 MAXIMUM 1045.83 MINIMUM 1039.51 0 66113 0 2133 0.950 34255 0.54 0.16 1105 NORMAL= 1.18 131283 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 62772 DATE=24 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=67944 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[IBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chats Seilection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ.TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF POWER INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.01 2 1040.00 3 1040.01 4 1039.94 5 1040.04 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.98 1039.99 1039.79 1039.59 1039.50 1039.23 1038.94 1038.53 1038.45 1038.15 1038.13 1038.10 1038.10 1038.12 1038.14 1038.16 1038.23 1038.20 1038.27 1038.24 1038.19 1038.16 1038.10 1038.04 1037.99 1037.98 1039.99 1039.99 1040.00 1039.99 1040.11 1040.03 1039.94 1039.80 1039.69 1039.52 1039.32 1039.06 1038.68 1038.*48 1038.25 1038.12 1038.11 1038.11 1038.12 1038.13 1038.15 1038.21 1038.23 1038.22 1038.26 1038.21 1038.17 1038.14 1038.05 1038.01 1037.99 1037.99 67413 67413 67510 67413 68606 67809 66929 65576 64512 62869 60934 58421 54972 53179 51117 49952 49862 49862 49952 50041 50221 50758 50938 50848 51207 50758 50400 50131 49325 48966 48794 48794 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 626 626 625 626 626 928 1089 1080 1368 1516 1489 1457 1419 1399 859 406 406 406 407 407 409 508*558 560 559 557 556 553 551 451 400 23428 756 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.020 0 020 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030*0.010 0.010 0.020 0.020 630 670 590 730 730 490 420 550 540 300 260 240 220 360 270 360 410 450 460 500 690 610 520 750 340 380 420 150 380 370 410 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0o00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 ,0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.74 MAXIMUM 1040.11 MINIMUM 1037.98 0 0 0.560 14200 0.18 0.09 458 NORMAL= 0.84 68606 DATE= 4 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 48713 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=28165 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION fiIBack to the John Redmond LakeMonthly.Chuais-SelectionPagei John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT.FEB 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM. BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.01 2 1037.99 3 1d38.00 4. 1038.04 5 1038.03 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1038.05 1038.13 1038.15 1038.13 1038.15 1038.03 1037.96 1037.93 1037.94 1037.92 1037.92 1037.92 1037.87 1037.95 1038.02 1037..99 1037.99 1038.00 1038.00 1038.05 1038.04 1038.09 1038.15 1038.14 1038.15 1038.09 1037.99 1037.93 1037.92 1037.96 1037.91 1037.94 1037.89 1037.98 1038.02 1038.22 48794 48794 48876 48876 49325 49235 49682 50221 50131 50221 49682 48794 48306 48224 48550 48143 48386 47979 48713 49055 50848 66350 97112 130538 154120 160456 166599 170506 173059 400 400 400 402 401 402 504 555 555 824 954 684 429 400 399 399 399.276 253 280 150 80 85 89 1.452 2215 3099 4325 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.010 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.0i0 0.030 410 450 410 630 360 630 780 520 600 560 510 440 400 570 200 530 200 650 430 1190 7970 15600 16950 11990 4.660 5320 5080 5630 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00.0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.02 1038.62 1039.88 1040.94 1042.89 1044.04 1046.51 1047.80 1048.07 1048.49 1048.71 1045.77 1047.53 1047.98 1048.39 1048.65 1048.82 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.37 MAXIMUM 1048.82 17 MINIMUM 1037.86 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN INt 0 0 20810 743 0.710 83670 3.21 2.51 2988 NORMAL= 0.90 3059 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 7735 DATE=18 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED-LOW VOLUME= 165957 A(0 AC-FT'-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[IB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthl Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 97 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1048.91 2 1048.86 3 1048.83 4 1048.54 5 1048.21 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1047.79 1047.26 1046.69 1046.05 1045.38 1044.67 1044.29 1044.21 1043.69 1043.23 1042.73 1042.27.1041.78 1041.36 1040.81 1040.28 1040.05 1039.87 1039.65 1039.56 1039.47 1039.29 1039.32 1039.32 1039.32 1039.26 1048.82 1048.88 1048.84 1048.66 1048.32 1047.97 1047.46 1046.95 1046.30 1045.62 1044.90 1044.36 1044.25 1044.09 1043.41 1042.992 1042.42 1041.97 1041.48 1041.00 1040.45 1040.13 1039.95 1039.73 1039.71 1039.52 1039.34 1039.20 1039.34 1039.33 1039.25 1039.20 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 173059 173962 173360 170656 165546 160315 153134 145993 137377 128671 119796 113528 112251 110393 102819 97431 92122 87356 82365 77475 71994 68806 67026 64899 64705 62869 61127 59774.61127 61031 60258 59774 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW- RAINFALL POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4343 4340 5667.6344 6277 6193 6089 5968 5827 5683 4127 1705 3080 3613 3525 3441 3366 3290 3211 3116 2117 1571 1552 1532 1527 1512 1069 836 835 833 831 103418 3336 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.200 0.210 0.100 0.090 0.090 0.090 0.010 0.070 0.070 0.170 0.290 0.290 0.280 0.380 0.170 0.230 0.. 200 0.160 0.160 0.160 4810 4050 4320 3780 3650 2580 2500 1640 1450 1220 1040 1130 1050 950 840 790 970 790 770 400.595 760 560 1540 650 700 440 1560 830 490 670 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 1.04 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.07 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A. DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.09" 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.06 0.01 TOTAL AVERAGE 1043.06 MAXIMUM 1048.91 MINIMUM 1039.19 3.750 47525 1.69 0.53 1533 NORMAL= 2.06 174413 59677 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=94264 AC-FT REPORT. IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[RIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.18 2 1039.11 3 4. 1039.18 5 1039.51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.95 1040.20 1039.98 1039.73 1039.49 1040.14 1043.19 1046.78 1050.04 1052.02 1052.56 1052.25 1051.91 1051.58 1051.21 1050.77 1050.25 1049.60 1039.20 1039.10 1039.14 1039.17 1039.35 1039.81 1040.11 1040.09 1039.84 1039.58 1039.55 1041.99 1045.33 1049.09 1051.47 1052.54.1052.34 1052.02 1051.73 1051.35 1050.93 1050.38 1049.82 1049.13 59774 58807 59194 59484 61224 65673 68606 68407 65962 63448 63159 87560 125062 177196 217094 237246 233359 227142 221832 214907 207350 198078 188809 177833 166599 155387 144270 133797 123445 113412 104700.RELEAS DSF POWER..0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 827 694 603 461 385 392 1463 2052 2022 1106 652 743 840 1722 4701 7046 7787 7724 7657 7580 7485 7377 7241 7088 6923 6755 6573 6380 6181 5984 0.290 0.210 0.080 0.190 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.120 0.140 0.000 0.140 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.220 0.250 0.200 0.160 0.260 0.250 0.250 0.200 0.110 0.130 0.200 0.160 0.160 0.160 0.190 0.290 400 910 800 1390 2690 1930 1400 860 750 1000.12960 19660 27140 21950 15000 5200 4740*5190 4300 3900 2910 2760 1770 1510 1340 1220 1350 1230 1220 1655 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.19 1.20 o0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 1.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.26 0.27'0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.90 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1048.89 1048.39 1048.14 1047.62 1047.33 1046.55 1045.76 1044.92 1044.11 1046.82 1046.03 1045.20 1044.35 1043.58 TOTAL AVERAGE 1045.53 MAXIMUM 1052.56 MINIMUM 1039.10 0 0 124440 4148 5.050 149135 3.70 3.39 4971 NORMAL= 2.92 237635 DATE=16 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 58807 DATE= 2 TOP FLOOD POOL .1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 295805 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IFRBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 97 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1043.33 2 1042.87 3 1042.75 4 1042.61 5 1042.43 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1042.34.1042.18 1042.22 1042.16 1042.35 1042.50 1042.55 1042.53 1042.50 1042.43 1042.28 1042.12 1041.97 1041.93 1042.01 1041.82 1041.74 1041.62 1041.55 1041.50 1041.32 1041.82 1042.30 1042.60 1042.59 1042.61 1043..58 1042.96 1042.87 1042.65 1042.50 1042.39 1042.23 1042.15 1042.20 1042.26 1042.44 1042.57 1042.53 1042.52 1042.45 1042.33 1042.17 1042.07 1041.91 1041.98 1041.89 1041.76.1041.67 1041.57 1041.51 1041.49 1041.41 1042.10 1042.54 1042.61 1042.56 1042.72 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 104700.97855 96900 94564 92971 91803 90104 89255 89*785 90423 92333 93714 93290 93184 92440 91165 89468 88405 86746 87458 86542 85217 84301 83281 82670 82467 81652 88724 93396 94139 93609 95307 RELEASES 4658 2516*.1816 1802 1793 1782 1769 1773'1773 1787 1799 1801 1800 1794 1790 1777 1766 1754 923 1123 1742 1734 1416 1201 1196 1191 1217 1810 2353 2351 2358 56364 1818 0.190 0.240 0.290 0'.300 0.300 0.280 0. 200 0.310 0.250 0.280 0.290 0.290 0.330 0.260 0.260 0.330 0.270 0.270 0.260 0.270 0.210 0.270 0.250 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.040 0.160 0.090 0.200 1280 2130 730 1090 1290 990 1440 2120 2180 2840 2590 1690 1830 1500 1250 1000 1310 1000 1360 730 1160 1350 960 950 1150 840 4790 4220 2755 2150 3290 0.00 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 1.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.30 3.90 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.00 0.03 0.31 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.84 0.17 0.01 0.01 0.87 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.23 MAXIMUM 1043.58 MINIMUM 1041.32 7.490 53965 7.95 4.18 1741 NORMAL= 4.43 104700 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 80734 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 107038 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[flBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthy Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH.1 1042.79 2 1042.89 3 1642.57 4 1042.11 5 1041.61 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1041.32 1041.51 1041.69 1041.61 1041.53 1041.42 1041.35 1041.20 1041.47 1042.27 1043.12 1043.94 1044.41 1044.67 1044.67 1044.06 1043.31 1042.51 1041.64 1040.74 1040.08 1039.81 1039.57 1039.32 1039.08 1042.72 1042.85 1042.69 1042.26 1041.79 1041.39 1041.39 1041.64 1041.64 1041.56 1041.45 1041.34 1041.25 1041.33 1042.01 1042.75 1043.76 1044.22 1044.55 1044.75 1044.30 1043.61 1042.80 1041.90 1041.03 1040.27 1039.87 1039.65 1039.41 1039.15 1038.91 95307 96687 94988 90423 85523 81448 81448 83995 83995 83180 82059 80938 80022 80836 87768 95626 106693 111902 115734 118055 112832 105032 96157 86644 77781 70201 66253 64126 61805 59291 57034 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0*0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2375 3396 3975 3888 2961 1911 1720*1730 1725 1718 1708.1702 1697 1732 1789 1865 3384 5668 6464 6429 6274 6062 5821 5572 4546 2524 1561 1538 1516 1492 94742 3158 0.250 0.250 0.200 0.130 0.180 0.250 0.270 0.260 0.260 0.150.0.200 0.270 0.250 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.230 0.320 0.230 0.320 0.320 0.320 0.330 0.220 0.270.0.130 0.240 0.230 0.230 3150 2600 1720 1470 980 1990 3080 1810 1360 1210 1220 1320 2170 5290 5820 7520 6090 7710 7710 3910 2450 1690 1130 1170 800 570 560 430 310 430 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 1.03 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 DSF INCHES ADJ' INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.75 0.18 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.10 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.72 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.85 MAXIMUM 1044.75 MINIMUM 1038.91 7.190 77670 3.28 3.98 2589 NORMAL= 4.74 118055 DATE=19 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57034 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL .1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=154056 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection P John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1. 1038.81 2 1039.11 3 1039.88 4 1040.17 5 1039.97 6 1039.72 7 1039.47 8 1039.30 9 1039.05 10 1039.64 11 1040.88 12 1041.32 13 1041.44 14 1041.37 15 1040.86 16 1040.28 17 1039.66 18 1039.48 19 1039;34 20 1039.17 21 1038.95 22 1039.05 23 1039.17 24 1039.26 25 1039.26 26 1039.26 27 1039.22 28 1039.20 29 1039.25 30 1039.19 31 1039.12 1038.91 1038.96 1039.66 1040.16 1040.06 1039.83 1039.56 1039.27 1039.13 1039.33 1040.49 1041.18 1041.45 1041.40 1041.04 1040.48 1039.89 1039.54 1039.38 10.39.21 1039.04 1039.03 1039.10 1039.25 1039.27 1039.27 1039.24 1039.21 1039.28 1039.17 1039.15.1039.12 57034 57481 64223 69105 68108 65866 63256 60451 59097 61031 72393 79309 82059 81550 77883 72293 66446 63062 61515 59870.58227 58130 58807 60258 60451 60451 60161 59870 60548 59484 59291 59000 POWER 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 1179 1060 1274 1594 1577 1554 1527 1510 642 154 1632 2476 2486 3252 3646 3524 1939.1072 1062 1051 611 375 378 379 375 379 378 378 379 377 376 38598 1245.0.270 0.390 0.260 0.270 0.250 0.250 0".240 0.290 0.200 0.320 0.300 0.250 0.250 0.240ý0.260 0.280 0.230 0.320 0.220 0.220 0.220 0.080 0.280 0.280 0.350 0.360 0.360 0.360 0.280 0.310 0.260 1510 4530 3810 1160 520 310 200 880 1710 5970 5190 3940 2300 1480 910 640 320 360 300 280 580 790 1190 570 480 330 330 400 350 335 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 1. 0*0 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.48.0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.87 0.15 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.80 0.01 0.01 0.35.0.00 0.04.0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0-. 00 0.17 0.54 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.11 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.68 MAXIMUM 1041.45 MINIMUM 1038.81 8.450 41975 4.15 3.96 1354 NORMAL= 3.61 82059 DATE=12 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 56137 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=83256 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IW13ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pageq.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 97.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY ..FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH.1 1039.10 2 1039.07 3 1039.04 4. 1038.99 5 1038.98 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2.0 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.96 1039.00 1039.00 1039.01 1039.07 1039.11 1039.17 1039.18 1039.24 1039.54 1039.50 1039.62 1039.35 1039.43 1039.71 1040.21 1040.63 1040.71 1040.59 1040.51 1040.41 1040.21 1040.01 1039.87 1039.91 1039.93 1039.12 1039.10 1039.08 1039.03 1038.97 1038.95 1038.98 1039.00 1039.00 1039.01 1039.09 1039.11 1039.15 1039.18 1039.45 1039.54 1039.46 1039.48 1039.26 1039.58 1040.01 1040.53 1040.72 1040.63 1040.53 1040.45 1040.28 1040.07 1039.88 1039.88 1039.93 1039.96 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 59000 58807 58613 58130 57571 57391 57661 57840 57840 57937 58710 58904 59291 59581 62191 63062 62288 62481 60354 63448 67610 72792 74685 73788 72792 71994 70300 68207 66350 66350 66834 67123 0 0 0.0"0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0~0.0 0 0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 375 37.5 375 232 151 85 49 49 49 49'113 152 302 380.679 844 844.837 842 1166 1368 1396 1398 1390 1383 1374 1358 1085 264 77 77 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 82 0.250 0.230 0.230 0.230 0.370'0.330 0.070 0.220 0.200 0.190 0.190 0.020 0.110 0.150 0.060 0.290 0.290 0;290 0.050 0.130 0.270 0.090 0.220.0.220 0.220 0.270 0.250 0.240 0.300 0.210 0.200 INFLOW ADJ k DSF 340 340.200 50 150 240 200 100 150 490 220 380 490 1710 1200 540 400 400 2440 3340 4010 2420 1010 950 1060 590 370 240 320 380 280 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 0.11 0.07 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.95 0.00 2.15 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.37 0.51 0.13 0.00 0.09 0.00 1.15 0.12 0.98 0.02 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.06 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.59 MAXIMUM 1040.72 MINIMUM 1038.95 0 19118 0 617 6.390 25010 4.20 4.14* 807 NORMAL= 3.49 74685 DATE=22 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57391 DATE= 5 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=49607 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION WhBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.*John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.99 2 1040.00 3 1040.03 4 1039.95 5 .1039.88 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.89 1039.88 1039.90 1039.90 1039.85 1039.85 1039.83 1039.87 1039.91 1039.86 1039.87 1039.86 1039.82 1039.76 1039.71 1039.78 1039.78 1039.92 1040.00 1039..94 1040.02 1040.14 1040.31 1040.24 1040.24 1039.96 1039.99 1040.01 1039.98 1039.90 103.9.88 1039.88 1039.89 1039.89 1039.87 1039.85 1039.83 1039.84 1039.88 1039.89 1039.86 1039.86 1039.85 1039.79 1039.78 1039.80 1039.77 1039.89 1039.97 1040.00 1040.00 1040.09 1040.25 1040.28 1040.25 1040.22 67123 67413 67610 67316 66543 66350 66350 66446 66446 66253 66059 65866 65962 66350 66446 66156 66156 66059 65480 65383 65576 65286 66446 67220.67510 67510 68407 70001 70300 70001 69702 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 ,278 393 391 234 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 154 103 77 77 77 77 264 392 498 636 641 639 638 7494 250 0.200 0 200 0.270 0.210 0.200 0.180 0.180 0.180 0.240 0.300 0.200 0.320 0.170 0.160 0.160 0.210 0.220 0.260 0.350 0.160 0.150 0.150 0.040 0.110 0.020 0.130 0.200 0.200 0.190 0.230 280 450 310 60 190 210 250 220 140 110 150 290 470 320.140 290 250 30 170 290.40 740 540 415 430 1010 1500 845 555 550'0.00'0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00.0.00 0.16 M0O0 0.00 1.47 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A. DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0 *.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.17 0.02'1.43 0.35 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.94.MAXIMUM 1040.31 MINIMUM 1039.71 5.790 11245 .3.05 2.68 375 NORMAL= 3.76 70600 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 64705 DATE=20 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=22304 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[MB ack to the John Redmond Lake, Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 97.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.19.2 1040.13 3 1c40.08 4 .1039.92 5 1039.68 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.45 1039.23 1039.20 1039.22 1039.17 1039.14 1038.99 1039.23 1039.33 1039.54 1039.82 1039.94 1039.98 1039.98 1039.85 1039.67 1039.48 1039.40 1039..39 1039.39 1039.43 1039.55 1039.77 1040.22 1040.64 1040.95 1040.22 1040.16 1040.10 1039.99 1039.78 1039.53 1039.31 1039.22 1039.16 1039.18 1039.14 1039.10 1039.18 1039.25 1039.46 1039.75 1039.91 1039.96 1039.97 1039.91 1039.73 1039.54 1039.41 1039.39 1039.39 1039.38 1039.49 1039.67 1040.03 1040.49 1040.-84 1041.11 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT.69702 69105 68506 67413 65383 62965 60838 59967 59388.59581 59194 58807 59581 60258 62288 65093 66640 67123 67220 66640 64899 63062 61805 61611 61611 61515 62578 64.319 67809 72393 75880 78595 RELEASES 637 635 855 1099 1084 1069 461 152 152 152 151 151 152 658 1081.1097 1103 1104 1103 1095 1083 621 3.81 381 381 382 385 390 3.97 405 410 19207 620 0.210 0.190 0.240 0.260 0.260 0.260 0.270 0.050 0.060 0.160 0.090 0. 090 0.090 0.090 0.150 0.100 0.160 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.130 0.150 0.140 0.060 0.020 0.020 0.060 0.120 0.100 0.150 0.040 390 340 280 150 100 70 70 70 170 50 50 640 590 1800 2590 1990 1370.1180 840 250 200 100 370 460 410 1010 1370 2250 2750 2240 1900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.0Q0 0.00 1.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00'0.00 0.00 0.01 0.56 0.01 0.00 0.38 0.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.85 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER. TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM. BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.69 MAXIMUM 1041.11 MINIMUM 1038.99 4.020. 26050 3.21 2.78 840 NORMAL= 2.56 78595 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57750 DATE=12 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=51669 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chabts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 97 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.16 2 1041.36 3 1041.47 4 1041.42 5 1041.23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1041.04 1041.12 1041.10 1041.08 1041.06 1041.07 1041.02 1041.02 1040.99 1041.04 1040.98 1040.91 1040.94 1040.95 1040.95 1040.96 1040.94 1040.95 1040.94 1040..93 1040.87 1040.90 1041.02 1041.27 1041.65 1041.11 1041.29 1041.37 1041.37.1041.26 1041.12 1041.13 1041.12 1041.10 1041.04 1041.07 1041.04.1041.00 1041.01 1040.93 1040.96 1040.95 1040.93 1040.95 1040.95 1040.95 1040.94 1040.95 1040.93 1040.93 1040.94 1040.94 1040.92 1041.12 1041.34 1041.89 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 78595 80430 81244 81244 80124 78697 78799 78697 78493 77883 78188 77883 77475 77577 76778 77076 76976 76778 76976 76976 76976 76877 76976 76778 76778 76877 76877 76678 78697 80938 86542 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A ADJ DSF 415'417 739.930 925 593 413 412 412 412 412 411 411 359 332 331 223 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 158 159 160 0.160 0 160 0.160 0.090 0.090 0.010 0.060 0.020.0.080 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.060 0'. 030 0.140 0.090 0.070 0.110 0.090 0.090 0.020 0.030 0.030 0.020 0.080 0.080 0.120 0.080 0.010 0.010 1460 940 840 460 450 450 400 400 350 350 320 300 300 300 580 370 230 350 260 160 190 290 130 250 300 265 150 1250 1360 3090 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.23 0.72 0. 00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.38.0.20 INCHES 7ATO 7A DAM BSN INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.08 MAXIMUM 1041.89 MINIMUM 1040.85 0 0 10203 340 2.030 16545 2.00 1.30.552 NORMAL= 1.64 86542 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION*POOL 1039.00 75980 DATE=24 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=32817 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[WBack to the John Redmond Lake MonthljyCharts S election Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 97 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.97 2 1041.92 3 I041.80 4 1041.73 5 1041.55 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.36 1041.19 1040.97 1040.68 1040.33 1040.08 1040.27 1040.41 1040.49 1040.56 1040.54 1040.55 1040.59 1040.62 1040.65 1041.89 1041.96 1041.85 1041.71 1041.61 1041.40 1041.28 1041.04 1040.78 1040.43 1040.19 1040.17 1040.35 1040.46 1040.55.1040.54 1040.56 1040.56 1040.60 1040.65 1040.67 86542 87254 86134 84707 83689 81550 80328 77883 75283 71795 69403 69204 70998 72094 72991 72891 73091 73091 73489 73987 ,74187 75183 76180 76778 85421 106693 130538 147362 153557 151444 144403 138172 963 1485 1476 1755 2234 2218 2196 2170 2135 2095.*979 398 400 402 710 894 895 897 899 901 903 1222 1417 1443 1544 1679 1782 1832 3888 5408 5326 0.100 0.040 0.020 0.030 0.140 0.100 0 060 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.010 0.050 0.020 0.050 0.060 0.130 0.080 0.070 0.120 0.050 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.060 0.070 0.060 0.070 0.050 1400 1000 840.1280 1260 1690 1030 860 380 890 890 1310 970 870 700 1020 910 1130 1170 1010 1410 1730 1720 5800 12280 i3720 10290 4980 2850 1880 2200 0.00'0.00 0.43 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.12 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.17 0.06 0.79 0.13 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 1040.66 1040.77 1040.84 1040.87 1040.91 1040.93 1041.13 1041.78 1042.45 1043.76 1043.59 1046.32 1047.31 1047.55 1047.14 1046.67 1045.77 1047.05 1047.49 1047.34 1046.83 1046.36 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.14 MAXIMUM 1047.55 MINIMUM 1040.08 0 52543 0 1695 1.550 79470 1.71 2.03 2564 NORMAL= 1.18 154402 DATE=29 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 68307 DATE=If TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 157626 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I!Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES. EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1046.20 2 1045.84 3 1045.37 4 1044.85 5 1044.59 6 1044.47"7 1044.34 8 1044.23 9 1044.16 10 1044.01 11 1043.81 12 1043.59 13 1042.92 14 1042.22 15 1041.52 16 1040.82 17 1040.55 18 1040.28 19 1040.06 20 1039.77 21 1039.49 22 1039.30 23 1038.99 24 1039.04 25 1039.10 26 1039.17 27 1039.21 28 1039.14 2.9 1039.04 30 1039.13 31 1039.17 1046.36 1045.99 1045.55 1045.03 1044.64 1044.51 1044.38 1044.25 1044.19 1044.09 1043.89 1043.67 1043.16 1042.46 1041.76 1041..07 1040.66 1040.40 1040.16 1039.90 1039.58 1039.37 1039.08 1039.01 1039.07 1039.14 1039.18 1039.17 1039.13 1039.12 1039.17 1039.19 138172 133274 127801 121331 116778 115269 113760 112251.111554 110393 108132 105697 100051 92546 85217 78188 74087 71496 69105 66543 63448 61418 58613 57937 58516 59194 59581 59484 59097 59000 59484 59677 5239 0.050 5166 0.050 5076 0.100 4009 0.010 2556 0.010 2543 0.'020 2531 0.010 2522 0.010 2513 0.010 2496 0.010 2475 0.050 3807 0.010 4568 0.010 4416 0.030 4263 0.010 2889 0.000 2105 0.000 2072 0.050 2041 0.010 2006 .0.040'1970 0.030 1940 0.040 1046 0.010 592 0.060 594 0.080 597 0.040 892 0.040 1041 0..080 743 0.110 596 0.090 598 0.100 75900 1.170 2448 2790 2440 1820 1720 1800 1790 1770 2170 1930 1370 1250 960 790 730 720 820 810.870 760 460 960 530 720 910 950 800 870 870 720 870 705 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.*00 0.00*0.00-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06.0.05 0.22 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.*00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.61 MAXIMUM 1046.36 MINIMUM 1038.98 36675 0.61 0.47 1183 NORMAL= 0.84 138172 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57661 DATE=23 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=72744 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 911Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pang.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.31 2 1039.32 3 1039.30 4 1039..47 5 1039.72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1039.85 1039.94 1039.93 1039.83 1039.75 1039.65 1039.53 1039.43 1039.43 1039.40 1039.41 1039.34 1039.37 1039.33 1039.31 1039.26 1039.23 1039.18 1039.11 1039.07 1039.17 1039.19 1039.17 1039.19 1039.29 1039.28 1039.42 1039.64 1039.80 1039.92 1039.95 1039.87 1039.78 1039.68 1039.56 1039.47 1039.43 1039.42 1039.43 1039.43 1039.35 1039.35 1039.32 1039.28 1039.23 1039.21 1039.15 1039.12 1039.14 1039.1.7 1039.16 1039.18 59677 60645 60548 61902 64029 65576 66737 67026 66253 65383 64416 63256 62385 61999.61902 61999 61999 61224 61224 60934 60548 60064 59870 59291 59000 59194 59484 59388 59581 RELEASES DSF POWER TO 0 0 i1 0 .1 0 .1.0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 600 191 504 522 541 554 561 559 550 541 531 521 216 059 057 058 055 053 052 050 048 045 043 744 593 0.050 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.020 0.060 0.080 0.100 0.030 0.010 0.060 0.060 0.080 0.110 0.030 0.010 0.050 0.040 0.050*0.050 0.050 0.050 0.100 0.200 1090 1140 2190 2600 2330 2160 1730 1200 1120 1060 960 1100 1040 1040 1110 1060 680.1070 920 870 820 960 780 650 740 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.02 0.05 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 597 0.180 598 0.220 597 0.170 800 0.00 600 0.00 720 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.43 MAXIMUM 1039.95 MINIMUM 1039.00.32042 1144 1.910 32540 0.52 1.28 1162 NORMAL= 0.90 67026 DATE= 7 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57840 DATE=25 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=64542 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 10Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER;ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.19 2 1039.21 3 1039.18 4 1039.19 5 1039.17 6 1039.20 7 1039.17 8 1039.40 9 1039.70 10 1039.86 11 1039.89 12 1039.75 13 1039.64 14 1039.49 15 1039.38 16 1039.44 17 1039.97 18 1042.07 19 1044.53 20 1046.94 21 1048.33 22 10.49.08 23 1049.58 24 1049.97 25 1050.10 26 1050.02 27 1049.92 28 1049.87 29 1049.70 30 1049.48 31 1049..61 1039.18 1039.20 1039.19 1039.22 1039.17 1039.20 1039.16 1039.29 1039.67 1039.79 1039.87 1039.81 1039.68 1039.56 1039.42 1039.38 1039.57 1041.15 1043.60 1046.09 1047.87 1048.83 1049.40 1049.87 1050.09 1050.06 1049.98 1049.93 1049.79 1049.59 1049.54 1049.52 59581 59774 59677 59967 59484 59774 59388 60645 64319 65480 66253 65673 64416 6.3256 61902 61515 63351 79003 104921 134592 158907 173210 182129 189605 193189 192685 191355 190560 188333 185150 184356 184037 598 599 598 598 597.598 598 605 615 1176 1554 1542 1531 1518 1508 1516 1595 1781 1987 3179 4284 4377 4443 4490 4500 4491 4480 4470 4446 4426 4434 0.100 0.i30 0.080 0.140 0.160 0.020 0.070 0.010 0.040 0.140 0.090 0.070 0.120 0.170 0.060 0.030 0.010 00.000 0.010 0.000 0.160 0.140 0.160 0.110 0.200 0.240 0.210 0.080 0.300 0.250 0.010 730 570*780 400 750 420 1240 2470 1240 1590 1280 940 990 850 1320 2450 9490 14850 18830 15500 11560 8950 8270 6390 4360 3920 4120 3490 2960 4030 4295 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 1.00 0.10 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.02*0. 61 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.14 1.14 0.05 0.01 0.11 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.08 0.64 TOTAL AVERAGE 0 73132 1043.76 0 2359 3.310 139035 3.84 3.11 4485 NORMAL= 2.06 MAXIMUM 1050.10 MINIMUM 1039.15 193358 DATE=25 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 59291 DATE= 7 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 275772 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IIB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400. AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A.TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1049.61 2 1049.68 3 1049.69 4 1049.61 5 1049.47 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1049.37 1049.25 1049.03 1048.67 1048.02 1047.39 1046.66 1046.04 1045.34 1044.80 1044.10 1043.44 1042.70 1041.95 1041.22 1040.51 1039.79 1039.46 1039.22 1039.04 1038.95 1038.93 1039.34 1039.87 1040.59 1049.52 1049.67 1049.63 1049.66 1049.48 1049.42 1049.25 1049.14 1048.79 1048.21 1047.63 1046.95 1046.21 1045.58 1044.83 1044.31 1043.66 1042.94 1042.24 1041.51 1040.77 1040.08 1039.53 1039.32 1039.09 1038.99 1038.95 1039.10 1039.69 1040.26 1041.21 184037 186424 185787 186265 183401 182447 179742 177992 172610 163893 155528 145993 136183 128173 118983 112948 105586 97642 90210 82670 75183 68307 62965 60934 58710 57750 57391 58807 64512 70101 79614 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*4443 4447 4448 4434 4417 4403 4389 5288*6352 6233 6104 5955 5817 5665 5548 5404 5242 5066 4886 4700 4505 3480 1964 1548 1322 1316 786 453 1616 3724 123954 4132 0.050 0.130 0.260 0.010 0.030 0.220 0.230 0.120 0.010 0.120 0.200 0.350 0.350 0.210 0.290 0.240 0.130 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.190 0.200 0.230 0.220 0.350 0.350 0.110 0.010 0.030 0.010 5710 425.0 4690 3000 4040 3150 3560 2580 2010 2100 1440 1140 1860 1140 2590 1730 1290 1370 1140 980 1100 850 1000 520 930 1170 1500 3340 4440 8525 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.04 0.00 0.00.0.08 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.91 0.15 0.08 0.02 0 00 0.19 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.09 0.91 0.56 0.10 TOTAL AVERAGE 1"044.20 MAXIMUM 1049.72 MINIMUM 1038.93 5.160 73145 3.51 2.33 2438 NORMAL= 2.92 187218 DATE= 3 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57213 DATE=27 TOP FLOOD POOL*1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 145081 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[R13ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pagze..John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 98 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.63 2 1042.52 3 1042.55 4 1042.30 5 1041.87 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.43 1040.80 1040.35 1040.21 1040.04 1039.96 1040.05 1040.17 1040.18 1040.26 1040.40 1040.34.1040.23 1040.11 1040.09 1040.05 1039.85 1040.00 1040.00 1040.08 1040.02 1040..05 1040.06 1039.92 1039.84 1039.67 1041.21 1042.30 1042..63 1042.41 1042.03 1041.58 1041.07 1040.54 1040.25 1040.10 1039.96 1040.02 1040.14 1040.18 1040.23 1040.39 1040.38 1040.29 1040.15 1040.10 1040.06 1039.98 1039.97 1039.95 1039.97 1040.04 1040.06 1040.05 1040.06 1039.91 1039.67 1039.50 79614 90848 94351 92016 87981 83383 78188 72891 70001 68506 67123 67709 68905 69304 69802 71396 71297 70400 69005 6850.6 68108 67316 67220 67026 67220 67909 68108 68009 68108 66640 64319 62675 4716 4890 4890 4815 4710 4597 4451 3435 2857 2831 2821 2839 3484 3815 2911 2416 2403 2388 1743 1421 1416 957 713 714 716 716 717 716 1186 1410 1390 79082 2551 0.010 0.170 0.210 0.200 0.260 0.210 0.140 0.270 0.250 0.040 0.210 0.290 0.210 0.340 0.200 0.320 0.310 0.340 0.240 0.250 0.220 0.210 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.130 0.140 0.160 0.310 0.350 0.420 10430 6720 3780 28.60.2460 2020 1860 2050 2120 2190 3200 3500 3780 4120 3810 2460 2050 1750 1560 1280 1080 940 650 840 1100 860 710 855 550 360 690 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 019 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.17 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.77 0.00 0.46 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0o.-00 0.0.0 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 6.710 72635 0.50 1.81 2343 NORMAL= 4.43 1040.45 MAXIMUM 1042.63 MINIMUM 1039.50 94351 DATE= 2 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 62675 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 144069 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IgBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 98.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 240.OHR AC-FT RELEAS DSF ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A POWER PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.43 2 1039.28 3 1039.04 4. 1038.97 5 1038.99 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.09 1039.10 1039.03 1039.19 1039.17 1039.15 1039.20 1039.19 1039.23 1039.13 1039.17 1039.09 1039.11 1039.13 1039.13 1039.41 1039.42 1039.45 1039.49 1039.55 1039.49 1039.43 1039.44 1039.49 1039.91 1039.50 1039.35 1039.12 1039.00 1039.02 1039.08 1039.08 1039.06 1039.17 1039.15 1039.20 1039.18 1039.20 1039.11 1039.14 1039.18 1039.13 1039.05 1039.14 1039.22 1039.16 1039.14 1039.38 1039.51 1039.48 1039.49 1039.44 1039.40 1039.48 1039.70 1040.12 62675 61224 59000 57840 58034 58613 58613 58421 59484 59291 59774 59581 59774 58904 59194 59581 59097 58324 59194 59967 59388 59194 61515 62772 62481 62578 62094 61708 62481 64609 68706 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1195 1359 752 302 223 224 224 224 372 451 451 452 451 452 450 451 448 302 225 225 226 228 528 690 691 689 662 76 326 712 14062 469 0.460 0.310 0.480 0.350 0.040 0.160 0.220 0.310 0.030 0.240 0.260 0.260 0.220 0.340 0.390 0.080 0.290 0.410 0.370 0.420 0.400 0.310 0.250 0.680 0.460 0.320 0.420 0.490 0.430 0.450 INFLOW ADJ DSF 550 370.260 410 560 290 210 770 340 770 420 610 110 710 665 285 170 845 730 45 215 1470 2050 675 830 565 605 590 15,25 2815 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.22 0.00 0.29 0.00 0-. 00 0.11 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.24 2.25 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.26 0.01 0.24 0.01 0.01 0.15 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.12 1.39 0.22 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.68 RAINFALL-INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1039.26 0 9.850 20460 8.72 3.59 682 NORMAL= 4.74 MAXIMUM 1040.12 MINIMUM 1038.96 68706 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57481 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL. .1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=40582 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.16 2 1040.15 3 1039.95 4 1039.75 5 1039.47 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.22 1039.32 1039.37 1039.39 1039.44 1039.60 1039.70 1039.90 1039.93 1039.83 1039.75 1039.82 1039.83 1039.76 1039.56 1039.31 1039.02 1039.13 1039.26 1039.79 1040.40 1041.31 1041.47 1041.48 1041.66 1041.43 1040.12 1040.17 1040.05 1039.83 1039.57 1039.32 1039.19 1039.31 1039.34 1039.45 1039.56 1039.64 1039.82 1039.94 1039.88 1039.79 i039.77 1039.85 1039.78 1039.64 1039.38 1039.11 1038.99 1039.14 1039.57 10.40.1 1040.99 104.1.49 1041.35 1041.62 1041.52 1041.28 68706 69204 68009 65866 63351 60934 59677 60838 61127 62191 63256 64029 65769 66929 66350 65480 65286 66059 65383 64029 61515 58904 57750 59194 63351 68606 77375 82467 81040 83791 82772 80328 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 721 1079 1422 1401 1377 784 455 4'56 458 461 464 468.1076 1421 1411 1407 1707 1882 1870 1846 1813 908 449 960 1651 1725 2804 3364 3376*3391 3355 45963 1483.0.130 0.360 0.130 0.400 0.330*0.400.0.320 0.270 0.120 0.190 0.260 0.080 0.140 0.210 0.290 0.120 0.260 0.390 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.380 0.170 0.280 0.050 0.290 0.240 0.280 0.090 0.070 0.190 1075 515 455 230 270 240 1115 635 1050 1070 880 1385 1720 1210 1010 1380 2210 1665 1310 700 605 375 1255 3070 4385 6215 5455 2670 4785 2935 2175 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 1.25 0.00 0;00 0.03 0.00 0.15 0'. 00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.12 0.81 0.00 0.00 2.28 0.28 0.96 0.05 0.00 DSF .. INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.01 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.28 0.22: 0.40 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.58 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.20 0.47 0.64*0.37 0.22 0.02 0.20 0.29 0.02 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.95 7.730 54050 .7.94 6.34 1744 NORMAL= 3.61 MAXIMUM 1041.66 8 MINIMUM 1038.96 5 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 4199 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 7481 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 107207 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pag~e.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF -INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.20 2 1040.88 3 1040.52 4 1040.24 5 1039.91 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.47 1039.11 1039.24 1039.31 1039.33 1039.23 1039.11 1039.11 1039.07 1039.05 1039.00 1038.96 1038.96 1039.00 1038.98 1039.02 1039.02 1039.02 1039.02 1039.05 1039.03 1039.11 1039.12 1039.09 1039.07 1039.07*1041.28 1041.01 1040.66 1040.32 1039.95 1039.65 1039.27 1039.20 1039.32 1-039.34 1039.29 1039.15 1039.11 1039.07 1039.07 1039.02 1038.96 1038.96 1038.98 1038.99 1039.01 1039.00 1039.02 1039.04 1039.03 1039.04 1039.09 1039.10 1039.11 1039.08 1039.05 1039.06 80328 77577 74087 70698 67026 64126 60451 59774 60934 61127 60645 59291 58904*58516 58516 58034 57481 57481 57661 57750 57937 57840 58034 58227 58130 58227 58710 58807 58904 58613 58324 58421 3314 3255 3180 31225 3059 2984 1664 907 911 911 905 603 449 448 447 446 313 223 223 114 51 51 51 51 51 51 117 151 151 151 151 28505 920 0.180 0.170 0.170 0.270 0.260 0.120 0.130 0.150 0.270 0.280 0.190 0.220 0.180 0.150 0.400 0.280 0.360 0.300 0.380 0.270 0.320 0.320 0.340 0.390 0.370 0.400 0.380 0.240 0.150 0.300 0.200 1980 1545 1550 1350 1630 1165 1365 1.570 1085 720 285 455 295 560 280 265 395 420 340 295 90 240 255 105 210.400 230 240 90 60 270 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.72 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01.0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.441 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.29 MAXIMUM 1041.28 MINIMUM 1038.92 8.140 19740 1.34 1.03 637 NORMAL= 3.49 80328 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57123 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=39154 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[lBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.08*2 1039.07 3 1039.05 4 1039.04 5 1039.01 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1038.98 1038.95 1038.91 1038.87 1038.86 1038.86 1038.88 1038.84 1039.04 1039.08 1039.09 1039.11 1039.12 1039.09.1039.00 1039.21 1039.16 1039.10 1039.14 10399..69 1040.65 1041.32 1041.89 1041.96 1041.46 1039.06 1039.06 1039.04 1039.06 1039.02 1038.99 1038.96 1038.93 1038.89 1038.85 1038.85 1038.87 1038.85 1039.05 1039.08 1039.11 1039.11 1039.11 1039.10 1039.08 1039. 10'1039.14 1039.12 1039.05 1039.48 1040.26 1041.06 1041.74 1041.99 1041.85 1041.53 58421 58421 58227 58421 58034 57750 57481 57213 56854 56495 56495 56675 56495 58324 58613 58904 58904 58904 58807 58613 58807 59194 59000 58324 62481 70101 78087 85013 87560 86134 82874'151 155 151 151 151 151 151 84 40 36 36 36* 36 37 38 38 38 38 38 38 284 450 341 226 1215 1974 2054 2106 3244 4138 17627 588 0.260 0.190 0.190 0.250 0.380 0.280 0.300 0.300 0.380 0.290 0.250 0.380 0.410 0.040 0.100 0.150 0.130 0.140 0.120 0.230 0.060 0.130 0.110 0.150 0.010 0.230 0.240 0.230 0.210 0.220 INFLOW ADJ DSF 200 110 260 60 85 100 95 5 0 105 230 55 970 210 225 75 75 20 5.150 515 385 40 2325 5125 6070 5615 3455 2590 2525 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0A00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.41 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.83 0.12 0.00 1.38 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.15 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.08 1.14 0.23 0.00 1.77 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 1.81 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.51 MAXIMUM 1041.99 MINIMUM 1038.84 0 0 6.360 31680 7.53 6.23 1056 NORMAL= 3.76 87560 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 56405 DATE=13 TOP FLOOD POOL ..1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=62836 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION Ig1Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts SelectionPage.

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 98.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.82 2 1043.17 3 id44.80 4. 1046.17 5 1048.20 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1050.80 1053.66 1055.70 1056.77 1056.26 1055.65 1054.96 1054.27 1053.54 1052.80 1052.05 1051.52 1051.68 1051.50 1051.03 1050.16 1048.83 1047.73 1046.46 1045.21 1043.98 1042.69 1041.81 1041.46 1041.21 1041.21 1041.53 1042.60 1044.28 1045.77.1047.39 1049.86 1052.52 1055.10 1056.52 1056.52 1055.86 1055.20 1054.50 1053.78 1053.05 1052.30 1051.72 1051.61 1051.56 1051.20 1050.46 1049.24.1048.05 1046.85 1045.62 1044.36 1043.08 1042.07 1041.52 1041.26 1041.16 1041.87 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 82874 94033 112600 130538 152149 189446 236857 288786 318926 318926 304758 290887 276435 261784 247184 232583 221650 219645 218736.212173 199426 179583 161490 144668 128671 113528 99165 88405 82772 80124 79105 86338 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 4242 4550 3946 2547 92 96 1566 4133 8018 9993 9855 9709 9557 9397 9230 9062 8971 8985 8936 9753 11392 10355 9280 8895 8486 8057 6218 3694 2051 1364 1025 203459 6563 0.100 0.200 0.050 0.060 0.060'0.030 0.110 0.220.0.060 0.110 0.100 0.100 0.200 0.180 0.190 0.190 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.060 0.090 0.170 0.070 0.120 0.120 0.110 0.140 0.150 0.030 0. 140 0.020 9930 13925 13015 13465 18910 24055 27880 19365 8090 2910 2925 2545 2280 2145 1975 3570 7975 8545 5660 3370 1470 1265 850 875 890 860 840 865 760 855 4675 0.1.5 1.36 0.00 0.00.1.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.95 0.11 0.00 1.91 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.*00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.48.0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00-0.00 0.03 0.00 0.64 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1048.93 MAXIMUM 1056.78 MINIMUM 1041.15 3.270 206740 4.36 4.69 6669 NORMAL= 2.56 324539 79003 DATE= 9 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 410063 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION a.ckto Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page_John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 81 PRIOR MONTH 1 1043.54 2 1050.86 3 1062.94 4 1067.77 5 1068.68 6 1068.84 7 1068.47 8 1068.15 9 1067.59 10 1067.24 11 1066.80 12 1066.39 13 1065.91 14 1065.28 15 1064.58 16 1063.81 17 1063.00 18 1062.14 19 1061.30 20 1060.37 21 1059.40 22 1058.40 23 1057.49 24 1056.42 25 1055.36 26 1054.02 27 1052.74 28 1051.33 29 1049.91 30 1048.97 1041.87 1048.90 1059.07 1066.86 1068.55 1068.88 1068.64 1068.33 1067.78 1067.32 1066.91 1066.55 1066.09 1065.49 1064.82 1064.05 1063.27 1062.42 1061.58 1060.70 1059.74 1058.76 1057.76 1056.74 1055.65 10.54.46 1053.16 1051.81 1050.39 1049.19 1048.99 86338 174263 375770 587550 640780 651364 643666 633720 616255 601863 589088 578022 563879 545761*525788 503456 481814 458924 436974 414726 391460 368692 346143 323674 300346 275614 249384 223292 198247 178787 175615 569 2004 12099 20085 21677 21680 17548 14286 13216 13468 14004 14245 14313 14176 14019 14166 14144*13948 13951 13984 13728 13465 13481 13607 13701 13456 1.3533 13307 12803 12543 411207 13707 0.010 0.010 0.070 0.020 0.020 0.080 0.000 0.020 0.040 0.130 0.150 0.110 0.100 0.050 0.020 0.090 0.100 0.130 0.080 0.070 0.110 0.110 0.110 0.130 0.030 0.130 0.160 0.110 0.050 0..190 INFLOW ADJ DSF 44900 103635 118890 46940 27090 17800 12550 5520 6080 7165 8525 7205 5225 4125 2835 3340.2705 2940 2785 2330 2325 2170 2240 1865 1310 325 440 710 3080.11010 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 6.74 1.26 0.04 0.02 0.00 0". 00 0.16 0.21 0.02 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.07 3.41 1.90 0.24 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.27 0.02 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 TOTAL AVERAGE 1060.76 MAXIMUM 1068.89 MINIMUM 1041.87 0 0 2.430 458060 10.62 7.06 15269 NORMAL= 1.64 651685 DATE= 5 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 86338 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 908548 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake'MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 98 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1048.76 2 1047.75 3 1046.53 4. 1045..69 5 1044.97 6 1044.31 7 1044.62 8 1045.13 9 1045.25 10 1044.97 11 1044.59 12 1044.14 13 1043.83 14 1043.40 15 1042.89 16 1042.31 17 1041.72 18 1041.51 19 1041.44 20 1041.41 21 1041.29 22 1041.26 23 1041.14 24 1041.09.25 1041.03 26 1041.00 27 1040.96 28 1040.93 29 1041.05 30 1041.08 31 1041.14 1048.99.1048.08 1046.91 1045.84 1045.20 1044.51 1044.49 1044.99 1045.28 1045.09 1044.64 1044.21 1043.93 1043.55 1043.04.1042.50.1041.88.1041.58 1041.49 1041.44 1041.33 1041.19 1041.18 1041.09 1041.07.1041.00 1040.97 1040.94 1040.99 1041.07 1041.15 1041.19 175615 161940 145464 131408 123445 115269 115037 120841 124441 122076 116778 111786 108575 104368 98723 92971 86440 83383 82467 81957 80836 79410 79309 78391 78188 77475 77176 76877 77375 78188 79003 79410 12355 11950 9280 6813 6635 6510 6601 6717 6727 6641 5935 4678 4610 4514 4398 4269 2846 1751 1543 1538 1527 1524 1295.1008 1.006 1003 1002 688 503 505 506'0.140 0.130.0.060 0.080 0.020 0.110 0.000 0.060.0.080 0.080 0.070 0.050 0.060 0.060 0.090 0 .I00 0.140 0.150 0.070 0.050 0.000 0,020 0.030 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.050 0.060 0.140 0.090 5520 3670 2220 2805 2550 6395 9550 8560 5565 3995 3435 3080 2505 1695 1530 1020 1350 1310 1300 975 815 1480 840 915 665 875 865 1460 955 945 725 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 13 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.63 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O. 0c0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.96 MAXIMUM 1048.99 MINIMUM 1040.93 0 126877 0 4093 2.190 79570 1.36 0.80 2567 NORMAL= 1.18 175615 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00'76778 DATE=28 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 157825 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 9I.Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page+/-John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.21 2 1041.20 3 1041.20 4 1041.20 5 1041.20 1041.19 1041.20 1041.20 1041.20 1041.20 1041.35 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.41 1041.50 1041.55 1041.65 1041.69 1041.64 1041.61 1041.55 1041.50 1041.45 1041.41 1041.32 1041.25 1041.14 1041.04 1040*.96 1040.88 1040.79 1040.72 1040.59 1040.43 1040.29 1040.18 1040.01 1039..87 1039.74 1039.60 1039.48 1039.33 1039.22 1039.40 1041.37 1041.28 1041.18 1041.09 1040.98 1040.92 1040.85 1040.76 1040.63 1040.48 1040.33 1040.21 1040.05 1039.93 1039.77 1039.64 1039.51 1039.36 1039.16 1039.28 1039.61 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 79410 79512 7951.2 79512 79512 81040 82569 84097 83995 83078 82059 81244 80328 79309 78391 77276 76678 75980 75084 73788.72293 70798 69602 68009 66834 65286 64029 62772 61321 59388 60548 63739 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 507 507 507 507 276 80 80 630 1036 1031 1026 1021 1016 1011 1006 1001 996 991 1273 1465 1450 1438 1426 1413 1399 1385 1374 1361 1345 1339 1360 31257 1008 0.050 0.000 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.000 0.060 0.010 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.100 0.020 0.020 0.070 0.070 0.040 0.070 0.120.0.030 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.070 0.030 0.050 0.080 0.050 0.030 0.000 560 520 520 525 1045 870 855 585 585 530 645 565 510 570 465 710 665 575 630 725 695 835 625 840 625 765 760 645 380 1925 2970 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.47 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.01 0. 00 0.00.0.00 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.62 0.72 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1040..66 MAXIMUM 1041.71 MINIMUM 1039.16 1.280 23720 1.16 1.64 765 NORMAL= 0.84 84707 DATE= 8 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 59388 DATE=29* TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=47048 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL BA TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.85 2 1040.79 3 1041.29 4 1041.28 5 1040.76 6 1040.60*7 1040.60 8 1040.71 9 1040.80 10 1040.77 11 1040.76 12 1040.56 13 1040.53 14 1040.31 15 1040.01 16 1039.75 17 1039.91 18 1040.06 19 1040.71 20 1039.49 21 1039.25 22 1038.94 23 1039.18 24 1039.26 25 1039.32 1039.61.1040.55 1041.21 1041.37 1040.94 1040.64 1040.60 1040.69 1040.80 1040.81 1040.70 1040.68 1040.60 1040.36 1040.07 1039.83 1039.87 1040.03 1039.86 1039.55 1039.32 1039.10 1039.04 1039.24 1039.30 1039.22 1039.21 1039.21 1039.21 63739 72991 79614 81244 76877 73888 73489 74385 75482 75582 74485 74287 73489 71097 68207 65866 66253 67809 66156 63159 60934 58807 58227 60161 60741 59967 59870 59870 59870 2554 5292 7150 6377 4134 2935 2943 2963 2975 2966 2972 2948 2917 2869 2820 1319 469.2012 2519 2269 2234 1118 445 729 896 0.000 0.000 0.150 0.190 0.160 0.100 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.220 0.200 0.140 0.260 0.120 0.310 0 300 0.070 0.070 0.010 0.000 0.000 0.060 0.070 0.070 0.150 INFLOW ADJ DSF 7220 8675 8030 4220 2655 2735 3395 3515 3090 2475-2915 2620 1745 1500 1725 1535 1275 1200 1200 1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 l1000 RAINFALL INCHES 7ATO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.51 0*..00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.1.8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26 27 28 1039.22 1039.21 1039.21 0 0 0 0 0 893 0.150 893 0.160 893 0.160 1000 1000 1000 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.07 MAXIMUM 1041.38 MINIMUM 1038.94 71504 2554 3.120 70725 0.91 0.59 2526 NORMAL= 0.90 81346 DATE= 3 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57302 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 140281 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION Wh13ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 99 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.21.2 1039.20 3 1039.22 4. 1039.23 5 1039.23 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23.24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.19 1039.19 1039.24 1039.17 1038.89 1038.95 1039.09 1039.19 1039.30 1039.39 L039. 09 1039.08 1039.04 1039.07 1039.01 1039.08 1039.12 1039.14 1039.24 1039..28 1039.18 1039.04 1039.02 1038.96 1038.91 1038.94 1039.21 1039.20 1039.22.1039.23 1039.23 1039.19 1039.19 1039.15 1039.18 1038.97 1038.94 1039.01 1039.18 1039.33 103,9.39 1039.19 1039.05 1039.10 1039.07 1038.98 1039.03 1039.11.1039.12 1039.24 1039.26 1039.22 1039.09 1038.93 1038.99 1038.92 1038.92 1038.98 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 59870 59774 59967 60064 60064 59677 59677 59291 59581 57571 57302 57937 59581 61031 61611 59677 58324 58807 58516 57661 58130 58904 59000 60161 60354 59967 58710 57213 57750 57123 57123 57661 1139 1060 894 894 893 892 891 1468 2210 1330 879 886 894 901 1756 1370 884 884 642 441 443 443 446 448 958 1158 881 88.0 876 590 437 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A 0.200 0.270 0 180 0.190 0.360 0.030 0.090 0.140 0.030 0.080 0.040 0.070 0.040 0.060 0.190 0.220 0.300 0.250 0.220 0.030 0.170 0.240 0.130 0.040 0.210 0.220 0.230 0..140 0.120 0.210 0.340 INFLOW ADJ L DSF 1000 1000 1000 900 800-800 800 2000 1200 1200 1200 1700 1600 1400 900 850 800 800 850 700 700 600 600 600 600 600 850 800 750 700 700 0o00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.90 0.30 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0'.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0*.00 0.00 0.;41 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.04 0.10 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00.0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.12 MAXIMUM 1039.89 MINIMUM 1038.84 0 0 28769 928 5.040 29000 1.65 1.00 935 NORMAL= 2.06 66446 DATE=10 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 56405 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=57521 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION PiBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthl Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 99 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1038.98 1 1038.96 1038.99 2 1039.00 1039.05 3 1039.08 1039.14 4 1039.17 1039.27 5 1039.41 1039.44 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.43 1039.55 1039.70 1039.64 1039.72 1039.69 10.39.58 1039.39 1039.70 1042.00 1045.17 1048.70 1050.84 1051.62 1051.14 1050.23.1049.65 1050.75 1051.65 1052.15 1053.39 1055.57 1057.65 1059.48 1060.25 1039.31 1039.70 1040.04 1039.62 1039.76 1039.61 1039.44 1039.39 1040.76 1044.39 1047.69 1050.27 1051.44 1051.36 1050.57 1049.82 1050.35 1051.36 1052.00 1052.93 1054.82 1057.05 1058.82 1060.13 1060.36 STORAGE 2400OHR AC-FT 57661 57750 58324 59194 60451 62094 60838 64609 67909 63835 65189 63739 62094 61611 75084 113876 156372 196224 216547 215089 201280 188809 197572 215089 226753 244824 282994 330397 370051 400739 406383 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 439 441 443 446 1773 4578 6431 7392 4941 2310 2306 2283 2258 830 34 488 4445 9128 11612 12621 11499 8205 8704 11613 5518 0 869 5451 10979 1308.8 151123 5037 0.070 0.280 0.130 0.040 0.290 0.320 0.300 0.290 0.450 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.310 0.010 0.000 0.280 0.050 0.250 0.350 0.360 0.340 0.150 0.040 0.010 0.060 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.010 0.150 600 700 900 12.00 2700 4000 8400 9200 2900 2900 1700 1500 2000 7700 20000 22000 25000 19500 11000 5800 5300 13000 17500 17500 15000 20000 25000 25000 25000 16000 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.70 0.05.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.37 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.40 0.60 0.15 0.21 1.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.41 0*63 0.00 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.28 1.37 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.92 0.25 0.22 0.43 1.16 0.03 0.00 0.00 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1046.56 0 4.800 329000 6.13 7.96 10967, NORMAL= 2.92 MAXIMUM 1060.36 MINIMUM 1038.94 406383 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57302 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 652562 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRBack to the John Redmond Lake MonthlyCharts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 .2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1060.23ý2 1059.57 3 1058.80 4 1057.96 5 1059.10 6 1060.00 7 1059.72 8 1058.97 9 1058.16 10 1057.28 11 1056.82 12 1056.50 13 1056.09 14 1055.30 15 1054.48 16 1053.82 17 1053.30 18 1053.65 19 1053.47 20 1053.17 21 1052.82 22 1052.63 23 1053.23 24 1053.84 25 1054.36 26 1054.52 27 1053.97 28 1053.26 29 1052.53 30 1051.71 31 1050.98 TOTAL.AVERAGE 10!1060.36 1059.81 1059.05 1058.24 1058.66 1059.74 1059.92 1059.23 1058.41 1057.54 1056.92 1056.56 1056.19 1055.56 1054.74 1054.05 1053.42 1053.61 1053.55 1053.27 1052.91 1052.61 1052.84 1053.66 1054.16 1054.59 1054.20 1053.50 1052.76 1051.99 1051.18 1050.47 406383 393101 375304 356906 366426 391460 395677 379517 360760 341265 327561 319790 311801.298455 281355 267210 254584 258383 257185 251584 244435 238605 243074 259384 269465 278279 270283 256184 241520 226571 211810 199595 POWER 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13050 12884 12689 5758* 1727 8292 11844 12292 12090 9022 6742 6695 9195 10590 10413 10255 6806 5510 7051 7197 7324 7314 5309 8922 9623 10344 11079 10898 10693 10473 10271 282352 9108 0.330 0.370 0.210 0.190 0.000 0.410 0.410 0.320 0.360 0.460 0.120 0.010 0.320 0.340 0.210 0.030 0.200 0.140 0.340 0.400 0.200 0.290 0.220 0.410 0.200 0.240 0.300 0.290 0.310 0.290 0.220 6660 4000 3500 10500 15000 ii 000 4000 3100 2600 2000 2800 2900 2700 2100 3300 4000 8800 5000 4500 3700 4500 10000 14000 14000 13000 7000 4100 3600 3300 3200 4300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.72 0,03 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.65 0.80 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.53.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.17 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.31 0.43 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0 55.27 0 8.140 183160 4.04 4.76 5908 NORMAL= 4.43 MAXIMUM 1060.36 MINIMUM 1050.47 406383 199595 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 363292 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION GRInack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pagg.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE.FT-NGVD 240OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL.INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH.1 1050.30 2 1050.16 3 1050.08 4 1049.71 5 1049.09 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1048.35*1047.54 1046.67 1045.78 1044.82 1043.83 1043.46 1043.00 1042.49 1041.80 1041.18 1040.60 1039.99 1039.62 1039.31 1039.52 1039.74 1039.57 1039.28 1038.96 1038.72 1038.71 1039.40 1039.49 1040.92 1050.47 1050 18 1050.09 1049.85 1049.33 1048.60 1047.82 1046.96 1046.09 1045.14 1044.16 1043.61 1043.18 1042.67 1042.04 1041.36 1040.78 1040.20 1039.68 1039.41 1039.42 1039.68 1039.59 1039.36 1039.09 1038.80 1038.65 1038.89 1039.30 1040.40 1041.70 199595 194708 193189 189286 181014.169754 158203 146126 134592 122699 111207 105032 100273 94777 88087 81142 75283 69503 64416 61805 61902 64416 63545 61321 58710 56048 54703 56854 60741 71496 84605 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8313 7199 7559 7795 7646 7467 7277 7060 6826 6581 4524 3399 3322 3866 4166 4030.3891.3399 3275 1747 457 1925 2734 2683 2622 2571 2583 2670 2782 3027 133396 4447 0.310 0.270 0.370 0.290 0.360 0.330 0.090 0.310.0.280 0.380 0.300 0.220 0.220 0.190 0.390 0.370 0.020 0.320 0.110 0.040 0.100 0.250 0.160 0.060 0.110 0.310 0.310 0.080 0.330 0.290 6000 6600 5700 3800 2100 1700 1350 1300 1000 900 1500 1100 600 600 800 1000 1000.1200 2300 1800 1800 1500 1600 1400 1350 1900 3600 4700 8200 9600 0.43 0.01 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.07 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.12.0.03 0.06 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.75 0.18 0.00 0.60 0.01 0.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.0i1 0.00 0.31 0.03 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.13 0.11 0.40 0.00 0.01 0.76 0.61 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.87 MAXIMUM 1050.47 MINIMUM 1038.65 7.170 78000 3.23 4.46 2600 NORMAL- 4.74 199595 54703 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 154711 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R3Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 99 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER 3ES EVAP I INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A: PRIOR MONTH 1 '1041.92 2 1042.31 3 1042.42 4 1042.42 5 1042.42 6 7 8 9.10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1042.30 1041.80 1041.28 1040.50 1040.17 1039.87 1039.67 1039.00 1038.30 1037.50 1036.82 1036.34 1036.32 1036.41 1036.10 1036.00 1036.05 1036.08 1036.16 1036.21 1036.25 1036.29 1036.30 1036.34 1036.35 1036.42 1041.70 1042.19 1042.39 1042.41 1042.43 1042.33 1041.96 1041.41 1040.85 1040.36 1039.99 1039.74 1039.21 1038.53 1037.78 1037.01 1036.48 1036.30 1036.39 1036.18 1036.01.1036.04.1036.08 1036.14 1036.20 1036.24 1036.29 1036.31 1036.35 1036.35 1036.35 1036.40 84605 89679 91803 92016 92228 91165 87254 81652 75980 71097 67413 64996 59870 53627 47083 40806 36908 35587 36247 34706 33458 33679 33972 34413 34852 35146 35514 35661 35953 35953 35953 36321 3170 3225 3240 3241 3237 4192 4687 4552 3934 3330 3265 4043 4351 4085 3577 2969 1212 222 1355 1604 772 376 321 219 220 221 222 222 222 222 223 66730 2153 0.060 0.130 0.350 0.440 0.400 0.400 0.310 0.350 0.420 0.190 0.320 0.350 0.310 0.400 0.420 0.520 0.010 0.280 0.360.0.300 0.400 0.410 0.410 0.420 0.340 0.440 0.400 0.360 0.420 0.490 0.520 NFLOW ADJ DSF 5800 4400 3400 3400 2800 2315 200.0 1800 1500 1600 2100 1600 1300 900 500 1000 800 600 600 1000 1000 700 600 500 500 500 450 400 300 300 450 0.20 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.25 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.41 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.05.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.69 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.10 TOTAL AVERAGE 10.930 45115 1.31 2.40 1455 NORMAL= 3.61 1038.35 MAXIMUM 1042.43 MINIMUM 1035.97 92228 DATE= 4 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 33186 DATE=21 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=89484 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 99 POOR ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH.1 1036.54 2 1036.50 3 1036.59 4 1036.47 5 1036.42 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1036.38 1036.39 1036.61 1036.79 1037.10 1037.28 1037.48 1037.30 1036.94 1036.69 1036.48 1036.20 1036.19 1036.33 1036.25 1036.29 1036.31 1036.34 1036.38 1036.40 1036.38 1036.44 1036.47 1036.50 1036.52 1036.52 1036.40 1036.53 1036.58 1036.53 1036.42 1036.39 1036.32 1036.53 1036.71 1037.01 1037.25 1037.43 1037.32 1037.00 1036.78 1036.53 1036.30 1036.20 1036.31 1036.25 1036.29 1036.29 1036.35 1036.38 1036.39 1036.39 1036.46 1036.46 1036.49 1036.50 1036.52 1036.53 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 36321.37275 37641 37275 36468 36247 35733 37275 38595 40806 42762 44230 43332 40724 39110 37275 35587 34852 35661 35220 35514 35514 35953 36174 36247 36247 36761 36761 36981 37055 37201 37275 DSF INCHES ADJ TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL 225 227 741 1079 1073 1005 48 48 49 49 49 997 1415 1129*1100 1074 613 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 11597 374 0.180 0.180 0.190 0.180 0.250 0.340 0.340 0.270 0.290 0.340 0.350 0.490 0 450 0.330 0.320 0.460 0.460 0.420 0.310 0.380 0.170 0.370 0.300 0.340 0.300 0.340 0.260 0.330 0.340 0.280 0.300 800 700 700 7.00 600 800 900 800 1200 1100*900 700 300 300 300 300 300 300*300 250 150 150 200 150 125 350 200 150 150 150* 150 1.17 0.27 0.-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.16 0.28 0.36 0.00.0.00 0.22 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05-0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 POWER INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1036.56 0 9.860 14175 1.55 2.67 457 NORMAL= 3.49 MAXIMUM 1037.48 MINIMUM 1036.19 44637 DATE=12 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 34779 DATE=18 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=28116 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chars Selection Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 99 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.53 2 1036.56 3 1036.56 4 1036.57 5 1036.63 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1036.61 1036.64 1036.76 1036.72 1036.73 1036.78 1036.81 1036.98 1036.96 1037.02 1036.80 1036.55 1036.40 1036.28 1036.19 1036.04 1035.89 1035.90 1035.92 1035.93 1035.94 1036.19 1036.35 1036.81 1036.85 1036.53 1036.54 1036.56 1036.57 1036.58 1036.63 1036.63 1036.68 1036.69 1036.74 1036.79 1036.81 1036.94 1036.96 1037.01 1036.90 1036.67 1036.47 1036.34 1036.26 1036.10 1035.91.1035.90 1035.90 1035.93 1035.93 1035.95 1036.22 1036.61 1036.85 1036.81 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 37275 37348 37495 37568 37641 38009 38009 38376 38448 38816 39183 39330 40283 40430.40806 39990 38302 36834 35880 35293 34119 32789 32722 32722 32921 32921 33053 34999 37862 39623 39330 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW" 48 48 48 48 48 48 40 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 577 947.832 736 729 720 553 159 35 35 35 35 470 296 1060 1827 9629 321 0.300 0.400 0.310 0.310 0.150 0.150 0.280 0.190.0.340 0.310 0.030 0.050 0.190 0.290 0.010 0.170 0.260 0.240 0.040 0.050 0.010 0.190 0.220 0.240 0.270 0.160 0.110 0.000 0.070 0.200 150 150 150 150 300 110 250 250 200 200 100 600 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 160 150 1500 1800 2000 1750 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0,00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.10 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.50 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.82 1.81 0.21 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00.0.00 0.64 0.00 0.05 0.30 0.15 0.41 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.11 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.86 0.09 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES* ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.50 MAXIMUM 1037.04 MINIMUM 1035.89 5.540 12370 6.36 5.35 412 NORMAL= 3.76 41050 DATE=15 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 32656 DATE=25 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=24536 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION FRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.77 2 1036.62 3 id36.47 4 1036.28 5 1036.02 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1036.06 1036.10 1036.13 1036.15 1036.18 1036.20 1036.19 1036.20 1036.20 1036.25 1036.31 1036.30 1036.30 1036.21 1036.22 1036.21 1036.22 1036.23 1036.17 1036.16 1036.18 1036.17 1036.19 1036.15 1036.33 1036.32 1036..81 1036.63 1036.49 1036. 35 1036.12 1036.07 1036.09 1036.13 1036.16 1036.19 1036.20 1036.19 1036.20 1036.20 1036.24 1036.32 1036.30 1036.30 1036.21 1036.21 1036.21 1036.19 1036.18 1036.17 1036.16 1036.18 1036.18 1036.19 1036.16 1036.24 1036.34 1036.36 39330 38009 36981 35953 34266 33898 34045 34339 34559 34779 34852 34779 34852 34852 35146 35733 35587 35587 34926 34926 34926 34779 34706 34633 34559 34706 34706 34779 34559 35146 35880 36027 RELEAS DSF POWER.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1565 1081 1067 1040 436 35 35 35 35 35 35 28 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 5881 190 0.220 0.270 0.030 0.010 0.140 0.100 0.300 0.260 0.070 0.110 0.210 0.220 0.230 0.260 0.260 0.290 0.320 0.430 0.270.0.230 0.080 0.230 0.280 0.170 0.160 0.150 0.170 0?240 0.220 0.640 0.480 7.050 1000 700 600 300 300 300 300 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 5O0 600 300 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.23 MAXIMUM 1036".81 MINIMUM 1036.02 8100 1.02 0.56 261 NORMAL= 2.56 39330 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 33532 DATE= 5 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=16066 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlEBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 99 POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE DAY .FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO.8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.40 2 1036.46 3 1036.35 4 1036.36 5 1036.36 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1036.39 1036.42 1036.42 1036.42 1036.38 1036.41 1036.41 1036.45 1036.45 1036.45 1036.44 1036.43 1036.43 1036.73 1036.41 1036.39 1036.43 1036.61 1036.65 1036.70 1036.82 1037.03 1037.11 1037.20 1037.24 1036.36 1036.46 1036.35 1036.37.1036.36 1036.38 1036.40 1036.41 1036.42 1036.48 1036.44 1036.42 1036.43 1036.45 1036.45 1036.44 1036.43 1036.43 1036.57 1036.45 1036.42 1036.43 1036.54 1036.65 1036.65 10.36.76 1036.98 1037.08 1037.22 1037.24 1037.28 36027 36761 35953 36100 36027 36174 36321 36394 36468 36908 36614 36468 36541 3.6687 36687 36614 36541 36541 37568 36687 36468 36541 37348 38156 38156 38963 40577 41376 42517 42680 43007 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 0.060 0.310 0.250 0.200 0.200 0.140 0.i20 0.130 0.200 0.250 0.190 0.180 0.130 0.190 0.210 0.130 0.160 0.260 0.320 0.130 0.120 0.130 0.100 0.020 0.080 0.110 0.130 0..130 0.130 0.110 4.820 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 600 500 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68.0.00 0.00 0; 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.58 MAXIMUM 1037.28 MINIMUM 1036.35 0 0 721 24 7000 0.68 1.36 233 NORMAL= 1.64 43007 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 35953 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00.INFLOW VOLUME=13884 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 99 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.26 2 1037.30 3 1037.39 4 1037.49 5 1037.65 6 1037.86 7 1038.00 8 1038.33 9 1038.73 10 1039.43 11 1040.48 12 1041.14 13 1041.39 14 1041.18 15 1040.88 16 1040.43 17 1040.06 18 1039.87 19 1039.82 20 1039.81 21 1039.65 22 1039.60 23 1039.52 24 1039.37 25 1039.31 26 1039.19 27 1039.10 28 1039.07 29 1039.09 30 1039.09 31 1039.06 1037.28 1037.26 1037.36 1037.40 1037.56 1037.77 1038.01 1038.27 1038.52 1039.07 1040.17 1040.96 1041.36 1041.26 1040.96 1040.58 1040.16 1039.87 1039.84 1039.81 1039.64 1039.61 1039.53 1039.45 1039.34 1039.26 1039.17 1039.12 1039.09 1039.09 1039.07 1039.05 43007 42844 43659 43985 45290 47001 48966 51296 53537 58516 69204 77076 81142 80124 77076 73289 69105 66253 65962 65673 64029 63739 62965 62191 61127 60354 59484 59000 58710 58710 58516 58324.25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 635 1733 2235 2315 2793 3058 2993 2919 2068 959 957 950 945 941 937 929 924 918 644 468 468 468 467 31921 1030 0.190.0.290 0.110 0.020 0.020 0.060 0.130 0.140 0.010 0.040 0.080 0.040 0.020 0.080 0;100 0.140 0.050 0.020 0.020 0.010 0.070 0.070 0.050 0.090 0.050 0.070 0.120 0.060 0.140 0.170 0.050 INFLOW ADJ DSF 100 550 300 800 1000 1000 1200 1200 3000 7100 6200 4300 2300 1500 1200 900 800 700 600 600 600 550 550 500 500 500 400 360 520 400 400 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.56 1.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.20 0.58 0.09 0.11 0.07 0..-55 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00.0.00 0.02 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 0 0 2.510 40630 2.52 1.97 1311 NORMAL= 1.18 1039.28 MAXIMUM 1041.39 MINIMUM 1037.23 81448 DATE=13 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 42599 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=80588 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Mothl Carts S electionPage.pý John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 00 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.03 2 1038.97 3 1038.95 4 1039.03 5 1039.04 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.13 1039.17 1039.21 1039.27 1039.30 1039.36.1039.38 1039.41 1039.38 1039.31 1039.27 1039.29 1039.26 1039.21 1039.11 1039.10 1039.07 1039.04 1039.05 1039..02 1039.09 1039.06 1039.12 1039.14 1039.14 1039.12 1039.05 1038.97 1039.01 1039.03 1039.04 1039.13 1039.17 1039.21 1039.25 1039.28 1039.33 1039.36 1039.39 1039.39 1039.36 1039.34 1039.28 1039.27 1039.22 1039.12 1039.11 1039.07 1039.06 1039.05 1039.08 1039.07 1039.08 1039.11 1039.13 1039.15 1039.12.1039.12 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 58324 57571 57937 58130 58227 59097 59484 59870 60258 60548 61031 61321 61611 61611 61321 61127 60548 60451 59967 59000 58904 58516 58421 58324 58613 58516 58613 58904 59097 59291 59000*59000 RELEASES DSF POWER TO'0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0.0 0 0 12 0 466 465 330 249 249 251 251 252 253 253 254 254 398 477 476 475 474 473 471 469 468 468 467 467 467 468 468 469 470 470 469 391 400 0.050 0.050*0.050 0.030 0.060 0.140 0.050 0.100 0.100 0.000 0.210 0.130 0.140 0.080 0.170 0.140 0.110 0.010 0.020 0.190 0.070 0.140 0.080 0.010 0.080 0.110 0.050 0.020 0.020 0.030 0..020 300*300 500 500 500 500 500 500 450 450 450 450 450 400 400 400 400 200 200 200 300 400 400 600-500 500 500 500 500 500 500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 o.Oo 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0100 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.17 MAXIMUM 1039.43 MINIMUM 1038.93 2.460 13250 0.14 0.12 427 NORMAL= 0.84 61999 DATE=13 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57213. DATE= 5 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=26281 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I.Iack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pae_John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 00 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH.1 1039.12 2 1039.10 3 ld39.08 4 1039.04 5 1039.01 6 7 8 9 10 1i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1039.00 1039.01 1039.01 1038.98 1039.00 1038.98 1039.06 1039.08 1039.06 1039.16 1039.23 1039.25 1039.44 1039.40 1039.33 1039.23 1039.16 1039.18 1039.10 1039.04 1039.87 1041.38 1042.37 1042.44 1039.12 1039.10 1039.08 1039.05 1039.01 1039.00 1039.03 1039.01 1038.98 1039.00 1038.97 1039.05 1039.10 1039.08 1039.16 1039.23 1039.25 1039.34 1039.38 1039.37 1039.29 1039.22 1039.12 1039.08 1039.01 1039.50 1040.87 1042.08 1042.47 1041.95 59000 58807 58613 58324 57937 57840 58130 57937 57661 57840 57571 58324 58807 58613 59388 60064 60258 61127 61515 61418 60645 59967 59000 58613 57937 62675 76180 88511 92652 87152 469 468 468 340 249 249 249 248 248 165 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 398 712 709 705 702 973 1367 1379 1468 1586 3343 5511 22184 765 0.070 0.050 0.080 0.220 0.040 0.090 0.120 0.110 0.210 0.150 0.120 0.030 0.040 0.040 0.100 0.100 0.160 0.000 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.190 0.030 0.050 0.240 0.220 0.190 0.210 0.400 400 400 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 500 600 700 600 600 500 800 1100 3800 8300 8000 5500 2600 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.10 0.27 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.11 0.56 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.51 MAXIMUM 1042.47 MINIMUM 1038.95 3.560 37400 2.03 2.13 1290 NORMAL= 0.90 92652 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57391 -DATE=II TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=74182 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 00 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH.1 1041.76 2 1040.85 3 1040.35 4 1039.78 5 1039.18 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.75 1039.06 1039.06 1039.00 1038.95 1039.13 1039.36 1039.49 1039.43 1039.00 1039.10 1039.15 1039.16 1039.14 1039.24 1039.17 1039.10 1039.00 1039.15 1039.27 1039.93 1040.85 1040.40 1039.68 1039.36 10.39.17 1041.95 1041.19 1040.47 1039.98 1039.39 1038.84 1038.96 1038.99 1039.03 1038.98 1039.06 1039.29 1039.46 1039.46 1039.31 1039.0.9 1039.16 1039.16 1039.18 1039.24 1039.17 1039.11 1039.05 1039.12 1039.20 10.39.63 1040.56 1040.60 1039.93 1039.49 1039.21 1039.15 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 87152 79410 72193 67316 61611 56405 57481 57750 58130 57661 58421 60645 62288 62288 60838 58710 59388 59388 59581 60161 59484 58904 58324 59000 59774 63932 73091 73489.66834 62578 59870 59291 RELEASES DSF POWER TO'0 5: 0 4: 0 4: 0 4: 0 3: 0 2: 0 1'0 1 0 1*0 1i 0 0 0 1 0 1.0 P 0 1I 0 1I 0 1.0 1 0 1i 0 1ý0 1" 0 1 0 1: 0 1i 0 41 0 5 0 4: 0 3'0 21 0 74: 0 210 628 798 784 380 916 929 411 834 803 234 156 362 363 570 804 796 505 361 379 448 032 758 381 078 043 294 397 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO: 7A DAM BSN 952 0.270 2100 0.00 0.01 973 0.190 1400 0.00 0.00 298. 0.040 1900 0.59 0*53 138 0.020 1900 0.00 0.04.968 0.140 1900 0.00 0.00 0.270 0.240 0.200 0.440 0..180 0.070 0.150 0.240 0.180 0.050 0.050 0.090 0.060 0.110 0.010 0.120 0.190.0.140 0.070 0.220 0.220 0.280 0.380 0.250 0.010 0.170 1800 1800 2000 1600 1800 2100 1700 1500 1100 900 1500 1200 1500 1700 1300 1500 1500 1800 1800 3500 6100 4200 2500 2250 1800 1800 0.00 0.00'0.05 0.02 0.00 0. 05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.39 0.02 0.01 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.24 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.43 MAXIMUM 1041.95 MINIMUM 1038.74 5.050 61450 2.59 2.47 1982 NORMAL= 2.06 87152 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 55509 DATE= 6 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 121884 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/ORREVISION IRBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 00 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY .FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1039.15 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27.28 29 30 1039.18 1039.14 i0390 i 1039.00 1038.93 1038.99 1039.09 1039.06 1039.07 1039.00 1039.10 1039.12 1039.21 1039.21 1039.26 1039.29 1039.32 1039.27 1039.18 1039.25 1039.13 1039.17 1039.12 1039.11 1039.00 1039.03 1039.06 1039.04 1039.15 1039.19 1039.17 1039.03 1038.99 1038.93 1038.97 1039.04 1039.04 1039.07 1039.04 1039.09 1039.13 1039.19 1039.22 1039.23 1039.30 1039.34.1039.30 1039.18 1039.23 1039.12 1039.17 1039.14 1039.11 1039.04 1039.05 1039.08 1039.04 1039.14 1039.18 1039.27 59291 59484 58130 57750 57213 57571 58227 58227 58516 58227 58710 59097 59677 59967 60064 60741 61127 60741 59581 60064 59000 59484 59194 58904 58227 58324 58613 58227 59194 59581 60451 1806 1802 1790 1359 764 689 695 691 690 590 475 476 478 478 480 481 756 920 918 918 915 914 913 910 622 467 468 347 251 252 23315 777 0.160 0.030 0.290 0.300 0.300 0.460 0.270 0.360 0.250 0.390 0.110 0.100 0.230 0.240 0.320 0.080 0.100 0.150 0.360 0.340 0. 160 0.280 0.330 0.090 0.170 0.140 0.180 0.400 0.250 0.300 1800 1700 1700 11,00 1100 1000'800 800 800 800 800 700 700 600 800 700 700.700 700 700 700 800 800 800 800 700 500 500 500 700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, 0.00 0.0 0 0-. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0'.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.*.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0;*01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.40 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.10 0.02 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.13 MAXIMUM 1039.40 MINIMUM 1038.90 0 0 7.140 25500 0.62 1.10 850 NORMAL= 2.92 61708 DATE=16 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 56944 DATE= 5 TOP FLOOD POOL .1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=50578 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[2Back to the John Redmond-Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 00 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE* FT-NGVD 24OOHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1039.27 1 1039.28 1039.25 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.19 1039.12 1039.03 1039.09 1039.11 1039.16 1039.18 1039.10 1039.25 1039.28 1039.40 1039.38 1039.25 1039.14 1039.06 1039.00 1038.96 1038.98 1039.04 1039.08 1039.08 1039.12 1039.12 1039.14 1039.20 1039.26 1039.34 1039.78 1040.13 1039.86 1039.13 1039.08 1039.06 1039.13 1039.17 1039.16 1039.10 1039.24 1039.28 1039.35 1039.37 1039.28 1039.16 1039.07 1039.00 1038.94 1038.98 1039.05 1039.07 1039.08 1039.12 1039.13 1039.15 1039.09 1039.21 1039.27 1039.63 1040.04 1039.96 1039.58 60451 60258 59097 58613 58421 59097 59484 59388 58807 60161 60548 61224 61418 60548 59388 58516 57840 57302 57661 58324 58516 58613 59000 59097 59291 58710 59870 60451 63932 67909 67123 63448 POWER 0 0 0 0:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 592 916 912 727 474 476 476 476 186 26 26 451 704 699 694 616 465 327 249 249 250 250 250 250 250 251 252 255 261 1669 2475 16156 521 0.060 0.020 0.100 0.210 0.300 0.240 0.040 0.160 0.240 0.270 0.320 0.370 0.370 0.360 0.280 0.080 0.090 0.170 0.330 0. 070 0.250 0.340 0.350 0.350 0.350 0.550 0.230 0.000 0.100 0.300 0.330 600-600 600 600 600 600 500 300 1000 500 500 500 400 400 400 400 400 400 350 300'300 300 300 400 500 900 600 2100 2400 1400 750.DSF INCHES .ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.65 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.21 0.00 0* 02.0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.00.0.04 1.08 0.67 0.01-0.00.0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.23 MAXIMUM 1040.13 MINIMUM 1038.94 7.230 19900 1.27 2.53 642 NORMAL= 4.43 68806 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 57302 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=39471 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION ERIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pang.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 00 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER'ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL.INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.43 2 1039.38 3 4. 1039.18 5 1039.07 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.03 1039.02 1039.01 1039.04 1039.05 1039.08 1039.12 1039.06 1039.36 1039.51 1039.73 1039.99 1040.04 1039.89 1039.65 1039.54 1039.24 1039.17 1039.20 1039.25 1039.24 1039.30 1039.42 1039.61 1039.66 1039.58 1039.43 1039.35 1039.24 1039.09 1039.05 1039. 03 1039.01 1039.04 1038.97 1039.05 1039.11 1039.10 1039.20 1039.44 1039.65 1039.99 1040.05 1039.95 1039.70 1039.62 1039.36 1039.18 1039.22 1039.26 1039.19 1039.31 1039.38 1039.56 1039.69 1039.74 63448*61999 61224 60161 58710 58324 58130 57937 58227 57571.58324 58904 58807 59774 62094 64126 67413 68009 67026 64609 63835 61321 59581 59967 60354 59677 60838 61515 63256 64512 64996 1406 814 809 804 519 350 275 127 127 127 127 127 127 128 680 1541 1559 1558.1543 1525 1509 1063 513 354 354 207 128 128 129 12.9 18787 626 0.000 0.000.0.000 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.300.0.350 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250..0.000 0.200 0.250 0.000 0.200 0.200 0.000 0.000 0.200 0.150 0.290 0.320 0.330 0.000 0.200 0.260 0.410 700 400 350 350 350 350 300 300 250 250 500 100 600 1300 1700 3200 2000 1000 500 1200 300 300 600 600 500 500 500 1000 900 500 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.59 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.72 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.58 0.00 1.09 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.16 0.02 0.01 0.33 0.00 3.44 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.30 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.37 MAXIMUM 1040.05 MINIMUM 1038.96 5.860 21400 3.94 6.85 713 NORMAL= 4.74 68009 DATE=17 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57481 DATE= 7 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=42446 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page, John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 00 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1039.74 1 1039.76 1039.81 2 1039.78 1039.84 3 1039.85 1039.85 4 1039.87 1039.86 5 1039.90 1039.89 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.90 1039.90 1039.90 1039.90 1039.85 1039.76 1039.74 1039.64 1039.61 1039.56 1039.52 1039.49 1039.40 1039.24 1039..14 1039.16 1039.09 1039.07 1039.03 1039.00 1039.00 1039.00 1039.00 1039.03 1038.98 1039.00 1039.90 1039.90 1039.89 1039.84 1039.78 1039.74 1039.67 1039.61 1039.58 1039.53 1039.48 1039.42 1039.30 1039.14 1039.14 1039.12 1039.06 1039.03 1039.01 1039.02 1039.00 1039.00 1039.02 1039.05 1039.00 1039.01 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 64996 65673 65962 66059 66156 66446 66543 66543 66446 65962 65383 64996 64319 63739 63448 62965 62481 61902 60741 59194 59194 59000 58421 58130 57937 58034 57840 57840 58034 58324 57840 57937 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 129 279 363 363 286 129 128 128.128 620 442 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 127 5553 179 0.120 0.260 0.310 0.290 0.360 0.410 0.410 0.470 0.410 0.510 0.500 0.300 0.420 0.420 0.410 0.430 0.410 0.150 0.290 0.210 0.260 0.250 0.200 0.360 0.360 0.370 0.390 0.340 0.070 0.250 0.290 500 350 350 350 300 300 300 200 100 100 1.00 90 80 70 50 40 40 40 40 60 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 150 350 300 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00'0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.10 0.16 0.02 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.19 0.01 0.41 0.27 0.40 0.04 0.00 0.16 0.01 0.02 0.04 0.48 0.00 0.00 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.44 MAXIMUM 1039.92 MINIMUM 1038.97 10.230 4910 0.67 2.27 158 NORMAL= 3.61 66737 DATE= 6 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 57571 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=9739 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IF'Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pa.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 00.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1039.01 1 1039.00 1039.00 2 1039.00 1038.97 3 1d38.97 1038.95 4. 1038.93 1038.90 5 1038.88 1038.84 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A INFLOW ADJ DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.88 1038.84 1038.81 1038.76 1038.75 1038.70 1038.64 1038.61 1038.57 1038.84 1038.81 103.8.76 1038.75 1038.67 1038.65 1038.61 1038.58 1038.50 1038.50 1038.48 57937 57840 57571 57391 56944 56405 56405 56137 55689 55599 54882 54703 54344 54075 53358 53179 52731 51655 51566 50938 50668 50221.49772 49235 49055 48550 48061 47571 47001 46675 46268 45778 127 127 127 127 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 126 125 125 125 125 125 125 124 124 124 124 124 124 124 123 123 123 12.3 123 1038.48 1038.43 1038.34 1038.27 1038.16 1038.18 1038.27 1038.10 1038.05 1038.00 1037.92 1037.88 1037.82 1037.76 1037.72 1037.66 1038.43 1038.31 1038.30 1038.23 1038.20 1038.15 1038.10 1038.04 1038.02 1037.96 1037.90 1037.84 1037.77 1037.73 1037.68 1037.62 0.270 0.300 0.260 0.350 0.420 0.470 0.180 0.220 00. 540 0.400 0.420 0.360 0.370 0.460 0.350 0.240 0.470 0.390 0.320 0.340 0.320 0.320 0.510 0.490 0.350 0.430 0.330 0.540 0.530 0.410 0.510 11.870 150 80 75 50 50 ,30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 15 10 5 5 5 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5 5 5 5 5 5 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.37 MAXIMUM 1039.02 MINIMUM 1037.62 0 3874 0 125 855 0.15 0.34 28 NORMAL= 3.49 58034 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 45778 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=1696 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IEBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pageg John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 00.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY .FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.60 2 1037.55 3 1037.49 4 1037.40 5 1037.40 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.29 1037.26 1037.26 1037.10 1037.10 1037.04 1037.01 1036.95 1036.90 1036.86 1036.77 1036.72 1036.67 1036.55 1036.49 1036.43.1036.36 1036.41 1036.39 1036.50 1036.32 1036.30 1036.30 1036.30 1036.26 1037.62 1037.58 1037.51 1037.46 1037.32 1037.33 1037.28 1037.26 1037.15 1037.10 1037.05 1037.03 1036.97 1036.91 1036.87 1036.79 1036.74 1036.68 1036.59 1036.50 1036.47 1036.36.1036.42 1036.40 1036.51 10.36.35 1036.29 1036.30 1036.3.0 1036.28 1036.26 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 45778 45452 44882 44474 43332 43414 43007 42844 41947 41539 41132 40969 40504 40064 39770 39183 38816 38376 37715 37055 36834 36027 36468 36321 37128 35953 35514 35587 35587 35440 35293 123 122 12.2 122 122 122 122 121 121 1.21 121 121 121 120 120 120 120 120 119 91 41 28 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A 0.400 0.350 0.420 0.310 0.360'0.370 0.420 0.320 0.350 0.290 0.470 0.460 0.360 0.340 0.430 0.320 0.310 0.340 0.550 0.430*0.160 0.410 0.290 0.020 0.030 0.210 0.250 0.260 0.280 0.370 9.880 INFLOW ADJ DSF 5 5 5 5 50 40 30 20 10 10 50 40 20 20 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 100 75 75 50 25.25 25 25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38.0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00.0.07 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.69 0.16 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.80 MAXIMUM 1037.62 4 MINIMUM 1036.22 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 2650 88 815 1.58 1.20 27 NORMAL= 3.76 5778 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 4999 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 800 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=1617 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 00 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE.FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.30 2 1036.27 3 1036.26 4 1036.30 5 1036.24 6 1036.35*7 1036.30 8 1036.30 9 1036.27 10 1036.26 11 1036.22 12 1036.21 13 1036.20 14 1036.25 15 1036.29 16 1036.30 17 1036.36 18 1036.36 19 1036.37 20 1036.38 21 1036.37 22 1036.37 23 1036.51 24 1036.53 25 1036.54 26 1036.64 27 1036.66 28 1036.71 29 1036.90 30 1037.11 31 1037.20 1036.26 1036.25 1036.26 1036.30 1036.24 1036.44 1036.28 1036.27 1036.27 1036.26 1036.24 1036.21 1036.21 1036.23 1036.26 1036.26 1036.36 1036.37 1036.37 1036.37 1036.38 1036.36 1036.46 1036.53 1036.54 1036.66 1036.66 1036.69 1036.85 1037.05 1037.18 1037.22 35293 35220 35293 35587 35146 36614 35440 35367 35367 35293 35146 34926 34926 35073 35293 35293 36027 36100 36100 36100 36174 36027 36761 37275 37348 38229 38229 38.448 39623 41132 42192 42517 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 8 0 9 24 24 24 24 24 24 688 22 0.380 0.430 0.300 0.340 0.040 0.080 0.160 0.190 0.130 0.160 0.270 0.360 0.400 0.170 0.080 0.050 0.130 0.140 0.160 0.210 0.170 0.070 0.050 0.100 0.080 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.080 0.040 0.170 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 400 400 200 150 100 100 100 300 200 100 500 100 100 500 800 600 250 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.75 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 1.23 0.00 0.02 0.88 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.02 0.63 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.47 0.01 0.30 1.03 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.01 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.45 5.010 5325 3.83 3.70 172 NORMAL= 2.56 MAXIMUM 1037.22 4: MINIMUM 1036.15 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 2517 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 4486 DATE=12 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 80 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=10562 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[IB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page, John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 00 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.22 2 1037.42 3 1037.45 4 1037.49 5 1037.57 6 7.8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.78 1037.98 1037.97 1038.11 1038.33 1038.41 1038.47 1038.54 1038.56 1038.64 1038.65 1038.70 1038.73 1038.76 1038.76 1038.79 1038.82 1038.86 1038.86 1038.91 1038.87 1038.92 1038.95 1038.95 1038.99 1037.22 1037..44 1037.45 1037.47 1037.55 1037.71 1037.85 1037..92 1038.06 1038.28 1038.39 1038.48 1038.54 1038.59 1038.65 1038.67 1038.70 1038.73 1038.76 1038.76 1038.80 103.8.82 1038.86 1038.88 1038.90 1038.92 1038.94 1038.95 1038.95 1038.99 1039.00 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 42517 44310 44392 44555 45208 46512 47653 48224 49414 51386 52372 53179 53717 54164 54703 54882 55150 55420 55689 55689 56048 56226 56585 56764 56944 57123 57302 57391 57391 50422 50501 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 755.25 0.170 0.120 0.190 0.050 0.110 0.050 0.020 0.130 0.020 0.100 0.070 0.020 0.110 0.150 0.110 0.210 0.150 0.080 0.120 0.100 0.140 0.130 0.070 0.040 0.080 0.090 0.100 0,070 0.170 0.120 1000 200 200 200 400 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..61 0* ,15 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1038.47 0 3.090 5600 1.36 1.78 187 NORMAL= 1.64 MAXIMUM 1039.00 MINIMUM 1037.22 50501 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 42517 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=11107 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[EBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chars Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 00 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAMN BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.00 2 1039.00 3 1d39.03 4 1039.04 5 1039.02 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039. 05*1039.05 1039.02 1039.08 1039.14 1039.12 1039.18 1039.24 1039.27 1039.28 1039.37 1039.33 1039.32 1039.38 1039.36 1039.40 1039.41 1039.41 1039.43 1039.46 1039.46 1039.49 1039.51 1039.52 1039.53 1039.54 1039.00 1038.95 1039.02 1039.00 1039.02 1039.05 1039.06 1039.02 1039.09 1039.13 1039.12 1039.18 1039.18 1039.27 1039.28 1039.30.1039.33 1039.32 1039.38 1039.36 1039.39 1039.41 1039.41 1039.43 1039.44 1039.46 i039.48 1039.50 1039.52 1039.53 1039.54 1039.55 50501 50104 50666 50501 50666 50913 50996 50666 51242 51572 51490 51984 51984 52725 52808 52973 53219 53137 53631 53467 53714 53879 53879 54044 54125 54290 54455 54620 54785 54867 54950.55032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 0.150 0.050 0.040 0.090 0.030 0.060 0.070 0.170 0.090 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.130 0.070 0.110 0.060 0.070 0.040 0.060 0.050 0.040 0.020 0.030 0.020 0.050 0.010 0.010 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1000 400 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.28 MAXIMUM 1039.55 MINIMUM 1038.95 0*0 804 26 1.620 3350 0.30 0.20 108 NORMAL= 1.18 55032 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 50104 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=6645 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE*AND/OR REVISION

[F1Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 01 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 .1039.55 2 1039.56 3 1039.58 4 1039.60 5 1039.60 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.63 1039.66 1039.67 1039.68 1039.69 1039.71 1039.75 1039.76 1039.81 1039.82 1039.83 1039.83 1039.87 1039.89 1039.91 1039.92 1039.92 1039.95 1039.97 1039.98 1039.98 1039.96 1039.98 1040.03 1040.06 1040.07 1039.55 1039.56 1039.58 1039.60 1039.61 1039.62 1039.65 1039.65 1039.68 1039.69 1039.71 1039.75 1039.76 1039.78 1039.81 1039.83 1039.83 1039.86 1039.89 1039.91 1039.90 1039.92 1039.95 1039.97 1039.98 1039.98 1039.95 1039.94 1040.00 1040.04 1040.04 1040.06 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 55032 55115 55279 55444 55526 55609 55856 55856 56103 56185 56350 56680 56762 56927 57174 57338 57338 57586 57833 57998 57915 58080 58327 58492*58574 58574 58327 58244 58739 59096 59096 59275 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 110 264 263 264 264 265 265 2319 75 0.010 0.010 0.030 0.010 0.020 0.080 0.060 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.080 0.020 0.010 0.020 0.090 0.070 0.010 0.050 0.070 0.060 0.050 0.060 0.230 0.030 0.080 0.130 0.070 0..050 0.040 0.010 0.090 1.750 INFLOW ADJ DSF 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 300 600 500 400 400 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 O0 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1 .03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.37 0.09 0.25 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.82 MAXIMUM 1040.08 5!MINIMUM 1039.55 5 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 4900 1.07 0.86 158 NORMAL= 0.84 9453 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 5032 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=9719 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[PIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly-Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.06 2 1039.96 3 1039.78 4 1039.62 5 1039.48 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1039.36 1039.18 1039.13 1039.25 1039.79 1039.98 1040.17 1040.19 1040.14 1040.23 1040.46 1040.89 1041 .08 1041.07 1040.97 1040.72 1.040.47 1040.25 1040..36 1041.79 1044.06 1046.32 1048.40 1040.06 1039.98 1039.81 1039.66.1039.53 1039.38 1039.23 1039.13 1039.25 1039.79 1039.94 1040.13 1040.20 1040.17 1040.15 1040.36 1040.70 1041.05 1041.07 1041.03 1040.77 1040.54 1040.25 1040.25 1041.09 1043.25 1045.78 1047.88 1048.79 59275 58574 57174 55938 54867 53631 52396 51572 52561 57009 58244 59899 60524 60257 60078 61952 64986 68141 68330 67950 65611 63559 60970 60970 68521 89894 117886 143893 156449 555 972 962 954 945 937 695 251 257 262 264 863 1230 1227 1236.1252 1286 1296 1295 1769 2010 1979 1193 338 27 28 29 2613 26726 955 0.090 0.080 0.080 0.050 0.080 0.150 0.280 0.090 0.020 0.010 0.050 0.090 0.010 0.010 0.010 0.020 0.090 0.070 0.110 0.130 0.150 0.040 0.100 0.000 0.090 0.100 0.080 0.020 250 250 350 400 400 400 300 800 2500 900 1100 1200 1100 1100 2200 2800 2900.1400 1200 1000 800 7.00 1200 4000 10800 14100 13150 8950 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00'0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.61 0.06 0.01 0.16 0.15 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 1.08 0.44 0. 00 0.04 0.01 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.04 2.100 76250 1.88 2.65 2723 NORMAL= 0.90 MAXIMUM 1048.79 15 MINIMUM 1039.10 5]WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 6449 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 1325 DATE= 7 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 151240 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts *Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 01 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1048.72*2 1048.23 3 1047.52 4 1046.88 5 1046.25 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.29 30 31 1045.30 1044.58 1043.63 1042.68 1041.74 1040.89 1040.00 1039.55 1039.47 1039.32 1039.60 1040.28.1041.16 1041.37 1040.75 1039.92 1039.49 1039.35 1039.13 1038.95 1038.74 1038.94 1039.16 1039.22 1039.27 1039.26 1048.79 1048.36 1047.73 1047.09.1046.45 1045.63 1044.76 1043.86 1042.97 1042.06 1041.17 1040.33.1039.69 1039.49 1039.44 1039.51 1039.90 1040.87 1041.35 1041.01 i040.16 1039.54 1039.40 1039.20 1039.03 1038.80 1038.87 1039.08 1039.20 1039.24 1039.26 1039.29 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 156449 150463 141943 133625 125839 116154 106227 96344 86949 77792 69284 61684 56185 54538.54125 54702 57915 66504 70997 67759 60167 54950 53796 52148 50748 48916 49470 51160 52148 52478 52643 52890 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5457 6114 5990.5863 6296 6443 6236 5995 5737 5483 5225 3975 2338 1633 1630.1656 3572 6505 7393 7110 5005 2069 2303 2270 2238 753 25 407 704 706 706 117838 3801 0.040 0.010 0.040 0.110 0.160 0.070 0.080 0.110 0.170 0.170 0.170 0.060 0.240 0 .280 0.230 0.030 0..140 0.170 0.010 0.140 0.340 0.230 0.220 0.240 0.220 0.170 0.150 0.180 0.010 0.140 0.190 2450 1800 1800 1800 1700 1500 1300 1300 1200 1200 1400 1300 1600 1500'2000 3300 8000-8500 5800 3400 2400 1500 1500 1500 1300 1100 1000 900 900 900 900 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00*0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.03 0.00 0.06 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0. 07 0.06 0.00.0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.00 0.15 TOTAL AVERAGE. 1041.38 MAXIMUM 1048.79 MINIMUM 1038.74 4.520- 66750 1.35 1.67 2153 NORMAL= 2.06 156449 48439 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 140 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=132397 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake'MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 01 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.29 2 1039.26 3 1039.28 4 1039.27 5 1039.13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1038.99 1039.03 1039.09 1039.17 1039.20 1039.11 1039.21 1039.22 1039.31 1039.44 1039.48 1039.39 1039.34 1039.25 1039.24 1039.27 1039.21 1039.32 1039.32 1039.33 1039.10 1039.00 1038.92 1038.84 1038.80 1039.29 1039.26 1039.29 1039.26 1039.18 1039.06 1038.96 1039.10 1039.13 1039.19 1039.11 1039.46 1039.23 1039.28 1039.40 1039.47 1039.43 1039.37 1039.28 1039.26 1039.14 1039.29 1039.27 1039.31 1039.31 10.39.17 1039.00 1038.93 1038.87 1038.79 1038.81 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 52890 52643 52890 52643 51984 50996 50184 51325 51572..52066 51407 54290 52396 52808 53796 54373 54044 53549 52808 52643 51654 52890 52725 53055 53055 51902 50501 49946 49470 48836 48995 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 707 707 854 1140 1373 790 448 448 451 452 450 997 1359 1367 1377 1380 1372 1367 1357 1093 680 678 684 683 1229 1190 667 663 659 255 26878 896 0.210 0.140 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.140 0.230 0.400 0 .390 0.360 0.160 0.520 0.280 0.290 0.370 0.350 0.250 0.230 0.330 0.290 0.300 0.200 0.370 0.400 0.290 0.330 0.400 0.370 0.370 0.470 700 900.900 900 900 800 800 800 800 500 1000 1000 1600 2000 1800 1200 1200 1100 1100 700 1300 700 1000 750 700 600 500 500*450 400 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.63 0.10 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.18 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.19 8.740 27600 0.99 1.29 920 NORMAL= 2.92 MAXIMUM 1039.49 5 MINIMUM 1038.69 4 WATER SUPPLY: ,WITHDRAWN 4538 DATE=16 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 8043 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 796 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=54744 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[ ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.83 2 1038.85 3 1038.98 4 1039.06 5 1039.13 6 1039.23 7 1039.61 8 1039.58 9 1039.52 10 1039.49 11 1039.47 12 1039.49 13 1039.48 14. 1039.47 15 1039.34 16 1039.31 17 1039.25 18 1039.20 19 1039.18 20 1039.12 21 1039.20 22 1039.17 23 1039.12 24 1039.07 25 1039.00 26 1039.02 27 1039.00 28 1039.00 29 1038.98 30 1038.96 31 1039.01 1038.81 1038.86 1038.95 1039.04 1039. 09 1039.22 1039.57 1039.61 1039.53 1039.49 1039.46 1039.48 1039.48 1039.47 1039.39 1039.32 1039.27 1039.21 1039.20 1039.15 1039.15 1039.17 1039.13 1039.02 1039.05 1039.00 1039.00 1038.99 1038.98 1038.90 1039.03 1039.02 48995 49391 50104 50831 51242 52313 55196 55526 54867 54538 54290 54455 54455 54373 53714 53137 52725 52231 52148 51737 51737 51902 51572 50666 50913 50501 50501 50422 50342 49708 50748 50666 RELEASES DSF POWER TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EVAP INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A 31 31 31 31 31 31 917 420 415 411 128 722 722 719 716 714 593 483 482 481 903 915 480 478 335 254 254 254 253 253 254 0.220 0.490 0.270 0.220 0.250 0.230 0.170 0.330 0.380 0.430 0.390 0.150 0.350 0.400 0.440 0.460 0.390 0.190 0.070 0.280 0.140 0.340 0.290 0.400 0.250 0.320 0.400 0..220 0.360 0.090 0.140 INFLOW ADJ DSF 400 400 400 300 600 1500 1200 1200 1300 1400 1250 800 800 600 600 500 400 500 500 500 650 1100 400 400 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.58 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 00.00 0.00 0.00 O0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.04 0.82 0.27 0.31 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.02 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00.0.91 0.32 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.20 MAXIMUM 1039.67 5 MINIMUM 1038.81 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 16743 540 9.060 19200 2.01 3.36 619 NORMAL= 4.43 6021 DATE= 7 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 8995 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=38083 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Montbly-Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.00 2 1039.01 3 1039.04 4 1039.22 5 1039.63 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.89 1039.58 1039.76 1040.33 1040.78 1041.50 1041 .48 1040.98 1040.42 1039.97 1039.82 1039.75 1039.80 1039.05 1038.70 1039.50 1041.79 1042.73 1042..81 1042.42 1041.57 1040.76 1039.80 1039.39 1038.97 1039.02 1038.99 1039.02 1039.24 1039.55 1039.83 1039.68 1039.72 1040.19 1040.62 1041.23 1041.56 1041.20 1040.59 1040.17 1039.82 1039.74 1039.78 1039.29 1038.69 1038.94 1041.16 1042.57 1042.84 1042.57 1041.85 1040.96 1040.07 1039.46 1039.11 1038.70 50666 50422 50666 52478 55032 57338 56103 56432 60434 64272 69854 72998.69568 64004 60257 57256 56597 56927 52890 48043 50025 69188 82923 85641 82923 75759 67307 59363 54290 51407 48122 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0 0.0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 254 254 256 122 31 2499 4626 3193 2449 2525 4169 5157 5011 4863 3702.2354 2349 3622 4423 3054 808 3234 5527 5525 6064 6189 5887 4355 2727 2650 97880 3263 0.060 0.370 0.370 0.040 0.260 0.100 0.260 0.330 0.090 0.350 0.390 0.460 0.560 0.460 0.060 0.420 0.750 0.010 0.300 0.150 0.090 0.360 0.370 0.400 0.440 0.430 0.340 0.380 0.340 0.260 200 500 1200 1500 1200 2000 4900 5200 4400 5400 5900 3600 2300 3000 2300 2200 2500 1700 2000 4100 10600 10000 7000 4250 2600 2000 2000 1900 1600 1000 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.12 0.00 0.19 0.02 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.02 0..00 o0.00 0.00 2.09 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM. BSN 0.00 0.05 0.16 0.68 0.01 0.86 0.01 0.06 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.30 0.00*0.24 0.00 0.01 1.29 0.74 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.24 9.200 99050 5.38 5.12 3302 NORMAL= 4.74 MAXIMUM 1042.84 MINIMUM 1038.65 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAW 85641 DATE=23 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 47726 DATE=20 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 196463 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[lBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.54 2 1038.09 3 1037.55 4 1037.51 5 1037.46 6 1037.48 7 1037.46 8 1037.42 9 1037.38 10 1037.36 11 1037.29 12 1037.17 13 1037.24 14 1037.23 15 1037.24 16 1037.22 17 1037.30 18 1037.34 19 1037.39 20 1037.40 21 1037.43 22 1037.44 23 1037.43 24 1037.41 25 1037.41 26. 1037.59 27 1037.58 28 1037.82 29 1038.29 30 1038.70 31 1038.83 1038.70 1038.21 1037.73 1037.53 1037.52 1037.49 1037.46 1037.44 1037.40 1037.37 1037.30 1037.21 1037.22 1037.23 1037.22 1037.23 1037.31 1037.34 1037.39 1037.41 1037.43 1037.41 1037.43 1037.42 1037.42 1037.50 1037.52 1037.73 1038.11 1038.57 1038.78 1038.62 48122 44237 40519 38998 38922 38694 38466 38313 38010 37781 37250 36565 3 66 41 36717 36641 36717 37326 37553 37934 38086 38238 38086 38238 38162 38162 38770 38922 40519 43444 47091 48757 47488 2548 2438 1148 422 421 420 419 418 417 415 412 257 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 59 73 73 313 469 479 497 677 1774 14640 472 0.340 0.360 0.370 0.440 0.420 0.190 0.450 0.500 0.410 0.420 0*390 0.470 0.200 0.350 0.380 0.310 0.260 0.480 0.460 0.250 0.420 0.460 0.520 0.400 0.420 0.320 0.160 0,260 0.190 0.350 0.440 900 600 480 480 350 350 350 350 350 250 250 250 200 100 100 400.300 300 300 300 200 100 100 100 450 400 1300 2000 2400 1600 1300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.42 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.13 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.33 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.53 0.66 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.58 11.390 16910 2.82 3.94 545 NORMAL= 3.61 MAXIMUM 1038.83 4 MINIMUM 1037.15 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 9153 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 6109 DATE=12 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=33540 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION Il~Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 01 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400.PRIOR MONTH 1038.62 1 1038.50 1038.19 2 1038.09 1037.73 3 ld37.58 1037.44 4 1037.40 1037.31 5 1037.29.1037.17 STORAGE 240.OHR AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.16.1037.11 1037.02 1037.00 1037.04 1037.02 1037.04 1037.03 1037.02 1036.97 1037.00 1037.00 1037.02 1037.01 1036.97 1036.98 1036.96 1037.01 1037.11 1036.98 1037.02 1037.15 1037.25 1037.25 1037.23 1037.20 1037.12 1037.05 1037. 01 1037.04 1037.04 1037.04 1037.04 1037.02 1036.96.1037.02.1037.00 1037.02 1037.01 1036.97 1036.98 1036.96 1036.96 1037.05 1036.99 1037.01 1037.08 1037.23 1037.25 1037.25 1037.22 1037.14 47488 44078 40519 38313 37326 36261 35880 35349 35044 35272 35272 35272 35272 35120 34678 35120 34968 35120 35044 34751 34823 34678 34678 35349 34896 35044 35576 36717 36869 36869 36641 36033 2308 2321 1463 652 646 446 260 155 62 49 49 49 49 49 49 S49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 645 980 772 664 813 814 811 571 15070 486 0.450 0.460 0.380 0.370 0.370 0.390 0.400 0.380 0.380 0.410 0.200 0.250 0.360 0.350 0.450 0.270 0.270 0.080 0.370 0.360 0.470 0.510 0.370 0.220 0.150 0.270 0.160 0.310 0.350 0.340 0.240 700 625 400 250 250 250 100 250 100 100 100 50 50 100 50 150 100 70 70 70 100 400 500 1100 1100 1300 1000 900 750 450 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.18 0.48 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00 0*00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.21 0.00 0.00 0 *04 0.00 0.44 1.12 0.79 0.00 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.14 10.340 11535 3.07 3.22 372 NORMAL= 3.49 MAXIMUM 1038.62 4 MINIMUM 1036.96 3ýWATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 7488 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 4678 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=.22879 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION MRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A. DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.11 2 1037.17 3 1037.16 4 1037.16 5 .1037.10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.06 1036.95 1037.10 1037.17 1037.06 1037.03 1037.06 1037.07 1037.08 1037.04 1037.12 1037.14 1037.46 1037.51 1037.56 1037.68 1037.79 1037.91 1037.79 1037.74 1037.64 1037.45 1037.48 1037.46 1037.46 1037.14 1037.14 1037.16 1037.16 1037.12 1037.06 1036.99 1037.02 1037.09 1037.06 1037.04 1037.06 1037.09 1037.08 1037.04 1037.12 1037.14 1037.25 1037.45 1037.56 1037.67 1037.78 1037..85 1037.83 1037.75 1037 .66 1037.50 1037.48 1037.44 1037.44 1037.45 36033 36033 36185 36185 35880 35425 34896 35120 35652 35425 35272 35425 35652 35576 35272 35880 36033 36869 38389 39227 40063 40899 41431 41279 40671 39987 38770 38618 38313 38313 38389 426 428 428.427 425 423 172 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 374 628 635 640 644 639 635 627 252 37 37 37 8311 277 0.310 0.310 0.300 0.310 0.310 0.190 0.000 0.100 0.200 0.300 0.290 0.290 0.280 0.310 0.250 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.050 0.210 0.240 0.230 0.270 0.190 0.190 0.180 0.230 0.240 0.260 0.220 450 450 450 350 250 250 300 300 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 500 800 850 1100 1100 1000 600 350 350 200 100 50 50 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34.0.00 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.41 0.00 1.99 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.06 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.04 1.83 0.04 0.00 0.01 0 o0o 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.32 6.410 10900 3.12 2.58 363 NORMAL= 3.76 MAXIMUM 1037.93 4: MINIMUM 1036.89 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 2040 DATE=23 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 4171 DATE= 7 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=21620 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pa4ge.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE.FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.45 2 1037.41 3 1037.39 4 1037.37 5 1037.50 6 1037.40 7 1037.37 8 1037.28.9 1037.30 10 1037.30 11 1037.30 12 1037.28 13 1037.32 14 1037.34 15 1037.17 16 1037.24 17 1037.17 18 1037.14 19 1037.14 20 1037.13 21 1037.15 22 1037.15 23 1037.18 24 1037.19 25 1037.20 26 1037.20 27 1037..14 28 1037.13 29 1037.14 30 1037.17 31 1037.15 1037.45 1037.42 1037.39 1037.37 1037.33 1037.42 1037.38 1037.35 1037.31 1037.25 1037.32 1037.28 1037.24 1037.22 1037.17 1037.25 1037.18.1037.14 1037.16 1037.14 1037.14 1037.15 1037.18 1037.19 1037.20 1037.18 1037.17 1037.16 1037.14 1037.17 1037.15 1037.09 38389 38162 37934 37781 37477 38162 37858 37629 37326 36869 37401 37097 36793 36641 36261 36869 36337 36033 36185 36033 36033 36109 36337 36412 36488 36337 36261 36185 36033 36261 36109 35652 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 36 36 36 36 59 72 67 61 61 61 61 61 53 0.200 0.230 0.330 0.270 0.190 0.160 0.180 0.270 0.350 0.170 0.160 0.150 0.120 0.250 0.240 0*130 0.170 0.300 0.170 0.150 0.140 0.190 0.090 0.140 0.300 0.260 0.170 0.220 0.360 0.210 0.330 50 20 20 20 100 50 50 50 50 100 30 30 30 30 700 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 40 40 40 40 40 40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.82 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001.0.16 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49 49 42 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 36 1385 45 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.23 6.600 2120 1.34 1.49 68 NORMAL= 2.56 MAXIMUM 1037.50 3 MINIMUM 1036.98 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 8770 DATE= 5 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 4823 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 640 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=4205 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.15 2 1037.17 3 1037.17 4 1037.18 5 1037.18 6 i037.21 7 1037.20 8 1037.20 9 1037.19 10 1037.18 1i 1037.19 12 1037.17 13 1037.18 14 1037.19 15 1037.18 16 .1037.20 17 1037.21.18 1037.16 19 1037.29 20 1037.20 21 1037.19 22 1037.20 23. 1037.16 24 1037.24 25 103.7.32 26 1037.40 27 1037.32 28 1037.30 29 1037.23 30 1037.23 1037.09 1037.17 1037.17 1037.17 1037.18 1037.21 1037.20 1037.20 1037.20 1037.18 1037.19 1037.17 1037.18 1037.19 1037.18.1037.21 1037.21 1037.21 1037.29 1037.21 1037.19 1037.20 1037.19 1037.25 1037.32 1037.40 1037.32 1037.31 1037.24.1037.23 1037.24 35652 36261 36261 36261 36337 36565 36488 36488 36488 36337 36412 36261 36337 36412 36337 36565 36565 36565 37173 36565 3.6412 36488 36412 36869 37401 38010 37401 37326*36793 36717 36793 RELEASES DSF POWER TO'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 36 36 36 36 27 34 61 72 72 72 72 72 72 72 64*49 49 49 49 49 0.280 0.080 0.150 0.010 0.090 0.130 0.100 0.240 0.110 0.140 0.140 0.160 0.100 0.060 0.090 0.110 0.100 0.110 0.080 0.210 0.140 0.160 0.190 0.090 0*110 0.010 0.280 0.120 0.050 0.030 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 7.0 70 70 70 70 300 300 225 150 100 100 100.100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0*00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 49 49 49 49 49.49 49 49.49 49 1574 52 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.22 3.670 2915 0.17 0.29 97 NORMAL= 1.64 MAXIMUM 1037.41 3 MINIMUM 1037.09 3.WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 8086 DATE=24 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 5652 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=5782 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 01 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL.DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.25 2 1037.24 3 1037.26 4 1037.23 5 1037.26 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.32 1037.31 1037.37 1037.32 1037.30 1037.30 1037.33 1037.40 1037.36 1037.37 1037.41 1037.42 1037.42 1037.57 1037.44 1037.44 1037.40 1037.55 1037..49 1037.47 1037.47 1037.50 1037.50.1037.51 1037.49 1037.52 1037.24 1037.28 1037.26.1037.23 1037.26 1037.32 1037.31 1037.39 1037.32 1037.32 1037.30 1037.28 1037.39 1037.37 1037.35 1037.39 1037.42 1037.42 1037.47 1037.44 1037.44 1037.39 1037.51 1037.48 1037.47 1037.44 1037.49 1037.50 1037.58 1037.51 1037.52 1037.53 36793 37097 36945 36717 36945 37401 37326 37934 37401 37401 37250 37097 37934 37781 37629 37934 38162 38162 38542 38313 38313 37934 38846 38618 38542 38313 38694 38770 39378 38846 38922 38998 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 39 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 0.090 0.040 0.140 0.080 0.140 0.130 0.130 0.160 0.110 0.130 0.170 0.040 0.020 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.090 0.190 0.140 0.080 0.240 0.140 0.210 0.060 0.090 0.100 0.090'0.100 0.050 0.040 100 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 400 75 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0; 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 21 21 21 21 21 988 32 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.40 3.120 2300 0.27 0.12 74 NORMAL= 1.18 MAXIMUM 1037.77 4C MINIMUM 1037.22 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN)823 DATE=23 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 6641 DATE= 3 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=4562 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 5_,B ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chars Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT.PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.53 2 1037.55 3 1037.54 4 1037.55 5 .1037.56 6 1037.60 7 1037.60 8 1037.60 9 1037.62 10 1037.64 11 1037.64 12 1037.69 13 1037.65 14 1037.68 15 1037.70 16 1037.66 17 1037.70.18 1037.71 19 1037.76 20 1037.71 21 1037.79 22 1037.72 23 1037.78 24 1037.81 25 1037.80 26 1037.77 27 1037.76 28 1037.83 29 1037.80 30 1037.85 31 1038.00 1037.53 1037.55 1037.56 1037.55 1037.56 1037.58 1037.60 1037.61 1037.62 1037.64 1037.65 1037.65 1037.67 1037.68 1037.69 1037.66 1037.70 1037.72 1037.73 1037.75 1037.81 1037.73 1037.73 1037.78 1037.79 1037.77 1037.78 1037.79 1037.80 1037.85 1037.79 1037.99 38998 39151 39227 39151 39227 39378 39530 39606 39682 39835 39911 39911 40063 40139 40214 39987 40290 40443 40519 40671 41128 40519 40519 40899 40975 40823 40899 40975 41052 41431 40975 42496 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0.0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 ,ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL..

INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 21 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 667 22 0.060 0.090 0.030 0.090 0.070 0.040 0.i0 0.090 0.100 0.110 0.080 0.160 0.150 0.190 0.150 0.140 0.100 0.050 0.030 0.040 0.130 0.200 0.200 0.090 0.110 0.220 0.270 0.250 0.080 0.020 0.020 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00'0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 1000 750 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.70 3.470 3200 0.62 0.19 103 NORMAL= 0.84 MAXIMUM 1038.01 4 MINIMUM 1037.53 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 2651 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 8998 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=6347 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I!IBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 02 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.97 2 1038.03 3 1038.05 4 .1038.03 5 1038.04 6 7 8 9 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1038.09 1038.10 1038.12 1038.12 1038.27 1038.17 1038.17 1038.15 1038.14 1038.14 1038.14 1038.13 1038.09 1038.16 1038.19 1038.16 1038.16 1038.12 1037..99 1038.10 1038.08 1038.11 1038.06 1037.99 1038.03 1038.05 1038.04 1038.05 1038.09 1038.10 1038.11 1038.02 1038.31 1038.15 1038.17 1038.17 1038.14 1038.15 1038.13 1038.13 1038.10 1038.10 1038.14 1038.17 1038.16 1038.12 1038.12 1038.10 1038.08 1038.11 1038.07 1038.05 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 42496 42810 42969 42889 42969 43285 43365 43444 42731 45030 43762 43920 43920 43682 43762 43603 43603 43365.43365 43682 43920 43841 43523 43523 43365 43206 43444 43127 42969 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 0.040 0.030 0.050 0.110 0.070 0.020 0.020 0.070 0.210 0.150 0.160 0.180 0.140 0.160 0.210 0.180 0.160 0.240 0.200 0.130 0.190 0.210 0.160 0.300 0.330 0.140 0.130 0.130 200 100 100 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 300 400 200 100 100 100 100 75 50 50 50 0.00 0.01 0.61 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.01 0.11 0.24 0.21 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00*0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00;ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A INFLOW RAINFALL ADJ INCHES DSF 7A.TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.11 MAXIMUM 1038.31 4.MINIMUM 1037.97 4: WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 609 22 4.120 3000 .1.33 1.26 107 NORMAL= 0.90 5030 DATE= 9 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 2344 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 1110 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=5950 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts S election.Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 02 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.05 2 1038.17 3 1038.08 4 1038.06 5 1038.05 6 1038.00 7 1038.04 8 1038.03 9 1038.22 10 1038.06 11 1038.06 12 1038.11 13 1038.10 14 1038.05 15 1038.06 1038.05 1038.11 1038.11.1038.06 1038.05 1038.01 1038.04 1037.98 1038.39 1038.08 1038.03 1038.11 1038.09 1038.10 1038.20 1038.08 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 42969 43444 43444 43048 42969 42651 42889 42420 45664 43206 42810 43444 43285 43365 44157 43206 43444 43444 43285 42889 43444 43365 43206 43048 42889 43206 43285 42889 43285 43523 43206 43127 RELEASES POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL.16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22.22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 22 0.180 0.030 0.120 0.100 0.150 0.310 0.120 0.130 0.190 0.180 0.290 0.180 0.190 0.380 0.380 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.040 0.100 0.100 0.210 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.100 0.280 0.230 300 100 60 50 50 50 50 800 300 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 5o 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.00 0.11 0.47 0.00 0.00 0A00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1038.12 1038.11 1038.11 1038.11 1038.11 1038.09 1038.09 1038.04 1038.05 1038.11 1038.11 1038.07 1038.06 1038.05 1038.07 1038.08 1038. Oa 1038.04 1038.11 1038.13 1038.02 1038.10 1038.08 1038.06 1038.04 1038.08 1038.09 1038.04 1038.09 1038.12 1038.08 1038.07 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.09 MAXIMUM 1038.39 MINIMUM 1037.91 0 0 674 2"2 4.890 2910 0.67 0.49 94 NORMAL= 2.06 45664 DATE= 8 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 41888 DATE= 8 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1245 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=5772 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION glBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 02 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.07 2 .1038.15 3 138.01 4 1038.00 5 1037.98 6.7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.94 1037.90 1037.93 1038.00 1037.99 1037.99 1037.99 1038.17 1038.24 1038.23 1038.15 1038.29 1038.29 1038.11 1038.24 1038.53 1038.72 1039.62 1040.17 1040.29 1040.37 1040.10 1040.30 1040.26 1040.11 1038.07 1038.01 1038.02 1038.00 1037.97 1037.96 1037.91 1037.93 1038.01 1037.99 1037.99 1037.99 1038.15 1038.23-1038.23 1038.20 1038.19 1038.20 1038.23 1038.24 1038.33 1038.63 1039.35 1040.05 1040.29 1040.37 1040.28 1040.30 1040.28 1040.15 1039.96 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 43127 42651 42731 42572 42344 42268 41888 42040 42651 42496 42496 42496 43762 44396 44396 44157 44078 44157 44396 44475 45188 47567 53384 59186 61328 62041 61238 61417 61238 60078 58409 RELEASES 24 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 616 991 1136 i241 1236 1237 1529 1699 10235 341 0.270 0.490 0.270 0.240 0.220 0.330 0.320 0.020 0.010 0.250 0.400 0.100 0.110 0.020 0.340 0.490 0.200 0.370 0.300 0.090 0.030 0.210 0.350 0.360 0.330 0.100 0.050 0.250 0.280 0.300 50 50 50 50 50 50 200 500 100 100 150 800 400 200 100 100 200 300 200 500 1300 3000 3700 2300 1500 950 1400 1200 1000 900 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.38 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.55 0.79 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10.0.12 0.72 0.00.0.00 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.19 0.01 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.16 0.43 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF .. 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.71 MAXIMUM 1040.39 MINIMUM 1037.89 7.100 21400 3.40 3.67 713 NORMAL= 2.92 62220 DATE=25 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 41736 DATE= 7 TOP FLOOD POOL .1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1910 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=42446 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I9Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Carts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ,ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.92 2 1039.64 3 1039.56 4 1039.47 5 1039.36 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.22 1039.20 1039.29 1039.60 1040.98 1041.63 1041.81 1042.10 1042.10 1041.77 1041.28 1040.68 1040.76 1041.25 1041.42 1041.90 1040.15 1039.45 1039.35 1040..39 1042.02 1043.55 1044.44 1045.07 1045.47 1045.72 1039.96:1039.67 1039.57 1039.47 1039.38 1039.27 1039.23 1039.17 1039.48 1040.52 1041.56 1041.76 1041.83 1042.12 1041.89 1041.33 1040.81 1040.62 1041.08 1041.42 1041.09 1040.42 1039.66 1039.21 1039.97 1041.41 1043.12 1044.18 1044.94 1045.39 1045.66 1045.83 58409 56021 55196 54373 53631 52725 52396 51902 54455 63380 72998 74902 75569 78396 76141 70807 65969 64272 68426 71665 68521 62488 55938 52231 58492 71569 88520 99815 108217 113384 116501 118463 1.677 1256 719 715 709 450 251 253 262 1768 2644 2661 3996 4810 4708 4591 3424 2532 2593 3800 4820 4763 3727 814 26 27 28 28.29 29 29 58138 1875 0.070 0.040 0.290 0.270 0.250 0.520 0.240 0.070 0.290 0.370 0.280 0.110 0.080 0.350 0.390 0.400 0.220 0.270 0.290 0.050 0.270 0.410 0.290 0.070 0.090 0.220 0.340 0.220 0.210 0. 310'0.350 INFLOW ADJ DSF 500 900 400 400 400 350 300 1700 5000 6000 3700.3100 5600 3800 2200 2200 2600 4700 4200 2500 1900 1500 1900 4000 6700 8700 5800 4300 2700 1700 1100 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.41 0.09 0.00 0..01 0.22 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.21 0*. 09 0.07 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 1.12 2.34 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.46 0.80 0.22 0.00 0.08 0.90 0.01 0.01 0.00 0. 67 0.35 0.02 0.00 0.10 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.87 0.00 0.32 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.32 MAXIMUM 1045.83 MINIMUM 1039.07 5: WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 7.630 90850 5.28 5.39 2931 NORMAL= 4.43 8463 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 1077 DATE=24 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 262 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 180198 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/ORREVISION IlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER. TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1045.90 2 1046.02 3 1d46.10 4 1046.18 5 1046.30 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1045.95 1045.74 1045.26 1044.68 1044.14 1043.51 1042.97 1042.70 1042.66 1043.23 1043.94 1044.26 1043.72 1043.29 1042.67 1041.91 1041.09 1040.22 1039.35 1038.79 1038.14 1037.71 1037.12 1037.06 1037.05 1045.83 1045.96 1046.07 1046.15 1046.29 1046.03 1045.77 1045.44 1044.91 1044.31 1043.67 1043.14 1042.75 1042.64 1043.01 1043.72 1044.21 1043.91 1043.45 1042.89 1042.17 1041.38 1040.51 1039.63 1038.97 1038.37 1037.82 1037.24 1037.06 1037.05 1037.07 118463 119964 121267 122231 123915 120787 117771 113960 107886 101252 94335 88731 84735 83628 87357 94863 100146 96873 92008 86144 78899 71283 63291 55691.50263 45506 41203 36793 35425 35349 35500 29 29 29 29 2357 4428 4384 4308 4214 4114 4000 3245 1951 1959 2013 2072.4182 5485 5362 5199 5009 4793 4545 3629 3066 2910 2779 1304 375 375 88175 2939 0.320 0.410 0.550 0.470 0.070 0.090 0.340 0.380 0.380 0.150 0.250 0.340 0.210 0.190 0.460 0"220 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.430 0.360 0.380 0.410 0.430 0.470 0.370 0.390 0.370 0.290 0.400 900 900 700 900 1500 2000 2600 1400 900 700 1200 1300 1500 4000 6000 4800 2600 3000 2500 1600 1300 i100 1000 950 800 900 700 600 500 400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.82 0.28 0.06 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.91 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 1.00 0.24 0.40 0.00 0.53 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.39 0 0 9.880 49250 2.05 3.26 1642 NORMAL= 4.74 MAXIMUM 1046.30 i2 MINIMUM 1037.04 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 4036 DATE= 5 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 5272 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=97686 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I2IBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 02 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.04 2* 1037.06 3 1037.11 4 1037.17 5 1037.19 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.19 1037.22 1037.21 1037.22 1037.20 1037.36 1037.34 1037.24 1037.17 1037.07 1037.03 1036.98 1036,96 1037.01 1037.01 1037.01 1036.97 1036.99 1036.99 103 6..93 1036.91 1036.91 1036.89 1036.93 1036.98 1036.97 1037.07 1037.06 1037.11 1037.15 1037. 18 1037.20 1037.20 1037.22 1037.20 1037.21 1037.37 1037.34 1037.25 1037.19 1037.10 1037.05 1036.98.1036.97 1036.98 1037.00 1036.98 1036.97 1036.99 1036.99 10.36.95 1036.94 1036.91 1036.90 1036.93 1036.97 1036.97 1036.96 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 35500 35425 35804 36109 36337 36488 36488 36641 36488 36565 37781 37553 36869 36412 35728 35349 34823 34751 34823 34968 34823 34751 34896 34896.34606 34533 34316 34244 34461 34751 34751 34678 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 288 237 238 238 239 239 239 239 168 125 242 434 430 427 308 236 1ii7 49 49 49 49 49 49 49.49 49 49 49 49 49 49 5130 165 0.390 0.260 0.200 0.120 0.180 0.340 0.350 0.360.0.350 0.290 0.230 0.220 0.210 0.210 0.390 0.340 0.360 0.280 0.310 0.350 0.430 0.500 0.280 0.360 0.410 0.470 0.500 0.490 0.270 0.320 0.390 400 300 300 300 300 300 300 240 240 1300 200 200 200 200 150 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 300 250 150 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.37 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 0.07 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.55 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A. DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.07 10.160 6930 4.11 1.10 224 NORMAL= 3.61 MAXIMUM .1037.39 3 MINIMUM 1036.89 3.WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 7934 DATE=II TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 4171 DATE=28 TOP FLOOD*POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=13745 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[Iack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly-Chats Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.96 2 1036.98 3 1036.94 4 1036.91 5 1036.91 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1036.89 1036.88 1036.80 1036.83 1036.81 1036.79 1036.78 1036.75 1036.85 1036.82 1036.80 1036.82 1036.97 1036.96 1036.96 1036.95 1036.94 1036.95 1036.97 1036.98 1036.98 1036.96 1036.95 1036.95 1036.90 1036.91 1036.96 1036.98 1036.93 1036.91 1036.91 1036.89 1036.88 1036.81 1036.81 1036.81 1036.79 1036.78 1036.75 1036.83 1036.82 1036.80 1036.80 1036.98 1036.96 1036.96 1036.96 1036.96 1036.95 1036.95 1036.97 1036.98 1036.96 1036.95 1036.95 1036.91 1036.92 1036.90 34678 34823 34461 34316 34316 34171 34099 33592 33592 33592 33447 33375 33158 33737 33664 33520 33520 34823 34678 34678 34678 34678 34606 34606 34751 34823 34678 34606 34606 34316 34389 34244 RELEASES DSF POWER TO¶0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 512 49 0.410 0.380 0.340 0.400 0.370 0.370 0.330 0.390 0.410 0.310 0.140 0.410 0.290 0.090 0.360 0 270 0.340 0.120 0.350 0.300 0.400 0.350 0.410 0.340 0.180 0.320 0.340 0.390 0.310 0.340 0.290 100.75.70 65 60 60 50 50 50 40 70 30 350 90 90 90 800 100 75 75 75 75 75 150 125 100 100 100 i00 75 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.35 0.30 0.55 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.55 0.03 0.00 0.16 0.15 0.00 0.06 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.12 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.90 10.050 3440 2.22 2.86 111 NORMAL= 3.49 MAXIMUM 1037.01 3 MINIMUM 1036.75 32 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 5044 DATE=24 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 3158 DATE=13 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=6823 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION pB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.90 2 1036.86 3 1036.89 4 1036.81 5 1036.80 6 1036.81 7 1036.79 8 1036.75 9 1036.75 10 1036.73 11 1036.75 12 1036.68 13 1036.61 14 1036.65 15 1036.75 16 1036.65 17 1036.63 18 1036.56 19 1036.66 20 1036.62 21 1036.60 22 1036.61 23 1036.57 24 1036.54 25 1036.50 26 1036.52 27 1036.55 28 1036.47 29 1036.46 30 1036.43 1036.90 1036.87 1036.89 1036.82 1036.81 1036.81 1036.79 1036.75 1036.75 1036.73 1036.74 1036.68 1036.61 1036.67 1036.69 1036.65 1036.63 1036.58 1036.61 1036.66 1036.61 1036.64 1036.57 1036.54 1036.50 1036.52 1036.50 1036.49 1036.47 1036.43 1036.42 34244 34027 34171 33664 33592 33592 33447 33158 33158 33013 33085 32651 32144 32578 32723 32433 32288 31926 32144 32506 32144 32361 31854 31637 31347 31492 31347 31275 31130 30840 30768 49 49 49.49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 49 48 49 49 48 48 48 49 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 0.280 0.340 0.400 0.320 0.310 0.330 0.320 0.370 0.310 0.260 0.200 0.340 0.280 0.180 0.050 0.290 0.230 0.320 0.340 0.070 0.270 0.360 0.260 0..300 0.320 0.280 0.270 0.190'0.290 0.380 INFLOW ADJ DSF 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 40 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.13 0.00 0'.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00.0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.51 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.56 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.65 MAXIMUM 1036.90 3 MINIMUM 1036.42 3 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 1455 49 8.460 1540 0.64 1.63 51 NORMAL= 3.76 4244 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 0768 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=3055 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION LIB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly ChrsSelectionPage.

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL. 8A TO 8A DSF 7A.Tb 7A DAM. BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.42 2 1036.42 3 1036.56 4 1036.67 5 1036.67 6 1036.73 7 1036.75 8 1036.77 9 1036.86 10 1036.89 11 1036.90 12 1036.92 13 1036.92 14 1036.88 15 1036.87 16 1036.87 17 1036.84 18 1036.81 19 1036.87 20 1036..87 21 1036.86 22 1036.86 23 1036.89 24 1036.92 25 1037.01 26 1036.96 27 1036.86 28 1037.01 29 1037.22 30 1037.48 31 1037.74 TOTAL 1036.42 1036.42 1036.50 1036.46 1036.66 1036.68 1036.77 1036.77 1036.84 1036.89 1036.90 1036.89 1036.93 1036.88 1036.88 1036.87 1036.84 1036.82 1036.84 1036.86 1036.86 1036.86 1036.85 1036.91 1036.97 1036.93 1036.89 1036.98 1037.15 1037.40 1037.69 1037.90 30768 30768 31347 31057 32506 32651 33302 33302 33809 34171 34244 34171 34461 34099 34099 34027 33809 33664 33809 33954 33954 33954 33882 34316 34751 34461 34171 34823 36109 38010 40214 41812 48 48 48 49 49 49 125 183 184 184 128 72 72 72 72 72 50 24 24 24 36 50 50 50 80 120 120 132 130 122 123 2590 84 0.440 0.250 0.040 0.060 0.200 0.270 0.270 0.200 0.120 0.160 0.050 0.090 0.140 0.140 0.210 0.240 0.020 0.150 0.070 0.110 0.150 0.040 0.090 0.050 0.030 0.050 0.030 0.010 0.010 0.000 0.020 50 400 400 350 300 300 300 300 250 200 175 150 125 100 100 100 75 50 45 40 40 50 200 200 150 150 200 800 1100 1200 950 0.00 0.00 1.19 0.49 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.43 0.16 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.13 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.03 2.00 1.12 0.01 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.41 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.67 0.47 0.00 0.42 0.35 0.17 0.17 0.01 3.710 8850 3.39 6.49* 285 NORMAL= 2.56 AVERAGE 1036.91 MAXIMUM 1037.90 4 MINIMUM 1036.39 3(WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1812 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00)550 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=17554 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION lEBack_ to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES POWER EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.98 2 1038.14 3 1038.26 4 1038.34 5 1038.40 6 1038.43 7 1038.50 8 1038.50 9 1038.55 10 1038.63 11 1038.56 12 1038.61 13 1038.60 14 1038.58 15 1038.59 16 1038.56 17 1038.55 18 1038.55 19. 1038.55 20 1038.54 21 1038.50 22 1038.55 23 1038.53 24 1038.50 25 1038..48 2.6 1038.48 27 1038.48 28 1038.43 29 1038.47 30 1038.44 1037.90 1038.11 10.38.22 1038.33 1038.39 1038.48 1038.50 1038.51 1038.57 1038.59 1038.60 1038.61 1038.60 1038.58 1038.55 1038.58 1038.56 1038.55 1038.56 1038.54 1038.51 1038.56 1038.50 1038.50 1038.50 1038.49 1038.46 1038.47 1038.45 1038.35 1038.44 41812 43444 44316 45188 45664 46378 46537 46616 47091 47250 47329 47409 47329 47170 46933 47170 47013 46933 47013 46854 46616 47013 46537 46537 46537 46457 46219 46298 46140 45347 46060 124 124 124 93 74 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75.59 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 51 40 35 35 35 2045 68 0.030 0.060 0.000 0.040 0.080 0.080 0.160 0.260 0.220 0.150 0.170 0.130 0.150 0.250 0.030 0.110 0.110 0. 110 0.110.0.160 0.180 0.110 0.110 0.150 0.120 0.080 0.060 0.070 0.150 0.160 800 800 700 500 300 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 150 150 150 150 150 125 100 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 50 50 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00.0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.49 MAXIMUM 1038.63 MINIMUM 1037.90 3.600 6250 0.16 0.28 208 NORMAL= 1.64 47567 DATE=10 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 41812 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1225 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=12397 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[lBack to the John Redmond Lake MonthlyChats.$Sejection_

P._age.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 02 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.47 2 1038.44 3 1038.45 4 1038.46 5 1038.49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.52 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.49 1038.49 1038.51 1038.52 1038.53 1038.51 1038.57 1038.53 1038.54 1038.59 1038.60 1038.57 1038.64 1038.63 1038.61 1038.64 1038.66 1038.69 1038.69 1038.44 1038.45 1038.45 1038.46 1038.49 1038.51 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.53 1038.51 1038.50 1038.51 1038.52 1038.53 1038.51 1038.57 1038.53 1038.57 1038.52 1038.60 1038.53 1038.59 1038.61 1038.63 1038.63 1038.66 1038.62 1038.70 1038.70 46060 46140 4.6140 46219 46457 46616 46775 46775 46775 46775 46775 46775 46616 46537 46616 46695 46775 46616 47091 46775 47091 46695 47329 46775 47250 47409 47567 47567 47805 47488 48122 48122 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 1078 35 0.120 0.160 0.150 0.060 0.070 0.060 0.040 0.030 0.080 0.050 0.030 0.030 0.030 0.060 0.080 0.130 0.060 0.190 0.120 0.210 0.180 0.120 0.070 0.060 0.100 0.060 0.020 0.050 0.070 0.150 0.160 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 200 250 250 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.01 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.55 2.800 3325 0.03 0.22 107 NORMAL= 1.18 MAXIMUM 1038.70 4 MINIMUM 1038.44 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 8122 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 6060 DATE= 2 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 570 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=6595 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A INFLOW ADJ DSF RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.68 2 1038.70 3 1038.72 4 1038.75 5 1038.72 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.72 1038.77 1038.77 1038.74 1038.77 1038.79 1038.79 1038.82 1038.82 1038.83 1038.79 1038.87 1038.86 1038.85 1038.86 1038.89 1038.87 1038.89 1038.89 1038 .89 1038.90 10.38. 91 1038.92 1038.93 1038.93 1038.95 1038.70 1038.71 1038.72 1038.72 1038.76 1038.72 1038.77 1038.77 1038.79 1038.78 1038.79 1038.79 1038.82 1038.82 1038.83 1038.80 1038.87 1038.84 1038.84 1038.86 1038.89 1038.87 1038.89 1038.88 1038.89 10.38.91 1038.89 1038.92 1038.93 1038.93 1038.95 1038.95 48122 48201 48281 48281 48598 48281 48677 48677 48836 48757 48836 48836 49073 49073 49153 48916 49470 49232 49232 49391 49629 49470 49629 49550 49629 49788 49629 49867 49946 49946 50104 50104 35 35 35.35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35.35 35 0.130 0.130 0.090 0.060 0.150 0.080 0.030 0.120 0.170 0.230 0.120 0.060 0.070 0.010 0.100 0.040 0.100 0.070 0.080.0.140 0..120 0.120 0.060 0.040 0.070 0.120 0.060 0.120 0.050 0.040 0.080 100 100 90 90 90 90 90 9.0 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 90 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0..00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.03 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.84 MAXIMUM 1038.98 5 MINIMUM 1038.65 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 0 0 1084 35 2.860 2740 0.00 0.24 88 NORMAL= 0.84 0342 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 7726 DATE= 2 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=5435 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 03 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.96 2 1038.95 3 1d38.93 4 1038.93 5 1038.99 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1039.01.1039.04 1039.02 1039.04 1039.04 1039.05 1039.05 1039.05 1039.22 1039.18 1039.22 1039.32 1039.37 1039.38 1039.38 1039.37 1039.26 1039.30 1039.33 1039.28 1039.23 1039.22 1039.18 1038.95 1038.95 1038.94 1038.96 1038.99 103.9.01 1038.98 1039.01 1039.03 1039.04 1039.06 1039.05 1039.05 1039.08 1039.21 1039.18 1039.30 1039.35 1039.38 1039.39 1039.39 1039.37 1039.32 1039.26 1039.28 1039.24 1039.22 1039.18 1039.13 50104 50104 50025 50184 50422 50583 50342 50583 50748 50831 50996 50913 50913 51160 52231 51984 52973 53384 53631 53714 53714 53549 53137 52643 52808 52478 52313 51984 51572 RELEASES DSF POWER TO¶0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 178 264 264 264 263 263 263 262 0.100 0.140 0.120 0.060 0.080 0.070 0.070 0.080 0.080 0.010 0.120 0.140 0.140 0.070 0.020 0.040 0.070 0.080 0.020 0.130 0.140 0.080 0.050 0.030 0.060 70 70 70.70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 70 700 300 200 200 300 300 300 300 200 150 150 150 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A.TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00-0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.98 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0"00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0 0 0 0 0 262 0.050 261 0.080 261 0.020 150 0.00 150 0.00 100 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.16 MAXIMUM 1039.45 5'MINIMUM 1038.93 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 3403 122 2.150 4640 , 0.92 1.09 166 NORMAL= 0.90 4208 DATE=18 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 9946 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 0 AC-FT, RELEASED 0 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=9203 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the JohljnRedmond Lake Monthly Cjarts S elpctionPage..

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.15 2 1039.11 3 1039.09 4 1039.05 5 .1039.07 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.05 1039.09 1039.09 1039.09 1039.13 1039.14.1039.16 1039.21 1039.20 1039.21 1039.19 1039.23 1039.35 1039.34.1039.58 1039.80 1040.00 1040.67 1040.37 1039..80 1039.44 1039.30 1039.31 1039.36 1039.38 1039.37 1039.13 1039.13 1039.09 1039.05 1039.07 1039.05 1039.09 1039.10 1039.10 1039.13 1039.14 1039.15 1039.21 1039.18 1039.19 1039.21 1039.23 1039.30 1039.28 1039.46 1039.70 1040.21 1040.65 1040.47 1039.86 1039.51 1039.30 1039.31 1039.35 1039.38 1039.37 1039.34 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 51572 51572 51242 50913 51077 50913 51242 51325 51325 51572 51654 51737 52231 51984 52066 52231 52396 52973 52808 54290 56267 60613 64540 62933 57586 54702 52973 53055 53384 53631 53549 53302 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 260 260 259 127 35 35 35 35 35 52 63 63 63 63 63 63 64 64 64 1100 3535 4416 4487 4380 3440 1973 996 607 520 521 667 28346 914 0.010 0.030 0.110 0.150 0.010 0.020 0.050 0.140 0.110 0.130 0. 120 0.030 0.050 0.090 0.110 0.280 0.230 0.070 0.130 0.010 0.060 0.210 0.170 0.310 0.350 0.210 0.440 0.250 0.220 0.210 0.300 100 100 100 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 400 200 200 200 200 200 200 900 2200 6000 6500.3800 2000 2000 1300 1200 900 700 600 600 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.12 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00.0.04 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.79 0.61 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.37 4.610 31500 1.64 2.01 1016 NORMAL= 2.06 MAXIMUM 1040.67 6 MINIMUM 1039.03 5 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 4719 DATE=23 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 0748 DATE= 5 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 1874 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=62479 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

_IBack to the John Redmond Lake MonthlyCharts Selection John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.32 2 1039.22 3 1039.14 4 1039.18 5 1039.21 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.20 1039.30 1039.34 1039.31 1039.22 1039.18 1039.18 1039.14 1039.09 1039.01 1038.99 1039.14 1039.16 1039.30 1039.69 1041.23 1042.72 1042.93 1043.50 1044.45 1046.02 1047.47 1048.15 1047.45 1046.49 1039..34 1039.22 1039.14 1039.15 1039.18 1039.19 1039.25 1039.29 1039.31 1039.21 1039.20 1039.16 1039.16 1039.12 1039.03 1038.93 1039.15 1039.16 1039.17 1039.53 1040.69 1042.50 1042.93.1042.93 1044.00 1045.53 1047.06 1048.08 1047.74 1046.75 1045.68 STORAGE.2400HR AC-FT 53302 52313 51654 51737 51984 52066 52561 52890 53055 52231.52148 51819.51819 51490 50748 49946 51737 51819 51902 54867 64897 82220 86547 86547 97824 115000 133237 146565 142073 129449 116732 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 746 740 466 204 63 63 64 339 518 410 289 289 288 287 143 63 63 63 64 65 2402 5307 5325 5486 6507 7393 7740 8875 9293 8964 72518 2417 0.710 0.500 0.490 0.170 0.100 0.200 0.040 0.240 0.110 0.210 0.000 0.300 0.300 0.440 0. 620 0.330 0.200 0.110 0.3 10 0.080 0.340 0.350 0.350 0.110 0.200 0.080 0.310 0.210 0.170 0.360 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 400 350 350 300 300 300 300 300 500 200 250 1700 5500 11000 8000 5400 11000 15200 17000 14500 6700 3050 2700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.13 1.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.93 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.08 0.00 0.73 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.65 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.28 7.940 108100 3.72 4.52 3603 NORMAL= 2.92 MAXIMUM 1048.17 147819 DATE=28 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 MINIMUM 1038.93 49946 DATE=15 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 3193 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 214413 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R3Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 03 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1045.43 2 1044.53 3 1043.85 4 1043.20 5 1043.12 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1042.49 1041.60 1041.10 1041.36 1041.26 1041.11 1041.54 1041.35 1040.89 1040.35 1039.82 1039.79 1039.78 1039.80 1039.87 1039.49 1039.01 1039.00 1039.22 1039.37 1039.54 1039.62 1039.50 1039.38 1039.18 1039.12 1045.68 1044.76 1044.05 1043.42 1043.09 1042.74 1041.96 1041.23 1041.29 1041.40 1041.03 1041.44 1041.43 1041.00 1040.50 1039.96 1039.78 1039.78 1039.80 1039.80 1039.59 1039.12 1039.01 1039.14 1039.34 1039.47 1039.61 1039.55 1039.42 1039.20 1039.14 1039.10 116732 106227 98377 91692 88202 84635 76807 69854 70426 71474 67950 71854 71760 67664 63202 58409 56927 56927 57092 57092 55361 51490 50583 51654 53302 54373 55526 55032 53961 52148 51654 51325 7859 6883 6696 4395 3404 5463 4591 1309 842 2114 2112 3107 3655 3560 3448 2253 1238 1238 1241 2372 3035 1697 692 517 522 526 1105 1444 1431 1001 738 80489 2596 0.330 0.090 0.210 0.260 0.320 0.390 0.230 0.370 0.160 0.310 0.470 0.440 0.370 0.100 0.290 0.030 0.080 0.100 0.280 0.130 0.350 0.290 0.180 0.250 01.130 0.310 0.320 0..380 0.390 0.450 0.460 2600 3000 3000 2700 1700 1600 1200 2000 1400 500 4200 3200 1600 1400 1000 1000 1300 1400 1400 1700 1500 1400 1400 1300 1200 1200 1000 1000 700 700 700 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.32 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.20 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.51 0.04 0.00 0.03 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.65 8.470 50000 2.81 3.61 1613 NORMAL= 4.43 MAXIMUM 1045.68 11 MINIMUM 1038.96 5 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 6732 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 0184 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 833 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=99174 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts S election PFag John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 03 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.08 2 1039.15 3 1039.06 4 1039.00 5 1039.01 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13*14*15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.16 1039.23 1039.29 1039.33 1039.21 1039.09.1038.88 1038.84 1038.63 1038.50 1038.36 1038.26 1038.12 1038.05 1037.92 1037.82 1037.72 1037.62 1037.55 1037.42 1037.40 1037.25 1037.18 1037.15 1037.40 1039.10 1039.02 1039.06 1039.01 1038.98 1039.14 1039.20 1039.23 1039.33 1039.24 1039.13 1038.95 1038.84 1038.67 1038.54 1038.41 1038.30 1038.17 1038.08 1037.96 1037.85 1037.76 1037.65 1037.55 1037.44 1037.42 1037.28 1037.19 1037.14 1037.30 1037.28 51325 50666 50996 50583 50342 51654 52148 52396 53219 52478 51572 50104 49232 47885 46854 45823 44951 43920 43206 42268 41431 40747 39911 39151 38313 38162 37097 36412 36033 37250 37097 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 735 736 734 597 510 515 516 518 890 1193 1183 1166 1157 1142 1130 986 898 769 677 671 665 659 652 645 643 639 488 379 380 503 22373 746 0.160 0.270 0.110 0.220 0.210 0.210 0.310 0.180 0.370 0.470 0.170 0.250 0.180 0.330 0.300 0.300 0.350 0.360 0.000 0.150 0.380.0.280 0.310 0.300 0.420 0.160 0.310 0.410 0.320 0.170 600 1000 650 450 1300 900 900 900 800 700 600 600 600 600 600 600 500 450 450 450 400 350 300 250 600 150 250 250 1000 500 0.00 0.45 0.44 0.00 0.00 1.23 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48 ,ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF

• 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.80 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.30 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.01 0.71 0.33 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.30 MAXIMUM 1039.35 MINIMUM 1037.14 7.960 17700 4.00 3.77 590 NORMAL= 4.74 53384 DATE= 9 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 36033 DATE=29 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1448 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=35107 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[2Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.27 2 1037.28 3 1037.33 4 1037.46 5 1037.47 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.44 1037.37 1037.28 1037.18 1037.11 1037.01 1037.00 1036.99 1036.99 1037.04 1036.99 1036.99 1037.00 1036.99 1036.98 1037.02 1037.00 1036.97 1036.96 1036.91 1036.87 1036.91 1036.90 1036.88 1036.88 1036.88 1037.28 1037.28 1037.33 1037.44 1037.47 1037.46 1037.39 1037.28 1037.21 1037.15 1037.03 1037.00 1037.01 1036.99 1037.00 1037.00 1037 .00 1036.99 1037.00 1036.96 1037.01 1037.00 1036.99 1036.96 1036.92 1036.90 1036.89 1036.90 1036.88 1036.88 1036.88 1036.83 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 37097 37097 37477 38313 38542 38466 37934 37097 36565 36109 35196 34968 35044 34896 34968 34968 34968 34896 34968 34678 35044 34968 34896 34678 34389 34244 34171 34244 34099 34099 34099 33737 574 576 580 584 585 583 579 519 427 425 179 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 48 47 48 48 47 47 52 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A.0.280 0.350 0.380 0.420 0.440 0.430-0.430 0.460 0.470 0.410 0.420 0.430 0.380 0.380 0.460 0.510 0.480 0.600 0.500 0.180 0.370 0.430 0.380 0.380 0.500 0.510 0.460 0..440 0.210 0.310 0.320 INFLOW ADJ DSF 600 700 700 600 500 500 500 500 500 300 200 200 200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 120 110 100 90 90 80 80 80 70 70 70 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00* 0.00 0.00.0.21 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01.0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1037.07 0 6566 212 12.720 7660 0.23 0.5.1 247 NORMAL= 3.61 MAXIMUM 1037.52 MINIMUM 1036.65 38922 DATE= 5 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 32433 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=15193 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRIBack to the John Redmond Lake Mnthl1 Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1036.85 2 1036. 87 3 1036.83 4 1036.81 5. 1036.83 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1036.83 1036.79 1036.78 1036.76 1036.75 1036.71 1036.70 1036.65 1036.65 1036.65 1036.67 1036.66 1036.62 1036.66 1036.60 1036.56 1036.57 1036.53 1036..48 1036.47 1036.44 1036.46 1036.40 1036.80 1036.73 1037.45 1036.83 1036.83 1036.83 1036.81 1036.82 1036.83 1036.81 1036.79 1036.76 1036.71 1036.71 1036.71 1036.66 1036.65 1036.66 1036.65 1036.66 1036.63 1036.61 1036.58 1036.57 1036.54 1036.53 1036.50 1036.48 1036.46 i036.40 1036.41 1036.59 1036.74 1036.96 1038.85 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 33737 33737 33737 33592 33664 33737 33592 33447 33230 32868 32868 32868 32506 32433 32506 32433 32506 32288 32144 31926 31854 31637 31564 31347 31202 31057 30623 30695 31999 33085 34678 49311 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0.0.0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 59 59 59 60 60 62 0.300 0.170 0.320 0.370 0.210 0.370 0.440 0.350 0.410 0.390 0.260 0.290 0.360 0.340 0.240 0.300 0.390 0.370 0.400 0' 430 0.440 0.380 0.410 0.410 0.390 0.380 0.390 0.350 0.200 0.060 0.030 70 70 70 70 200 150 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 800 600 900 7800 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.69 0.04 4.11 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL. 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.05 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 1.70 0.12 3.76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL AVERAGE 1036.73 MAXIMUM 1038.85 MINIMUM 1036.40 1856 60 10.150 11830 8.22 6.21 382 NORMAL= 3.49 49311 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 30623 DATE=28 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=23464 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION I2IBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthlv Charts Selection Pge.e John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.83 2 10.42.90 3 1044.58 4 1044.29 5 1043.53 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1042.75 1041.90 1041.05 1040.13 1039.19 1038.21 1037.86 1037.61 1038.23 1039.44 1039.47 1038.98 1038.41 1038.06 1038.15 1038.21 1038.32 1038.28 1038.23 1038.21 1038.29 1038.37 1038.45 1038.50 1038.55 1038.85 1041.90 1044.33 1044.48 1043.81 1043.03 1042.19 1041.29 1040.36 1039.42 1038.49 1037.98 1037.66 1037.90 1039.08 1039.54 1039.19 1038.60 1038.17 1038.10 1038.20 1038.28 1038.28 1038.23 1038.21 1038.26 1038.37 1038.41 1038.47 1038.52 1038.67 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 49311 76236 101472 103131 95816 87569 79099 70426 61952 53961 46457 42420 39987 41812 51160 54950 52066 47329 43920 43365 44157 44792 44792 44396 44237 44634 45506 45823 46298 46695 47885 RELEASES DSF POWER TO 0 0 2 0 6 0 6 0 5 0 5 0 5 0 5.0 *4 0 4 0 3 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 3 0 4 0 4 0 3 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 65 956 255 163 962 736 493 230 931 618 062 212 188 343 979 765 592 505 510 622 627 892 046 044 626 311 212 213 107 38 EVAP INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.270 0.280 0.300 0.300 0.300 0.280 0.310 0.370 0.070 0.110 0.070 0.270 0.320 0.330 0.050 0.100 0.280 0.280 0.050 0.240 0.320 0.300 0.260 0.310 0.350 0.260 0.140 INFLOW ADJ DSF 13650 15700 7200 2550 1900 1550 1200 1050 1000 1000 1000 1000 3000 7000 6000 3400 220.0 1900 1300 1000 1000 900 900 900 800 800 600 500 500.750 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.07 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO .7A DAM BSN 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.76 0.91 0.26 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.28 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.58 MAXIMUM 1044.62 MINIMUM 1037.61 0 0 81303 2710 6.700 82250 2.25 3.17 2742 NORMAL= 3.76 104679 DATE= 3 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 39606 DATE=13 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=163140 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page..John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 03 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE.FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES .ADJ INCHES POWER. TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.70 2 1038.73 3 1038.78 4 1038.86 5 1038.91 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1038.95 1039.02 1039.05 1039.00 1039.39 1040.03 1040.85 1041.41 1041.24 1040.84 1040.83 1040.94 1041.03 1041.10 1041..15 1041.19 1041.25 1041.17 1041.06 1041.12 1041.09 1041.11 1041.11 1041.09 1041.05 1041.12 1038.67 1038.71 1038.78 1038.83 1038.89 1038.94 1038.97 1039.04 1039.11 1039.25 1039.84 1040.58 1041.32 1041.32 1041.00 1040.81 1040.90 1040.99 1041.08 1041.15 1041.19 1041.25 1041.20 1041.11 1041.05 1041.08 1041.11 1041.10 1041.11 1041.05 1041.08 1041.13 47885 48201 48757 49153 49629 50025 50263 50831 51407 52561 57421 63915 7.0711 70711 67664 65969 66772 67575 68426 69093 69473 70045 69568 68712 68141 68426 68712 68616 68712 68141 68426 68902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 38 53 63 63 63 63 63 63.63 1292 2952 3095 3161 3127 1800 530 313 314 315 316 317 615 826 510.315.315 315 315 314 315 167 22070 712 0.020 0.190 0.150 0.100 0.170 0.180 0.170 0.140 0.100 0.110 0.070 0.070 0.180 0.150 0.210 0.040 0.130 0.050 0.040 0.050 0.030 0.040 0.040 0.090 0.050 0.080 0.080 0.090 0.280 0.000 0.170 250 400 300 250 250 200 200 400 700 3700 6200 6600 3200 1800 1400 1200 1000.900 800 700 500 40.0 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.1 0 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.64 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.42 3.270 33650 1.42 2.27 1085 NORMAL= 2.56 MAXIMUM 1041.41 7 MINIMUM 1038.67 4 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1569 DATE=13 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 7885 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 119 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=66744 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION glBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 03 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.12 2 1041.18 3 1041.22 4 1041.22 5 1041.24 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1041.15 1041.18 1041.12 1041.08 1041.06 1041.06 1041.06 1041.00 1040.93 1040.90 1040.90 1040.86 1041.02 1040.99 1041.03 1041.08 1041.10 1041.22 1041.19 1041.09 1041.07 1041.11 1041.12 1041.11 1041.15 1041.13 1041.16 1041.21.1041.23 1041.25 1041.17 1041.19 1041.15 1041.12 1041.08 1041.08 1041.06 1041.00 1040.98 1040.:93 1040.92 1040.87 1040.96 1041.02 1041.03 1041.05 1041.06 1041.14 1041.19 1041.08 1041.09 1041.07 1041..07 1041.13 1041.11 1041.17 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 68902 69188 69664 69854 70045 69284 69473 69093 68807 68426 68426 68236 67664 67485 67040 66950 66504 67307 67855 67950 68141 68236 68998 69473 68426 68521 68330 68330 68902 68712 69284 RELEASES 61 61 61.230 317 316 316 315 315 314 314 314 313 312 312 312 158 61 61 61 61 61 61 215 315 181 61 61.61 61 5659 189 0.070 0.060 0.080 0.150 0.060 0.060 0.090 0.150 0.090 0.130 0.000 0.030 0.200 0.110 0.060 0.050 0.100 0.000 0.200 0.170 0.280 0.110 0.040 0.120 0.140 0.080 0.060 0.140 0.150 0.220 250 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 500 400 200 200 200 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0A00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0..00 0..00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.09 MAXIMUM 1041.27 MINIMUM 1040.85 3.200 6750 0.37 0.23 225 NORMAL= 1.64 70236 DATE= 4 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 66325 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=13388 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[IBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pagg.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 03-POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE DAY FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.14 2 1041.15 3 1041.25 4 1041.07 5 1041.05 6 1041.03 7 1041.02 8 1041.03 9 1041.04 10 1040.99 11 1041.14 12 1041.17 13 1041.24 14 1041.28 15 1041.30 16 1041.31 17 1041.20 18 1041.10 19 1041.11 20 1041.04 21 1040.98 22 1040.96 23 1040.93 24 1041.01 25 1041.05 26 1041.08 27 1041.13 28 1041.25 29 1041.31 30 1041.32 31 1041.37 1041..17 1041.16 1041.19 1041.15 1041.08 1040.99 1041.03 1041.04 1041.05 1041.24 1041.10 1041.17 1041.18 1041.28 1041.28 1041.31 1041.20 1041.17 1041.11 1041.08 1040.99 1040.97 1040.95 1040.98 1041.03 1041.09 1041.11 1041.23 1041.28 1041.32 1041.35 1041.37 69284 69188 69473 69093 68426 67575 67950 68045 68141 69950 68616 69284 69379 70331 70331 70617 69568 69284 68712 68426 67575 67396 67217 67485 67950 68521 68712 69854 70331 70711 70997 71188 226 316 796 782 332 332 332 333 167 79 79 79 79 79 397 592 590 589 588 586 584 435 180 79 79 79 79 79 80 80 244 9352 302 0.200 0.120 0.080 0.050 0.080 0.080 0.040 0.140 0.060 0.050 0.110 0.050 0.030 0.030 0.010 0.110 0.120 0.140 0.170 0.090 0.190 0.090 0.020 0.080 0.070 0.150 0.140 0.070 0.100 0.100 0.210 200 400 700 5.00 500 400 400 400 500 400 400 400 600 400 400 300 300 200 400'300 300 300 250 200 200 300 300 300 300 300 300 0.00 0.00 1.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0'.0,0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.73 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.29 0.00 0.00 O0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.14 2.980 11150 1.75 1.61 360 NORMAL= 1.18 MAXIMUM 1041.38 71283 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 MINIMUM 1040.90 66772 DATE=23 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 139 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=22116 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 04 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.37 2 1041.35 3 1041.34 4 1041.36 5 1041.30 1041.37 1041.38 1041.38 1041.40 1041.33 1041.25 1041.14 1041.02 1040.95 1040.89 1040.91 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 71188 71283 71283 71474 70807 70045 68998 67855 67217 66682 66861 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 337 337 337.337 657 846 841 837 388 79 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.23 1041.10 1041.00 1040.92 1040.89 1040.92 1040.95 1040.951040.97 1040.98 1041.00 1041.00 1040.97 1040.94 1040.89 1040.86 1040.83 1040.87 1040.87 1040.89 1040.80 1040.69 1040.45 1040.10 1039.79 1039.50 1039.53 1039.41 1039.49 1039.50 1039.68 1040.83 1040.78 1040.83 1040.89 1040.84 1040.73 1040.54 1040.22 1039.86 1039.67 1039.51 1039.45 1039.45 1039.50 1039.65 1039.73 67217 67396 67664 67396*66682 66146 65701 66146 66682 66236 65254 63559 60702 57586 56021 54702 54208 54208 54620 55856 56515 79 79 79 384 564 562 561 561 563 866 1059 1422 2008 1967 1934 1477 1300 964 101 59 59 0.050 0.050 0*.150 0.090 0.030 0.080 0.060 0.090 0.050 0.030 0.090 0.120 0.050 0.080 0.110 0.110 0.000 0. 020 0.100 ,0.060 0.020 0.100 0.090 0.120 0.080 0.000 0.010 0.040 0.030 0.030 0.040 INFLOW*ADJ DSF 300 300 450 300 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 300 400.40O 400 600 600 600 600 600 1500 1000 1000 1000 300 300 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.62 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.16 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.41 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .0'0 0..00 o.oo 0.00 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL.INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 21645 1040.61 0 698 1.980 14000 1.22 0.84 452 NORMAL= 0.84 MAXIMUM 1041.40 MINIMUM 1039.40 71474 DATE= 3 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 53796 DATE=28 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=27769 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake.Monthly Charts Selection PagýJohn Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 04 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.76 2 1039.90 3 1039.96 4 1039.70 5 1040.10 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1040.18 1040.26 1040.32 1040.36 1040.42 1040.48 1040.46 1040.40 1040.36 1040.34 1040.31 1040.32 1040.27 1040.21 1040.29 1040.80 1040.98 1040.97 1040.84 1040.66 1040..49 1040.27 1040.07 1039.89 1039..73 1039.84 1039.94 1039.70 1040.07 1040.16 1040.23 1040.30 1040.36 1040.40 1040.46 1040.47 1040.42 1040.37 1040.34 1040.32 1040.32 1040.28 1040.22 1040.20 1040.66 1040.96 1040.98 1040.88 1040.73 1040.53 1040.31 1040.13 1039.95 1039.81 STORAGE 2400OHR AC-FT 56515 57421 58244 56267 59363 60167 60792 61417 61952 62309 62844 62933 62488 62041 61773 61595 61595 61238 60702 60524 64630 67307 67485 66593.65254 63470 61506 59899 58327 57174 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ES EVAP INFLOW 59 59 59 59 59 59 60 60 60 60 353 545 543 542 541 540 830 1176 1779 1993 2048 2064 2059 2043 2023 1998 1774 1474 1460 26379.910 0.030 0.000 0.040 0.060 0.040 0.030 0.060 0.040 0.090 0.070 0.080 0.090 0.060 0.080 0.080 0.070 0.020 0.060 0.150 0.220 0.150 0.120 0.190 0.100 0.070 0.090 0.130 0.240 0.210 500 500 500 4.00 300 300 300 300 250 350 400 350 350 350 350 550 550 1000 2200 4100 3500 2150 1650 1400 1100 1ii00 1000 700 900 0.00 0.57 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.07 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 RAINFALL INCHES .ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.32 MAXIMUM 1040.98 MINIMUM 1039.70 2.670 27400 0.83 1.39 945 NORMAL= 0.90 67485 DATE=22 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 56267 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=54347 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly_ Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 04 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 .2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.79 2 1039.63 3 1039.51 4 1039.49 5 .1042.77 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1046.42 1049.99 1052.22 1053.48 1053.64 1052.99 1052.02 1051.05 1050.08 1049.00 1047.99 1046.85 1045.53 1044.35 1043.13 1042.15 1041.21 1040.19 1039.48 1039.03 1038.78 1038.84 1039.23 1040.00 1041.54 1042.12 1039.81 1039.66 1039.57 1039.51 1041.32 1045.28 1048.86 1051.67 1053.12 1053.80 1053.20 1052.33 1051.38 1050.39 1049.38 1048.42 1047.21 1045.94 1044.54 1043.39 1042.44 1041.50.1040.54 1039.67 1039.12 1038.86 1038.81 1039.11 1039.58 1041.18 1042.02 1042.07 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 57174 55938 55196 54702 70711 112114 157422 201194 226615 239145 228088 212572 196314 180274 164970 151299 135185 119733 103795 91375 81615 72426 63559 56021 51490 49391 48995 51407 55279 69379 77389 77892 1684 1895 1883.877 64 68 4314 8913 10294 11084 12433'12141 11827 11511 11161 10790 10360 9874 7711 6430 6132 5828 4833 3318 2253 1127 493 508 1066 1631 2691 175193 5651 RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A 0.110 0.170 0.090 0.010 0.000 0.060 0.220 0.250*0.270 0.200 0'250 0.250 0.250 0.070 0.210 0.100 0.090 0.130 0.290 0.200 0.360 0.210 0.310 0.340 0.070 0.110 0.210 0.100 0.230 0.200 0.220 INFLOW ADJ DSF 1.100 1500 1500-9000 21000 23000 27000 22000 17000 5000 4800 4000 3800 3700 3500 3300 2600 1950 1500 1500 1600 1400 1100 1000 1000 1000 1800 2500.8500 6000 3000 0.43 0.00 0.03 0.51 3.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02.0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .o0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 1.35 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.06 0.63 2.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 1.09 0.00 0.03 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1044.64 MAXIMUM 1053.80 MINIMUM 1038.74 0 0 5.580 187650 5.70 4.86 6053 NORMAL= 2.06 239145 48439 DATE= 9 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 372198 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[lBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pap.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A POWER PRIOR MONTH 1 1042.01 2 1041.75 3 1041.38 4 1041.01 5 1040.62 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28.29 30 1040.21 1039.83 1039.35 1039.19 1039.24 1039.30 1039.34 1039.37 1039.39 1039.34 1039.38 1039.39 1039.32 1039.39 1039.33 1039.45 1039.24 1039.08 1039.24 1039.58.1039.78 1039.83 1039.76 1039.68 1039.66 1042.07 1041.84 1041.51 1041.12 1040.74 i040.33'1039.94 1039.55 1039.25 1039.21 1039.30 1039.34 1039.37 1039.39 1039.35 1039.39 1039.40 1039.35 1039.34 1039.34 1039.46 1039.32 1039.13 1039.11 1039.47 1039.70 1039.82 1039.79 103.9.73 1039.67 1039.55 77892 75664 72521 68807 65343 61684 58244 55032 52561 52231 52973 53302 53549 53714 53384 53714 53796 53384 53302 53302 54290 53137 51572 51407 54373 56267 57256 57.009 56515 56021 55032 3238 3465 3399 3337 3259 3180 3103 2350 1163 739 742 743 744 744 743.744 744 741 744 744 1119 1415 880 514 522 983 1235 1227 1225 1220 45007 1500 0.170 0.210 0.270 0.310 0.230 0.200 0.250 0.260 0.300 0.100 0.110 0.240 0.160 0.240 0.400 0.310 0.360 0.360 0.220 0.280 0.100 0.240 0.080 0.050 0.130 0.290 0.420 0.380 0.470 0.060 ADJ DSF 2150 2000 1600 16.00 1500 1500 1500 1200 1000 1000 1000 1i000 900 900 850 850 700 700 800 1200 650 650 800 2000 1600 1600 1200 1100 1000.700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.22 0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.19 0.07 0.01 1.04 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.41 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.65 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0:*01 0.02 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.73 MAXIMUM 1042.07 MINIMUM 1039.02 0 0 7.200 35250 2.50 1.60 1175 NORMAL= 2.92 77892 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 50666 DATE=23 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=69917 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION MINBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES POWER EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.57 2 1039.45 3 1039.34 4 1039.46 5 .1039.51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.50 1039.46 1039.42 1039.37 1039.29 1039.29 1039.01 1039.16 1039.18 1039.32 1039.61 1039.92.1039.90 1039.74 1039.55 1039.35 1039.38 1039.35 1039.29 1039.34 1039.29 1039.37 1039.41 1039.33 1039.22 1039.55 1039.50 1039.38 1039.41 1039.51 1039.50 1039.44 1039.44 1039.38 1039.30 1039.29 1039.06 1039.02 1039.14 1039.25 1039.51 1039.86 1039.96 1039.81 1039.61 1039.46 1039.37 1039.28 1039.34 1039.30 1039.33 1039.26 1039.42 1039.36 1039.21 1039.21 55032 54620 53631 53879 54702 54620 54125 54125 53631 52973 52890 50996 50666 51654 52561 54702 57586 58409 57174 55526 54290 53549 52808 53302 52973 53219 52643 53961 53467 52231 52231 50913 0 0 0*0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0*0 0~0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1214 1207 455 318 750 748 747 745 742 740.1175 827 507 509 515 525 949 1712.1693 1675 1258 970 970 967 970 968 973 974.966 962 956 0.050 0.260 0.310 0.290 0.170 0.360 0.380 0.340 0.360 0.260 0.060 0.310 0.140 0.010 0.220 0.260 0.260 0.310 0.100 0.300 0.370 0.410 0.290 0.340 0.250 0.120 0.100 0.280 0.400.0.280 0.390 1000 800 700 700 700 700 700 700 500 700 300 750 1000 1000 1500 2000 150o 1000-1000 1000 1000 1000 1000 1500 1200 800 1700 800 500 500 400 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.42 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 O0.O0 1.24 0.00 0.77 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.85 0.24 0.01 0.00 0.08 0 16 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 31 1039.12 1039.05 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.39 MAXIMUM 1039.96 MINIMUM 1039.00 0 0 28689 925 7.980 28650 3.63 2.61 924 NORMAL= 4.43 58409 DATE=17 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 50501 DATE=12 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=56826 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IRlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly._Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 04.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH.1 1039.01 2 1039.02 3 id39.05 4. 1039.09 5 1039.09 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.15 1039.17 1039.18 1039.18 1039.25 1039.29 1039.34 1039.38 1039.58 1039.82 1040.12 1041.63 1043.90 1045.30 1046.57 1048.25 1049.56 1049.00 1048.19 1047.06 1045.72 1044.45 1043.27 1042.11 1041.21 1039.05 1039.02 1039.06 1039.08 1039.11 1039.15 1039.17 1039.18 1039.18 1039.22 1039.25 1039.32 1039.25 1039.51 1039.72 1039.85.1040.91 1043.12 1044.90 1046.10 1047.66 1049.32 1049..24 1048.41 1047.41 1046.15 1044.86 1043.67 1042.44 1041.52 1040.57 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 50913 50666 50996 51160 51407 51737 51902 51984 51984 52313 52561 53137 52561 54702 56432 57503 66861 88520 107776.12162 9 141034 164085 162907 151159 137785 122231 107333 94335 81615 72617 63826 421 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 59 913 4188 6685 7379 7791 8182 9235 11249 11844 11516 11083 10561 10055 9518 9008 857.6 138959 4632.RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER .TOTAL 8A TO 8A 0.430 0.410 0.290 0.220 0.330 0.120 0.300 0.260 0.330 0.050 0.110 0.300 0.340 0.310 0.360 0.220 0.230 0.230 0.210 0.170 0.190 0.350 0.330 0.410 0.420 0.340 0.360 0.090 0.220 0.260 INFLOW ADJ DSF 500 400 250 300 300 300 250 150 230 200 400 50.0 600 1000 1500 9000 17800 17000 15000 18000 21000 11000 6200 4950 3400 3200 3600 3300 4600 4300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.02 0.00 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.66 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.67 0*.12 0.03 1.27 0.00 1.45 0.21 1.38 1.22 0.00 0.02 0.48 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.79 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.18 MAXIMUM 1049.59 MINIMUM 1038.94 0 0 8.190 149230 4.40 7.97 4974 NORMAL= 4.74 168064 DATE=22 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 50025 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 2638 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 295993 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.25 2 1039.30 3 1040.32 4 1041.30 5 .1041.23 6 7 8 9 10 11i 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.35 1042.02 1042.49 1043.11 1044.44 1045.39.1046.28 1047.22 1046.61 1045.37 1044.08 1043.08.1042.03 1041.01 1039.88 1038.79 1038.22 1038.00 1037.82 103.8 .42 1040.62 1042.57 1043.87 1044.88 1045.54 1045.15 1040.57 1039.60 1039.71 1041.19 1041.28 1041.19 1041.79 1042.39 1042.88 1043.96 1045.06 1046.04 1046.97 1046.94 1045.79 1044.50 1043.43 1042.38 1041.28 1040.24 1039.14 1038.41.1038.05 1037.84 1038.06 1039.77 1041.92 1043.57 1044.64 1045.47 1045.32 1044.76 63826 55444 56350 69473 70331 69473 75188 81113 86043 97401 109574 120908 132095 131734 118002 103353 91798 81012 70331 60881 51654 45823 42969 41355 43048 56844 76427 93277 104901 114307 112575 106227 8078 4214 2838 5688 5651 5733 5922 6088 5992 7444 8734 9044 9859 9964 9512 8163 7260 6887 6503 6064 4064 2143 1687 1672 1806 5126 7775 8252 8578 8709 8570 0.190 0.130 0.100 0.350 0.260 0.330 0.320 0.380 0.120 0.140 0.360 0.440 0.390 0.420 0.380 0.380 0.150 0.370 0.330 0.350 0.400 0.310 0.350 0.110 0.070 0.280 0.270 0.370 0.190 0.050 0.220 INFLOW ADJ DSF 4000 4600 9000 6000 5400 8700 9000 8600 12000 14000 14500 14800 9800 3000 2200 2300 2000 1600 1800 1500 1200 800 900 2500 9000 15050 16400 14150 13350 8000 5400 0.02 0.44 0.60 0.03 0.39 0M29 0.00 0.00 0.96 0.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.09 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.07 0 .35 1.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.11 0.85 0.39 0.48.0.32 0.50 0.00 0.01 1.16 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.0o 0.96 1.62 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.04 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1042.37 MAXIMUM 1047.24 MINIMUM 1037.77 0 0 198019 6388 8.510 221550 6.50 7.45 7147 NORMAL= 3.61 135575 DATE=13 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 40823 DATE=24 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1111 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME= 439438 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION glBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH.1 1044.54 2 1043.87 3 1042.75 4 1041.70 5 1040.35 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.86 1039.45 1039.05 1038.67 1038.22 1037.75 1037.23 1037.23 1037.31 1037.30 1037.32 1037.33 1037.37 1037.39 1037.37 1037.30 1037..23 1037.18 1037.16 1037.10 1037.01 1037.00 1037.14 1037.12 1037.13 1037.14 1044.76 1044.08 1043.12 1041.98 1040.80 1039.97 1039.59 1039.19 1038.71 1038.37 1037.93 1037.39 1037.22 1037.26 1037.29 1037.31 1037.33.1037.37 1037.36 1037.39 1037.32 1037.25 1037.20 1037.06 1037.14 1037.06 1036.99 1037.03 1037.12 1037.13 1037.14 1037.13 106227 98708 88520 76997 65879 58492 55361 52066 48201 45506 42040 37934 36641 36945 37173 37326 37477 37781 37705 37934 37401 36869 36488 35425 36033 35425 34896 35196 35880 35957 36033 35957 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8366 9147 9286 8752 5616 3346 3262 3171 3068 2959 2836 1300 437 439 439 440 441 442 637 634 630 626 622 622 619 400 242 244 244 244 303 69817 2252 0.350 0.390 0.370 0.480 0.180 0.370 0.310 0.330 0.200 0.320 0.270 0.230 0.200 0.190 0.320 0.340 0.210 0.360 0.400 0.090 0.150 0.200 0.050 0.140 0.270 0.270 0.470 0.360 0.260 0.300 0.200 4700 4000 3700 32.00 2000 1800 1700 1500 1500 1300 900 700 600 600 600 600 600 500 850 400 400 400 400 900 400 400 400 400 400 300 270 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00'0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.07 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A.TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.10 0.21 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.51 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.00 0.01 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.23 MAXIMUM 1044.76 MINIMUM 1036.97 8.580 36420 1.24 1.82 1175 NORMAL= 3.49 106227 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION.POOL 1039.00 34751 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=72238 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION F=Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.13 2 1037.05 3 1037.03 4 1037.03 5 1037.02 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.14 1037.05 1037.03 1037.02 1037.06 1037.08 1037.13 1037.13 1037.13 1037.10 1037.08 1037.03 1036.93 1036.96 1036.93 1036. 92 1036.94 1036.97 1037.00 1037.00 1037.00 1037.01 1037.06 1037.00 1037.00 1037.13 1037.07 1037.03 1037.03 1037.02 1037.21 1037.06 1037.04 1037.01 1037.03 1037.07 1037.10 1037.13 1037.12 1037.08 1037.11 1037.06 1036.98 1036.98 1036.93 1036.92 1036.94.1036.96 1036.98 1036.99 1037.00 1037.00 1037.02 1037.01 1036.98 1037.02 35957 35500 35196 35196 35120 36565 35425 35272 35044 35196 35500 35728 35957 35880 35576 35804 35425 34823 34823 34461 34389 34533 34678 34823 34896 34968 34968 35120 35044 34823 35120 432 312 242 242 242 244 243 242 119 55 55 55 126 244 244 243 240 241 241 128 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 55 4745 158 0.240 0.250 0.340 0.310 0.310 0.310 0.350 0.330 0.260 0.280 0.310 0.280 0.360 0.400 0.400 0.180 0.310 0.180 0.370 0.380 0.400 0.320 0.360 0.170 0.250 0.270 0.260 0.250 0.190 0.190 250 250 250 250 1000 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 800 300 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00ý0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.*00 0.00 0.04 0.30 0.00 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.03 MAXIMUM 1037.21 MINIMUM 1036.70 8.810 6300 0.88 1.55 210 NORMAL= 3.76 36565 DATE= 5 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 32795 DATE=17 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=12496 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.00 2 1037.02 3 1037.10 4. 1037.00 5 1036.99 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 1037.01 1037.06 1037.16 1037.17 1037.20 1037.23.1037.36 1037.39 1037.50 1037.43 1037.44 1037.42 1037.45 1037.46 1037.02 1037.07 1037.01 1037.001 1037.01 1036. 98 1037.04 1037.14 1037.17 1037.18 1037.17 1037.36 1037.34 1037.41 1037.40 1037.44 1037.43 1037.43 1037.46 1037.45 35120 35500 35044 34968 35044 34823 35272 36033 36261 36337 36261 37705 37553 38086 38010 38313 38238 38238 38466 38389 38466 38542 38694 38846 38618 38694 39454 39530 39759 39987 40214 40290 RELEAS DSF POWER.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.55 55 55 55 55 55 55 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 38 25 25 25 25 25.25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.330 0.150 0.200 0.200 0.270 0.310 0.220 0.200 0.150 0.150 0.060 0.050 0.070 0.280 0.250 0.110 0.150 0.180 0.100 0.040 0.010 0.040 0.050 0.240 0.260 0.090 0.010 0.050 0.060 0.290 0.250 200 100 100 100 50 300 500 400 250 200 150 100 100 100 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 100 100 100 1000 200 200 200 200 300 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 1.23 0.00 0.00 0.31 0.45 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.07 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.01 0.01.0.00 0.03 0.00 0..01 0.51 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.37 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.22 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 1037.46 1037.46 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.45 1037.46 1037.56 1037.49 1037.48 1037.48 1037.61 1037.60 1037.64 1037.72 1037.69 1037.47 1037.49 1037.51 1037.48 1037.49 1037.59 1037.60 1037.63 1037.66 1037.69 1037.70 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.36 MAXIMUM 1037.72 MINIMUM 1036.98 0 0 1304 42 4.820 5550 4.00 2.98 179 NORMAL= 2.56 40443 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 34823 DATE= 6 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 1250 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=11008 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION F-Gi ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE.FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.70 2 1037.81 3 1037.77 4 1037.89 5 .1037.89 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.94 1037.99 1037.98 1038.02 1038.04 1038.29 1038.31 1038.36 1038.41 1038.46 1038.52 1038.59 1038.65 1038.71 1038.74 1038.75 1038.80 1038.83 1039.04 1039.18 1039.37 1039.69 1039.72 1039.90 1040.01 1037.70 1037.82 1037.79 1037.85 1037.88 1037.92 1037.96 1037.99 1038.03 1038.04 1038.22 1038.29 1038.35 1038.39 1038.45 1038.51 1038.57 1038.62 1038.70 1038.69 1038.74 1038.80 1038.83 1038.90 1039.13 1039.30 1039.53 1039.69 1039.82 1039.99 1040.10 40290 41203 40975 41431 41660 41964 42268 42496 42810 42889 44316 44872 45347 45664 46140 4661.6 47091 47488 48122 48043 48439 48916 49153 49708 51572 52973 54867 56185 57256 58657 59631 0 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0 0 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 439 634 0.060 0.040 0.080 0.030 0.160 0.150 0.170 0.190 0.180 0.170 0.000 0.120 0.120 0.140 0.070 0.010 0.010 0.090 0.000 0.050 0.100 0.020 0.000 0.010 0.000 0.090 0.080 0.140 0.050 0.020 500 100 300 250 250 200 200 200 200 800 400 350 300 300 300 250 250 400 300 300 300 300 400 1300 1400 1000 800 650 800 800 0.43 0.26 0.00 0.63 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.06 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.03 0.10 0 15 0.00 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.68 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.49 0.09 0.06 0.06 0.00 0.13 0.03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 26 26 26 26 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.63 MAXIMUM 1040.10 MINIMUM 1037.70 1780 59 2.350 13900 3.73 2.34 463 NORMAL= 1.64 59631 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 40290 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 3610 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=27570 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthly- Charts S election Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 04 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ,ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.14 2 1040.23 3 id4o.34 4 1040.42 5 1040.47 6 1040.70 7 1040.83 8 1040.99 9 1041.14 10 1041.29 11 1041.38 12 1041.49 13 1041.48 14 1041.60 15 1041.49 16 1041.37 17 1041.21 18 1041.18 19 1041.17 20 1041.16 21 1041.17 22 1041.09 23 1041.16 24 1041.12 25 1041.10 26 1041.08 27 1041.07 28 1041.05 29 1041.05 30 1041.01 31 1041.03 1040.10 1040.22 1040.30 1040.40 1040.46 1040. 66 1040.80 1040.97 1041.11 1041.22 1041.28 1041.43 1041.48 1041.57 1041.58 1041.42.1041.26 1041.19 1041.17 1041.17 1041.18 1041.14 1041.15 1041.13 1041.10 1041.09 1041.08 1041.05 1041.05 1041.03 1041.02 1041. 02 59631 60702 61417 62309 62844 64630 65879 67396 68712 69759 70331 71760 72235 73092 73188 71665 70140 69473 69284 69284 69379 68998 69093 68902 68616 68521 68426 68141 68141 67950 67855.67855*26 26 26 26 26 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 396 1063 1056 562 282 282 282 281 281 281 281 281 281 280 280 280 280 280 7354 237 0.050 0.070 0.080 0.080 0.140 0.000 0.000 0.080 0.090 0.090 0.110 0.060 0.210 0.150 0.080 0.120 0.060 0.090 0.170 0.090 0.130 0.100 0.060 0.060 0.060 0.070 0.100.0.150 0.080 0.020 0.120 650 500 550 400 1000 700 800 700 700 500 500 500 400 400 400 300 350 300 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 300 300 300 200 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.66 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.06 2.770 12650 0.71 0.37 408 NORMAL= 1.18 MAXIMUM 1041.64 73760 DATE=14 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 MINIMUM 1040.10 59631 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 833 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=25091 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 9-lBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly_ Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 240.OHR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.01'2 1040.99 3 1041.01 4 1041.09 5 1041.68 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1043.25 1044.40 1044.40 1044.64 1044.62 1044.26 1043.97 1043.61 1043.29 1042.51 1041.55 104-0.94 1040.46 1040.16 1039.99 1039.90 1039.95 1040.13 1040.29 1040..25 1039. 95 1039.53 1039.12 1039.12 1039.16 1039.17 1041.02 1041.01 1041.01.1041.06 1041.38 1042.88 1044.13 1044.45 1044.68 1044.62 1044.37 1044.07 1043.78 1043.30 1042.83 1041.87 1041.11 1040.61 1040.23 1040.03 1039.91 1039.89 1040.06 1040.25 1040.31 1040.06 1039.66 1039.25 1039.11 1039.15 1039.17 1039.22 67855 67759 67759 68236 71283 86043 99261 102799 105343 104679 101915.9.8597 95498 90423 85540 75950 68712 64183 60792 59007 57998 57833 59275 60970 61506 59275 55938 52561 51407 51737 51902 52313 280 280 280 282 137 28 953 2117 2122 3398 4143 4097 4019 4808 5376 4105 2965 2334 1620 1424 1417 1424 1442 1719 2599 2803 2723 1428 685 686 688 62380 2012 0.060 0.040 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020'0.010 0.000 0.030 0.000 0.000 0.010 0.080 0.050 0.030 0.060 0.060 0.090 0.060 0.080 0.020 0.090 0.100 0.100 0.050 0.090 0.050 0.010 0.010 0.000 200 200 600 1800 7600 6700 2700 3300 2000 2000 2500 2500 2000 2000.1000 700 500 500 500 700 1400 2200 2250 2000 1500 1200 900 900 900 800 800 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.13 0.59 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.55 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.00 0.02 0.48 0.13 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.63 0.01 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.01 TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1041.40 0 1.200 54850 1.61 1.66 1769 NORMAL= 0.84 MAXIMUM 1044.70 MINIMUM 1039.07 105563 DATE= 8 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 51077 DATE=28 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=108793 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION rI"Back to the Lake Monthly Charts SelectionPage.

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.22 2 1039.26 3 1039.33 4 .1039.41 5 1039.49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 1039.63 1039.90 1040.97 1041.67 1041.99 1042.09 1041.96 1042.14 1042.88 1043.28 1042.97 1042.35 1041.87 1041.38 1040.81 1040.16 1039.65 1039.01 1039..03 1039.22 1039.26 1039.31 1039.39 1039.46 1039.56 1039.81 1040.62 1041.54 1041.91 1042.08 1042.00 1041.98 1042.61 1043.19 1043.11 1042.61 1042.05 1041.53 1041.00 1040.42 1039.80 1039.21 1039.02 1039.16 52313 52643 53055 53714 54290 55115 57174 64272 72807 76331 77993 77188 76997 83326 89259 88414 83326 77692 72712 67664 62488 57092 52231 50666 51819 52808 53714 54.125 54950 690 692 695 699 702 711 731 2002 2894 2933 2941 2927 2968 4241 6071 6626 5726 4710 4584 4432 4256 4089 2264 910 919 0.000 0.040 0.040 0.090 0.140 0.160 0.000 0.010 0.010 0.090 0.080 0.110 0.000 0.050 0.180 0.160 0.110 0.160 0.130 0.000 0.080 0.000 0.070 0.010 0.090 INFLOW ADJ DSF 900 900 900 900 1400 1750 4300 6300 4700 3800 2500 2800 6200 7200 5900 4100.2900 2200 2000 1800 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.37 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM. BSN 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.17 0.02 0.35 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.03 0.00.0.00 0.04 0-.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 25 1039.20 1039.28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1500 1700 1500 1500 1400 1400 1300 1400 26 27 28 1039.31 1039..44 1039.44 1039.39 1039.44 1039.54 926 0.170 933 0.100 936 0.040 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.65 MAXIMUM 1043.29 MINIMUM 1038.94 73207 2615 2.120 75150 1.71 1.78 2684 NORMAL= 0.90 90318 DATE=15 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 50025 DATE=23 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 149058 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RB ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 05 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES DSF EVAP INFLOW INCHES ADJ RAINFALL INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.56 2 1039.65 3 1039.72 4 1039.73 5 1039.73 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.70 1039.62 1039.57 1039.57 1039.46 1039.40.1039.36 1039.28 1039.24 1039.10 1039.04 1038.96 1038.92 1038.98 1039.01 1038.94 1039.18 1039.42 1039.69 1040 .58 1041.33 1041.43 1041.43 1040.94 1040.55 1040.06 1039.54 1039.65 1039.71 1039.73 1039.74 1039.71 1039.61 1039.61 1039.58 1039.51 1039.45 1039.35 1039.31 1039.24 1039.13 1039.07 1038.98 1038.93 1038.92 1039.02 1038.99 1039.03 1039.36 1039.59 1040.29 1041.17 1041.45 1041.43 1041.11 1040.64 1040.21 1039.87 54950 55856 56350 56515 56597 56350 55526 55526 55279 54702 54208 53384 53055 52478 51572 51077 50342 49946 49867 50666 50422 50748 53467 55361 61328 69284 71949 71760 68712 64451 60613 57668 943 948 1094 1185 1184 1180 1177 1175 1171 1165 1159 1155 1148 1144 1137 1131 707 469 471 472 217 26 26 183 1106 1572 1579 2345 2787 2719 2117 34890 1125 0.130 0.130 0.140 0.150 0.170 0.170 0.270 0.230 0.110 0.090 0.310 0.360 0.310 0.140 0.170 0.050 0.110 0.320 0.280 0.180 0.300 0.070 0.030 0.060 0.060 0.030 0.060 0.200 0.350 0.340 0.150 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1200 1100 1100 900 900 900 900 900 700 700 700 1050 700 550 500 500 1400 1000 3200 5000 3000 1500 1000 800 700 700 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.69 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 1.04 0.10 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.72 MAXIMUM 1041.46 MINIMUM 1038.86 5.470 37600 0.75 1.33 1213 NORMAL= 2.06 72045 DATE=27 49391 DATE=17 INFLOW VOLUME=TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 74578 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION glBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Sielection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW DSF INCHES ADJ POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF RAINFALL.INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH.1 1039.81 2 1039.66 3 1639.50 4 1039.30 5 1039.22 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1039.30 1039.30 1039.36 1039.45 1039.25 1038.90 1039.02 1039.12 1039.31 1039.34 1039.45 1039.56 1039.64 1039.70 1039..78 1039.75 1039.73 1039.52 1039.44 1039.30 1039.26 1039.10 1039.06 1038.98 1039.03 1039.87 1039.71 1039.54 1039.36 1039.19 1039.25 1039.30 1039.27 1039.46 1039.34 1039.02 1038.93 1039.09 1039.26 1039.33 1039.39 1039.52 1039.62 1039.67 1039..78 1039.76 1039.68 1039.57 1039.48 1039.36 1039.25 1039.11 1039.01 1039.00 1039.04 1039.09 57668 56350 54950 53467 52066 52561 52973 52725 54290 53302 50666 49946 51242 52643 53219 53714 54785 55609 56021 56927 56762 56103 55196 54455 53467 52561 51407 50583 50501 50831 51242 1433 1420 1405 1076 704 708 1927 2771 2774 2733 1639 657 476 753 710 486 489 491 493 800 961 958 948 943 936.929 922 634 355 249 31779 1059 0.120 0.310 0.260 0.410 0.190 0.180 0.180 0.160 0.250 0.280 0.150 0.190 0.180 0.170 0.290 0.270 0.330 0.340 0.320 0.210 0.250.0.360 0.420 0.370 0.280 0.040 0.300 0.280 0.160 0.100 700 800 800 600 1000 1000 i000 3600 2300 2000 150 0 1300 1200 1200 1000 1000 1000 800 1000 800 700 700 700 500 500 500 550 650 500 500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.02 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.08 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.05 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.03 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.35 MAXIMUM 1039.87 MINIMUM 1038.86 0 0 7.350 30400 0.49 1.27 1013 NORMAL= 2.92 57668 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 49391 DATE=II TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=60297 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[l-Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.09: 2 1039.14 3 1039.18 4 1039.20 5 1039.25 6 1039.27 7 1039.30 8 1039.33 9 1039.36 10 1039.42 11 1039.43 12 1039.27 13 1039.32 14 1041.41 15 1044.33 16 1047.13 17 1048.60 18 1048.36 19 1047.98 20 1047..51 21 1046.72 22 1045.83 23 1044.81 24 1043.70 25 1043.63 26 1043.20 27 1042.62 28 1041.97 29 1041.30 30 1040.63 31 1040.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.09 1039.14 1039.16 1039.21 1039.24 1039.27 1039.28 1039.32 1039.36 1039.42 1039.41 1039.32 1039.11 1040.35 1043.16 1046.52 1048.36 1048.53 1047.94 1047 .68 1047.01 1046.10 1045.11 1044.04 1043.62 1043.37 1042.81 1042.18 1041.53 1040.85 1040.16 1039.64 51242 51654 51819 52231 524.78 52725 52808 53137 53467 53961 53879 53137 51407 61863 88943 126682 150463 152829 144671 141294 132586 121629 110151 98267 93806 91163 85340 79000 72712 66325 60167 55773 RELEASES DSF POWER TO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 9'0 11i 0 11i 0 11.0 9 0 8 0 8 0 8 0 81 0 4, 0 3'.0 4, 0 4 0 4.0 4: 0 41 0 3: EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 250 251 251 252 252 253 253 253 255 255 683 931 951 797 039 314 704 568 967 971 708 412 086 429 057 479 654 508 358 189 303 635 182 0.360 0.320 0.350 0.280 0.290 0.220 0.370 0.300 0.170 0.340 0.330 0.410 0.170 0.080 0.340 0.260 0.410 0.500 0.170 0.360 0.380 0.380 0.410 0.400 0.140 0.340 0.050 0.150 0.000 0.220 0.250 8.750 500 500 500 500 400 400 400 500 500 300 300 200 6300 17500 28150 23500 13100 7550 8400 4750 3300 2750 2300 2200 1800 1600 1500 1300 1200 1200 1100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.24 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.29 0.55.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.52 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.83.0.00 0.74 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.80 0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.44 0.28 0.05 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.00 0 42.26 0 129 4: 134500 6.55 4.54 4339 NORMAL= 4.43 MAXIMUM 1048.66 MINIMUM 1039.08 154639 DATE=17 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 51160 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 266777 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 91I5ack to the John RedmondLake Monthly ChrsSelcinPge.

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.54 2 1039.17 3 1039.03 4. 1040.23 5 1043.03 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1046.22 1048.19 1049.37 1050.34 1050.86 1051.82 1054.47 1058.07 1060.87 1063.05 1064.35 1065.05 1064.91 1064.25 1063.62 1062 .88.1062.18 1061.47 1060.77 1059.98 1059.22 1058.46 1057.74 1056.99 1056.28 1039.64 1039.31 1039.08 1039.32 1041.98 1045.15 1047.63 1049.03 1050.06 1050.71 1051.27 1053.54 1056.92 1060.06 1062.42 1064.00 1064.88 1065.07 1064.47 1063.82 1063.12 1062.40 1061.70 1060.99 1060.23 1059.46 1058.71 1057.96 1057.24 1056.52 1055.95 55773 53055 51160 53137 76997 110613 140644 159813 175056 185334 194464 234354 299774 366788 421980 461379 484671 489789 473818 456828 439136 421492 404690 387989 370662 353496 337169 321233 306342 291744 280330 2788 1887 1373 1510 555 5023 10038 10642 10918 11077 9137 1895 3736 10975 12366 12607 1.3329 13641 13507 13684 13295 12588 12439 12567 12570 12390 12210 12036 11863 11696 284345 9478 0.280 0.170 0.280 0.030 0.280 0.380 0.340 0.370 0.310 0.280 0.290 0.200 0.160 0.310 0.440 0.400 0.330 0.380 0.440 0.410 0.370 0.320 0.380 0.440 0.440 0.410 0.420 0.440 0.380 0..470 1400 1000 2400 13500 17000 20300 20000 19000 16300 15800.30000 35000 38000 39000 32000 24000 17000 6000 5300 5000 4600 4300 4300 4300 4300 4400 4450 4400 4400 6150 0.51 0.35 0.00 2.77 0.15 0 00 0.00 0.00 1.14 0.01 1 32 3.12 1.84 0.59 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.00 0 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.02 0.07 2.68 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.60 1.33 1.15 0.91 0.02 0.00 0.21 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.05 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1055.43 MAXIMUM 1065.12 MINIMUM 1038.91 10.150 403600 11.93 8.47 13453 NORMAL= 4.74 491178 DATE=17 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 49788 DATE= 3 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 800529 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1055.84 2 1055.24 3 1054.35 4 1054.22 5 1054.20 6 1053.57 7 1052.71 8 1051.91 9 1050.97 10 1050.04 11 1049.13 12 1048.28 13 1047.25 14 1046.05 15 1044.78 16 1043.56 17 1042.31 18 1041.12 19 1040.06 20 1040.05 21 1040.59 22 1040.38 23 1039.99 24 1039.55 25 1039.07 26 1038.59 27 1038.12 28 1037.77 29 1037.40 30 1037.36 31 1037.32 1055.95 1055.51 1054.67 1053.96 1054.31 1053.80 1053.02 1052.16 1051.28 1050.36 1049.41 1048.49 1047.58 1046.40 1045.19 1043.97 1042.72 1041.46 1040.28 1039.95 1040.38 1040.48 1040.13 1039.70 1039.24 1038.74 1038.29 1037.87 1037.51 1037.37 1037.33.1037.28 280330 271752 255546 242091 248714 239145 224773 209571 194632 179799 165413 152272 139993 125238 111074 97507 84433 72045 61238 58327 62131 63023 59899 56267 52478 48439 44872 41583 38846 37781 37477 37097 11594 1142.5 10218 5606 7242 8742 8858 8665*8459 8245 7420 7489 8518 8158 7784 7380 6939 6505 6193 5449 3949 3900 3804 3694 3571 3437 2674 2215 1173 603 600 190511 6146 0.290 0.280 0.340 0.230 0.000 0.250 0.350 0.410 0.330 0.360 0.320 0.310 0.190 0.340 0.360 0.320 0.380 0.410 0.250 0.220 0.450 0.410 0.330 0.460 0.460 0.500 0.150 0.370 0.340 0.370 0.410 INFLOW ADJ DSF 7400 3500 3600 90,00 2500 1700 1400 1200 1200 1100 1000 1400 1150 1150 1000 900 800 1100 4800 7500 4500 2400 2000 2000 1600 1500 1200 1100 700 500 500 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 1.74 0.00 0.00 1.71 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 1.65 0.82 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.45 0.00 0.01 1.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0;00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.79 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1044.80 MAXIMUM 1055.95 MINIMUM 1037.28 0 0 10.190 71400 6.47 3.44 2303 NORMAL= 3.61 280330 37097 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 141620 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION IlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly ChrsSelecionPge.

John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.28 2 1037.21 3 1037.15 4 1037.16 5 1037.15 6 1037.04 7 1037.01 8 1037.07 9 1037.21 10 1037.33 11 1037.40 12 1037.42 13 1037.47 14 1037.57 15 1037.59 16 1037.63 17 1037.54 18 1037.40 19 1037.24 20 1037.29 21 1037.32 22 1037.45 23 1037.48 24 1037.52 25 1037.53 26 1039.64 27 1043.61 28 1046.80 29 1049.37 30 1050.76 31 1051.05 1037.28 1037.22 1037.17 1037.14 1037.16 1037.08 1037.02 1037.03 1037.16 1037.29 1037.39 1037.40 1037.47 1037.58 1037.59 1037.63 1037.58 1037.46 1037.32 1037.29 1037.31 1037.42 1037.48 1037.50 1037.40 1038..51 1042.33 1045.78 1048.58 1050.38 1051.16 1050.52 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 37097 36641 36261 36033 36185 35576 35120 35196 36185 37173 37934.38010 38542 39378 39454 39759 39378 38466 37401 37173 37326 38162 38618 38770 38010 46616 80508 117886 153524 180116 192613 182330 RELEASES POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL 598 595 470 403 401 399 398 290 215 205 317 388 391 394 515 848 979 968 478 110 385 597 976 969 366 0 1730 5842 8502 9907 9917 48551 1566 0.420 0.390 0.400 0.390 0.380 0.340 0.300 0.350 0.310 0.370 0.340 0.380 0.230 0.090 0.050 0.030 0.080 0.230 0.400 0.350 0.050 0.130 0.180 0.050 0.160 0.090 0.230 0.260 0.270 0.320 0.290 500 490 440 400 350 300 250 250 250 250 250 800 2600 800 550 500 500 500 400 500 700 700 1000 600 5000 17000 21000 24000 22000 16000 5000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.97 1.64 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.11 2.05 2.57 0.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.70 0.71 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 1.20 0.05 0.00 0.77 0.12 2.00 2.39 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.46 MAXIMUM 1051.16 MINIMUM 1037.00 7.860 123880 7.85 8.21 3996 NORMAL= 3.49 192613 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 34968 DATE= 8 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 245712 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R.Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 05 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1050.23 2 1049.32 3 1048.18 4 1047.02 5 1045.78 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1044.50 1043.24 1041.73 1040.27 1039.47 1038.75 1037.98 1037.51 1037.17 1037.24 1037.29 1037.45 1037.71 1037.98 1038.22 1038.37 1038.49 1038.56 1038.65 1038.73 1038.80 1038.82 1038-82 1038.87 1038.92 1050.52 1049.58 1048.53 1047.43*1046.20 1044.95 1043.58 1042.20 1040.78 1039.72 1039.00 1038.25 1037.64 1037.33 1037.12 1037.26 1037.39 1037.62 1037.93 1038.16 1038.32 1038.45 1038.55 1038.60 1038.70 1038.78 1038.81 1038.83 1038.86 1038.89 1038.96 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 182330 167917 152829 138045 122831 108328 93383 79200 65701 56432 50501 44554 39835 37477 35880 36945 37934 39682 42040 43841 45109 46140 46933 47329 48122 48757 48995 49153 49391 49629 50184 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 RELEASES EVAP INFLOW 9692 9415 9101 8755 8367 8655 8573 7969 5831 3606 3403 2572 1584 821 406 409 415 425 436 443 449 453 316 242 244 245 245 246 102 25 93447 3115 0.320 0.200 0.250 0.280 0.290 0.350 0.306 0.250 0.250 0.310 0.350 0.300 0.270 0.100 0.140 0.050 0.160 0.260 0.310 0 260 0.260 0.270 0.270 0.220 0.190 0.260 0.180 0.230 0.130 0.190 2500 2000 1800 1200 1200 1200 1500 1200 1200 700 500 300 400 300 600 1000 1300 1600 1400 1200 1000 1000 600 600 600 450 400 400 300 300 0.00 0.07 0.00 b0. 00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.54 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.21 0.79 0.10 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.00 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1040.21 0 7.200 28750 1.32 1.51 958 NORMAL= 3.76 MAXIMUM 1050.52 MINIMUM 1037.12 182330 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 35880 DATE=14 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=57025 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

._Backo_tohe John Redmond Lake Month_]yCharts Selecion_.

Pag.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 05 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.96 2 1039.01 3 1039.10 4 1039.18 5 1039.22 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.31 1039.32 1039.36 1039.40 1039.45 1039.48 1039.55 1039.60 1039.64 1.039.67 1039.72 1039.76 1039.81 1039.85 1039.92 1039.92 1039.97 1040.00 1040.02 1040.09 1040.12 1040.14 1040.18 1040.21 1040.24 1040.25 1038.96 1039.00 1039.09 1039.17 1039.21 1039.29 1039.32 1039.34 1039.38 1039.42 1039.48 1039.53 1039.58 1039.62 1039.67 1039.71 1039.74 1039.80 1039.83 1040.25 1039.91 1039.97 1040.00 1039.99 1040.07 1040.09 1040.14 1040.17 1040.19 1040.23 1040.28 1040.33 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 50184 50501 51242 51902 52231 52890 53137 53302 53631 53961 54455 54867 55279 55609 56021 56350 56597 57092 57338 60970 57998 58492 58739 58657 59363 59542 59989 60257 60434 60792 61238 61684 POWER RELEASES EVAP INFLOW.25 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 26 34 45 45 45 45 46 46 58 77 77 77 77 78 78 78.78 78 78 1474 48 0.280 0.060 0.300 0.210 0.270 0.170 0.160 0.170 0.190 0.200 0.110 0.120 0.090 0.150 0.210 0.260 0.190 0.190 0.210 0.060 0.050 0.190 0.110 0.180 0.150 0.100 0.140 0.140 0.190 0.240 0.110 200 400 400 350 400 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 1000 300 300 250 250 200 200 200 200 200 300.300 350 0.11 0.29 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.01 0.00.0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.02 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.11 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.78 0.08 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.10 RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 0 1039.74 0 5.200 8500 1.00 1.65 274 NORMAL= 2.56 MAXIMUM 1040.33 MINIMUM 1038.96 61684 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 50184 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=16859 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION to the John Redmond Lake Monthl Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 05 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.35 2 1040.36 3 1040.34 4 1040.42 5 .1040.46 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 1040.48 1040.48 1040.49 1040.53 1040.53 1040.52 1040.48 1040.55 1040.52 1040.69 1040.54 1040.53 1040.57 1040.56 1040.60 1040.60 1040.62 1040.59 1040.65 1040..63 1040.65 1040.65 1040.68 1040.68 1040.33 1040.36 1040.34 1040.38 1040.43 1040.41 1040.47 1040.51 1040.52 1040.53 1040.53 1040.49 1040.59 1040.52 1040.52 1040.56 1040.55 1040.55 1040.56 1040.57 1040.59 1040.63 1040.63 1040.64 1040.64 1040.64 1040. 63 1040.72 1040.81 1040.74 61684 61952 61773 62131 625.77 62399 62933 63291 63380 63470 63470 63112 64004 63380 63380 63738 63648 63648 63738 63826 64004 64362 64362 64451 64451 64451 64362 65165 65969 65343 67664 70 60 60.60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 44 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 1571 52 0.110 0.180 0.350 0.270 0.160 0.100 0.160 0.180 0.210 0.150 0.160 0.280 0.300 0.170 0.090 0.170 0.150 0.130 0.120 0.090 0.030 0.i20 0.110 0.180 0.120 0.150 0.190 0.060 0.130 0.090 250 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1500 800 500 300 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.00 30 1040.72 1041.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.57 MAXIMUM 1041.00 MINIMUM 1040.33 0 0 4.710 5850 1.31 0.72 195 NORMAL= 1.64 67664 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 61684 DATE= 2 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=11603 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the John Redmond Lake MonthlyChartsý Sf elcto Page John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 05 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEAS DSF POWER ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.74 2 1040.73 3 1040.78 4 1040.77 5 1040.80 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1040.80 1040.81 1040.86 1040.85 1040.86 1040.88 1040.88 1040.89 1040.93 1040.93 1040.94 1040.94 1040.97 1040.97 1040.99 1041.00 1041.01 1041.02 1041.07 1041.09 1041.10 1041.12 1041.10 1041.15 1041.17 1041.18 1041.00 1040.75 1040.76 1040.77 1040.79 1040.76 1040.81 1040.85 1040.85'1040 .85 1040.87 1040.88 1040.89 1040.91 1040.93 1040.94 1040.94 1040.96 1040.97 1040.99 1041.00 1041.01 1041.02 1041.06 1041.08 1041.09 1041.10 1041.13 1041.15 1041.16 1041.18 1041.20 67664 65433 65522 65611 65790 65522 65969 66325 66325 66325 66504 66593 66682 66861 67040 67128 67128 67307 67396 67575 67664 67759 67855 68236 68426 68521 68616 68902 69093 69188 69379 69568 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 46 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 1443 47 0.1I00 0.080 0.130 0.050 0.070 0.080 0.060 0.020 0.020 0.030 0.100 0.120 0.070 0.060 0.110 0.120 0.090 0.030 0.040 0.020 0.020 0.060 0.130 0.100 0.040 0.060 0.130 0.130 0.060 0.070 0.120 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1o0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 75 75 75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.96 MAXIMUM 1041.23 MINIMUM 1040.69 0 0 2.320 3025 0.02 0.32 98 NORMAL= 1.18 69854 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION.

POOL 1039.00 64897 DATE= 1 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=6000 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RIBack to the John Redmond LakeMonthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JAN 06 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1041.19 2 1041.34 3 1041.25 4 1041.31 5 1041.29 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1041.30 1041.33 1041.34 1041.36 1041.38 1041.39 1041.40 1041.51 1041.43 1041.42 1041.46 1041.47.1041.47 1041.48 1041.49 1041.20 1041.24 1041.25 1041.28 1041.31 1041.30 1041.33 1041.32 1041.36 1041.38 1041.38 1041.40 1041.51 1041.43 1041.42 1041.45 1041.48 1041.47 1041.49 1041.51 1041.52 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT 69568 69950 70045 70331 70617 70522 70807 70711 71093 71283 71283 71474 72521 71760 71665 71949 72235 72140 72331 72521 72617 72617 72712 72903 73092 73092 72998 72426 71379 70045 68616 67396 RELEASES 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 47 285 565 561 557 553 3743 121 0.120 0.220 0.050 0.190 0.140 0.110 0.060 0.210 0.160 0.050 0. 010 0.080 0.180 0.120 0.220 0.180 0.140 0.200 0.180 0.160 0.010 0.040 0.040 0.040 0.170 0.130 0.290 0.190 0.050 0.190 0.150 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 75 100 200 200 150 150 150 150 1.50 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0a00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0. 00 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL 21 1041.51 1041.52 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1041.53 1041.53 1041.56 1041.57.1041.57 1041.56 1041.46 1041.35 1041.19 1041.06 1041.53 1041.55 1041.57 1041.57 1041.56 1041.50 1041.39 1041.25 1041.10 1040.97 TOTAL AVERAGE 1041.40 MAXIMUM 1041.61 MINIMUM 1040.92 0 0 4.080 3825 0.29 0.16 123 NORMAL= 0.84 73474 DATE=24 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 66950 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=7587 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION 91Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pag-e.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT FEB 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1040.94 2 1040.83 3 1040.72 4 1040.58 5 1040.45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1040.36 1040.24 1040.09 1039.94 1039.87 1039.86 1039.71 1039.61 1039.52 1039.38 1039.31 1039.23 1039.19 1039.14 1039.11 1040..97 1040.86 1040.75 1040.63 1040.51 1040.40 1040.28 1040.14 1040.01 1039.89 1039.81 1039.73 1039.64 1039.55 1039.46 1039.37 1039.29 1039.19 1039.16 1039.12 1039.07 67396 66414 65433 6436-2 63291 62309 61238 59989 58828 57833 57174 56515 55773 55032 54290 53549 52890 52066 51819 51490 51077 50748 50748 50913 50996 51077 51160 51242 51325 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 550 546 543 539 535 532 528 524 520 518 515 512 509 506 503 501 359 271 270 269 269 126 45 45 45 0.250 0.120 0.140 0.150 0.140 0.140 0.130 0.110 0.100 0.140 0.210 0.080 0.120 0.210 0.230 0.090 0.070 0.080 0.080 0.050 0.090 0.080 0.160 0.150 0.280 0.170 0.190 0.190 150 150 150 150 150 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100" 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100.i00.0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21 1039.06 1039.03 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1039.02 1039.03 1039.05 1039.06 1039.07 1039.07 1039.09 1039.03 1039.05 1039.06 1039.07 1039.08 1039.09 1039.10 0 0 0 0 0 45 45 45 100 0.00 100 0.00 100 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.62 MAXIMUM 1040.97 MINIMUM 1039.02 10214 365 3.950 3050 0.00 0.00 109 NORMAL= 0.90 67396 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 50666 DATE=22 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=6050 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R" ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAR 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.11 2 1039.13 3 1039.13 4 1039.15 5 1039.19 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.23 1039.18 1039.23 1039.28 1039.28 1039.32.1039.30 1039.28 1039.34 1039.31 1039.42 1039.34.1039.32 1039.32 1039.38 1039.52 1039.28 1039.12 1039.14 1039.30 1039.37 1039.45 1039.53 1039.45 1039.22 1039.24 1039.10 1039.13 1039.14 1039.17 1039.18 1039.22 1039.19 1039.23 1039.24 1039.28 1039.29 1039.31 1039.28 1039.34 1039.33 1039.28 1039.35 1039.31 1039.32 1039.35 1039.48 1039.35 1039.16 1039.11 1039.27 1039.36 1039.40 1039.54 1039.48 1039.35 1039.26 1039.13 51325 51572 51654 51902 51984 52313 52066 52396 52478 52808 52890 53055 52808 53302 53219 52808 53384 53055 53137 53384 54455 53384 51819 51407 52725 53467 53796 54950 54455 53384 52643 51572 DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 878 1405 879 271 273 273 276 709 961 948 949 8720 281 0.240 0.270 0.200 0.170 0.120 0.160 0.200 0.290 0.000 0.030 0..130 0.240 0.290 0.190 0.230 0.420 0.290 0.070 0 070 0.030 0.000 0.040 0.070 0.030 0.170 0.180 0.300 0..000 0.210 0.340 0.200 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 200 200 200 200 200 20 0 100 100 100 100 100 600 700 700 700 700 700 600 600 600 600 600 500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0*.00 0.01 0.29 0.27 0.28 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29 INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36.0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.37 0.49 0.29 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.28 MAXIMUM 1039.59 MINIMUM 1039.00 5.180 10100 1.73 2.19 326 NORMAL= 2.06 55361 DATE=27 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 50501 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=20033 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RlBack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection PaggýJohn Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT APR 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1039.13 1 1039.07 1039.00 2 1038.98 1039.02 3 1638.91 1038.78 4. 1038.73 1038.78 5 1038.80 1038.85 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1038.91 1039.01 1039.09 1039.14 1039.19 1039.29 1039.47 1039.56 1039.63 1039.68 1039.73 1039.77 1039.77 1039.81 1039.82 1039.84 1039.84 1039.85 1039.89 1040.08 1040.04 1040.22 1040.31 1040.60 1041.22 1038.95 1039.04 1039.11 1039.18 1039.28 1039.43 1039.54 1039.61 1039.70 1039.75 1039.77 1039.76 1039.77 1039.81 1039.83 1039.85 1039.85 1039.81 1040.04 1040.01 1040.17 1040.30 1040.48 1040.84 1042.34 51572 50501 50666 48757 48757 49311 50104 50831 51407 51984 52808 54044 54950 55526 56267 56680 56844 56762 56844 57174 57338 57503 57503 57174 59096 58828 60257 61417 63023 66236 80609 939 938 926 360 44 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 46.339 524 529 533 5.42 566 7099 237 0.290 0.320 0.440 0.250 0.280 0.360 0.310 0.170 0.220 0.370 0.520 0.340 0.340 0.480 0.340 0.390 0.410 0.350 0.520 0.350 0.320 0.350 0.370 0.370 0.060 0.040 0.070 0.300 0.040 0.020 500 1000 400 250 250 500 450 400 425 600 750 600 500 450 350 250 200 150 100 50 50 50 50 1000 1000 1200 1000 1350 2175 7900 0.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.99 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.58 0.39 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.64 0.53 0.00 0.02 0.05 1.44 0.24 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.69 MAXIMUM 1042.34 MINIMUM 1038.73 8.990 23950 3.60 3.25 798 NORMAL= 2.92 80609 DATE=30 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 48360 DATE= 4 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=47504 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[hlack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page, John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT MAY 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1042.86 2 1043.57 3 1043.63 4 1043.48 5 1043.47 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1042.86 1042.35 1041.99 1041.82 1041.76 1041.99 1041.83 1041.51 1040.99 1040.41 1039.75 1039.55 1039.35 1039.09 1039.26 1039.50 1039.71 1039.87 1039.90 1039.92 1039.87 1039.80 1039.68 1039.65 1039.93 1040.11 1042.34 1043.46 1043.63 1043.59 1043.51 1043.08 1042.52 1042.08 1041.81 1041.70 1041.92 1041.98 1041.66 1041.17 1040.60 1039.98 1039.63 1039.41 1039.19 1039.22 1039.34 1039.64 1039.83 1039.89 1039.91 1039.89 1039.82 1039.75 1039.68 1039.87 1039.98 1040.45 80609 92114 93912 93489 92643 88096 82421 77993 75379 74330 76427 76997 73950 69284 64094 58574 55691 53879 52066 52313 53302 55773 57338 57833 57998 57833 57256 56680 56103 57668 58574 62755 1226 2055 2058 2050 3277 3914 3823 3761 3728 3735 3769 3738 3666 3558 3437 2325 1659 1638 636 45 45 45 309 519 519 517 515 512 515 795 1010 59400 1916 0.270 0.150 0.340 0.180 0.120 0.060 0.020 0.070 0.250 0.310 0.260 0.450 0.400 0.380 0.250 0.260 0.310 0.440 0.330 0.460 0.200 0.200 0.210 0.380 0.390 0.430 0.330 0.530 0.470 0.210 0.250 7075 3050 1900 1675 1000 1060 1610 2515 3290 4870 4180 2320 1420 1010 1000 1000 1000 900 850 800 750 700 675 650 600 350 350 300 1350 1320 3200 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.23 0.20 0e09 0.41 0.00 0.71 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.71 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.26 0.28 0.07 0.01 0.01 0.33.0.16 0.06 0.34 0.00 0.55 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.68 TOTAL AVERAGE 1040.91 MAXIMUM 1043.63 MINIMUM 1039.09 8.910 52770 2.93 2.69 1702 NORMAL= 4.43 93912 DATE= 3 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 51242 DATE=19 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME= 104668 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION RB-ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chrt Seeto Age John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUN 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH.1 1040.60 2 1040.80 3 1040.60 4 1040.26 5 1040.00 6 1039.72 7 1039.61 8 1039.46 9 1039.27 10 1039.20 11 1039.23 12 1039.16 13 1039.13 14. 1039.10 15 1039.01 16 1039.03 17 1039.09 18 1039.12 19 1039.17 20 1039.20 21 1039.19 22 1039.24 23 1039.33 24 1039.35 25 1039.38 26 1039.38 27 1039.44 28 1039.47 29 1039.49 30 1039.49 1040.45 1040.75 1040.68 1040.39 1040.09 1039.82 1039.63 1039.50 1039.34 1039.19 1039.18 1039.16 1039.15 1039.11 1039.04 1039.03 1039.03 1039.15 1039.15 1039.19 1039.19 1039.24 1039.32 1039.34 1039.37 1039.37 1039.42 1039.45 1039.49.1039.49 1039.49 62755 65433 64808 62220 59542 57256 55691 54620 53302 52066 51984 518i9 51737 51407 50831 50748 50748 51737 51737 52066 52066 52478 53137.53302 53549 53549 53961 54208 54538 54538 54538 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 1036 1656 2016 1978 1944 1370 971 9.63 693 271 271 270.270 269 125 45 45 45 45.45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 14777 493 0.340 0.220 0.370 0.340 0.230 0.300 0.370 0.430 0.350 0.500 0.390 0.200 0.130 0.370 0.530 0.570 0.510 0.200 0.320 0.340 0.430 0.340 0.210 0.360 0.370 0.420 0.450 0.370 0.430 0.470 2450 1440 800 800 800 600 500 400 300 250 200 200 200 200 200 150 500 300 300 200 200 400 215 260 150 400 325 250 200 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0'.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.56 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.76 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.009 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.09 0.07.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 0.35 0.11 0.04 0.02 0.95 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.46 MAXIMUM 1040.81 MINIMUM 1038.95 10.860 13340 1.47 2.46 445 NORMAL= 4.74 65969 DATE= 2 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 50104 DATE=15 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=26459 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT JUL 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP IOFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A. DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.51 2 1039.51 3 1039.49 4 1039.44 5 1039.47 6 1039.45 7 1039.41 8 1039.41 9 1039.41 10 1039.51 11 1039.54 12 1039.54 13 1039.53 14 1039.63 15 1039.66 16 1039.67 17 1039.70 18 1039.72 19 1039.72 20 1039.68 21 1039.60 22 1039.60 23 1039.56 24 1039.49 25 1039.44 26 1039.42 27 1039.37 28 1039.37 29 1039.36 30 1039.31 31 1039.26 1039.49 1039.49 1039.47 1039.48 1039.48 1039.47 1039.43 1039.41 1039.40 1039.41 1039.51 1039.52 1039.53 1039.34 1039.64 1039.67 1039.69 1039.70 1039.71 1039.70 1039.69 1039.63 1039.56 1039.50 1039.45 1039.40 1039.40 1039.38 1039.37 1039.33 1039.29 1039.24 54538 54538 54373 54455 54455 54373 54044 53879 53796 53879 54702 54785 54867 53302 55773 56021 56185 56267 56350 56267 56185 55691 55115 54620 54208 53796 53796 53631 53549 53219 52890 52478 45 45 45 45 51 58 58 58 58 59 59 59 58 59 59 59 59 59 59 185 291 290 290 200 106 76 76 76 76 76 76 2871 93 0.460 0.540 0.500 0.490 0.340 0.430 0.440 0.420 0.260 0.080 0.180 0.320 0.370 0.430 0.360 0.420 0.460 0.460 0.410 0.470 0.430 0.270 0.360 0.380 0.440 0.560 0.400 0.070 0.340 0.500 0.560 175 150 125 125 100 75 25 50 100 500 300 200 200 500 300 250 225 200 175 150 125 100 100 100 100 100 90 80 70 60 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.81 0.17 0.21 0.00 1.40 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04.0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.54 0.13 0.20 0.04 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.49 MAXIMUM 1039.72 MINIMUM 1039.24 12.150 4900 2.72 1.74 158 NORMAL= 3.61 56432 DATE=19 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 52478 DATE=31 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=9719 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Chajts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT AUG 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.22 2 1039.20 3 Id39.21 4 1039.17 5 1039.13 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1039.13 1039.09 1039.08 1039.05 1038.94 1039.12 1039.10 1039.07 1039.13 1039.08 1039.07 1039.09 1039.09 1039.09 1039.13 1039.14 1039.12 1039.10 1039.07 1039.08 1039.09 1039.09 1039.11 1039.07 1039.05 1039.03 1039.24 1039.20 1039.14 1039.19 1039.15 1039.13 1039.11 1039.10 1039.06 1039.04 1039.12 1039.09 1039.06 1039.11 1039.11 1039.08 1039.07 1039.09 1039.05 1039.07 1039.14 1039.14 1039.10 1039.08 1039.10 1039.02 1039.09 1039.11 1039.07 1039.06 1039.04 1039.01 52478 52148 51654 52066 51737 51572 51407 51325 50996 50831 51490 51242 50996 51407 51407 51160 51077 51242 50913 51077 51654 51654 51325 51160 51325 50666 51242 51407 51077 50996 50831 50583 POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0*0 0 0*0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 76 66 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 1964 63 0.620 0..580 0.350 0.280 0.420 0.450 0.450 0.350 0.380 0.480 0.160 0.380 0.410 0.400 0.130 0.310 0.130 0.290 0.420 0.300 0.190 0.130 0.330 0.330 0.340 0.260 0.120 0.090 0.300 0.230 0.320 50 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 300 100 100 200 100 100 50 200 100 100 400 75 25 25 25 25 300 100 70 50 50 50 DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 0.00 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03.0.00 1.13 0.00 0.07 0.38 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.84 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.21 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.89 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.01 0.02 0.19 0.07 0.16 0.09 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.22 0.46 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1039.09 MAXIMUM 1039.24 MINIMUM 1038.94 9.930 3345 3.16 3.24 108 NORMAL= 3.49 52478 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 50025 DATE=10 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=6635 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION R.Back to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT SEP 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL POWER DSF INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1039.02 2 1039.01 3 1039.00 4 1038.98 5 1038.97 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1038.95 1038.92 1038.87 1038.85 1038.82 1038.78 1038.74 1038.73 1038.67 1038.62 1038.56 1038.72.1038.56 1038.52 1038.47 1038.38 1038.50 1038.47 1038.44 1038..41 1038.38 1038.34 1038.31 1038.24 1038.24 1039.01 1039.01 1039.00 1038.99 1038.97 1038.96 1038.93 1038.89 1038.87 1038.78 1038.79 1038.76 1038.73 1038.70 1038.65 1038.54 1038.54 1038.59 1038.54 1038.51 1038.43 1038.46 1038.50 1038.48 1038.43 1038.39 1038.35 1038.36 1038.26 1038.23 1038.21 50583 50583 50501 50422 50263 50184 49946 49629 49470 48757 48836 48598 48360 48122 47726 46854 46854 47250 46854 46616 45982 46219 46537 46378 45982 45664 45347 45426 44634 44396 44237 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 58 46 38 38 38 37 37 38 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 1334 44 0.330 0.250 0.180 0.260 0.310 0.300 0.280 0.240.0.190 0.220 0.170 0.180 0.090 0.250 0.350 0.490 0.470 0.170 0.350 0.250 0.370 0.110 0.280 0.310 0.220 0.250 0.250 0.230 0.230 0.190 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50.50 50 50 50.50 50 100 80 50 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.03 0.47 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.10 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.43 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL AVERAGE 1038.63 MAXIMUM 1039.02 MINIMUM 1038.21 7.770 1630 0.82 1.26 54 NORMAL= 3.76 50666 DATE= 2 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 44237 DATE=30 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 3382 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=3233 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[lBa-ck to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Pate.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT OCT 06 DAY POOL ELEVATIONS STORAGE FT-NGVD 2400HR 0800 2400 AC-FT RELEASES EVAP DSF INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A PRIOR MONTH 1 1038.19 2 1038.15 3 1038.12 4 1038.09 5 1038.05 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.98 1037.94 1037.92 1037.90 1037.85 1037.89 1037.83 1037.79 1037.76 1037.70 1037.68 1037.69 1037.74 1037.66 1037.60 1037.58 1037.64 1037.57 1037.55 1037.51 1037.53 1037.73 1037.66 1037.59 1037.52 1037.62 1038.21 1038.17 1038.14 1038.10 1038.08 1038.00 1037.97 1037.91 1037.91 1037.87 1037.92 1037.84 1037.79 1037.76 1037.67 1037.70 1037.71 1037.69 1037.74 1037.62 1037.56 1037.68 1037.58 1037.55 1037.52 1037.51 1037.52 1037 .66 1037.61 1037.57 1037.65 1037.55 44237 43920 43682 43365 43206 42572 42344 41888 41888 41583 41964 41355 40975 40747 40063 40290 40367 40214 40595 39682 39227 40139 39378 39151 38922 38846 38922 39.987 39606 39302 39911 39151 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 37 31 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 0.210 0.390 0.360 0.390 0.170 0.220 0.290 0.290 0.230 0.170 0.030 0.220 0.230 0.150 0.230 0.040 0.000 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.240 0.070 0.160 0.120 0.230 0.010 0.000 0.120 0.170 0.330 0.260 INFLOW ADJ DSF 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 100 75 50 25 50 150 500 250 25 25 25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.36 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.14 1.17 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.34 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.86 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 RAINFALL INCHES 7A TO 7A DAM BSN TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.76 MAXIMUM 1038.21 MINIMUM 1037.49 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAW 0 0 884 29 5.630 1775 2.23 1.88 57 NORMAL= 2.56 44237 DATE= 1 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 38694 DATE=25 TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 JN 4304 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=3521 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

[l3ack to the John Redmond Lake Monthly Charts Selection Page.John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT NOV 06 POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 STORAGE 2400HR AC-FT RELEASES DSF EVAP INFLOW INCHES ADJ RAINFALL INCHES POWER TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.56 2 1037.53 3 1037.50 4 1037.46 5 .1037.49 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 1037.44 1037.43 1037.41 1037.39 1037.52 1037.39 1037.24 1037.39 1037.30 1037.50 1037.38 1037.30.1037.29 1037.26 1037.23 1037.18 1037.19 1037 .16 1037.19 1037.15 1037.10 1037.13 1037.14 1037.29 1037.33 1037.55 1037.55 1037.52 1037.44.1037.48 1037.45 1037..45 1037.42 1037.41 1037.39 1037.52 1037.31 1037.32 1037.28 1037.28 1037.45 1037.29 1037.31 1037.27 1037.25 1037.20 1037.19 1037.19 1037.16 1037.15 1037.11 1037.12 1037.12 1037.21 1037.32 1037.34 39151 39151 38922 38313 38618 38389 38389 38162 38086 37934 38922 37326 37401 37097 37097 38389 37173 37326 37021 36869 36488 36412 36412 36185 36109 35804 35880 35880 36565 37401 37553 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 24 25 28 740 25 0.170 0.130 0.110 0.240 0.180 0.040 0.010 0.120 0.220 0.190 0.110 0.140 0.190 0.100 0.090 0.130 0.100 0.150 0.120 0.100 0.130 0.210 0.140 0.190 0.080 0.100 0.120 0.030 0.150 0.060 25 25 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 250 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 100 150 500 500 150 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0. 67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0A00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00.0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.48 0.00 0.10 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.32 MAXIMUM 1037.68 MINIMUM 1037.09 3.850 2825 1.91 0.69 94 NORMAL= 1..64 40139 DATE=15 TOP CONSERVATION*POOL 35652 DATE=26 TOP FLOOD POOL 1039.00 1068.00 WATER SUPPLY: WITHDRAWN 4096 AC-FT INFLOW VOLUME=5603 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION FRIB-ack to the John Redmond Lake MonthlyChart$S eletion Pagge..John Redmond Lake MONTHLY LAKE REPORT DEC 06.POOL ELEVATIONS DAY FT-NGVD 0800 2400 PRIOR MONTH 1 1037.22 2 1037.22 3 1.037.23 4 1037.21 5 1037.21 1037..34 1037.22 1037.22 1037.21 1037.21 1037.22 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 1037.22 1037.32 1037.26 1037.20 1037.20 1037.20 1037.19 1037.19 1037.17 1037.17 1037.17 1037.24 1037.20 1037.19 1037.21 1037.21 1037.20 1037.22 1037.18 1037.19 1037.26 1037.35 1037.34 1037.29 1037.44 1037.30 1037.25 1037.29 1037.28 1037.30 1037.41 1037.22 1037.20 1037.20 1037.20 1037.17 1037.22 1037.22 1037.19 1037.16 1037.27 1037.32 1037.31 1037.29 1037.36 1037.34 1037.29 1037.27 1037.28 1037.28 1037.38 1037.47 STORAGE...2400HR AC-FT 37553 36641 36641 36565 36565 36641 37401 36488 36488 36412 36261 36641 36488 36488 36488 36261 36641 36641 36412 36185 37021 37401 37326 37173 37705 37553 37173 37021 37097 37097 37858 38542 RELEAS DSF POWER 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 56 56 56 56 56 56 52 49 49 49 49 49 49 45 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 43 1450 47 0.060 0.050 0.080 0.070 0.050 0.070 0.130 0.060 0.100 0.170 0.100 0.070 0.090.0.120 0.080 0.110 0.120 0.120 0.130 0.070 0.000 0.080 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.120 0.090 0.190 0.060 0.070 0.000 ES EVAP INFLOW RAINFALL INCHES ADJ INCHES TOTAL 8A TO 8A DSF 7A TO 7A DAM BSN 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 50 400 300 50 25 300 25 25 25 25 50 425 400 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18 0.59 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.34 0.26 0.26 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 0.47 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.29 TOTAL AVERAGE 1037.25 MAXIMUM 1037.56 MINIMUM 1037.14 0 0 2.640 2550 1.37 1.45 82 NORMAL= 1.18 39227 DATE=31 TOP CONSERVATION POOL 1039.00 36033 DATE=II TOP FLOOD POOL 1068.00 INFLOW VOLUME=5058 AC-FT REPORT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE AND/OR REVISION

54. Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1. It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 1 of 2-Site-specific hydrogeological information, including:

groundwater depth(s) at site;aquifer(s) present at site; location, elevation, construction, and historical analyses on current and past monitoring wells (including B-12, C-10, C-49, J-1, J-2, G-2, and F-I);details of the current monitoring and analytical program; flow direction information (direction, rate, fate); and comprehensive local production information (locations, construction information, history of analysis, pump rates, use).-Documentation of any environment releases, including any evaluations of the incident with respect to the nature, extent, and impact of the release.-Locations, volumes, and existing chemical and radiological analytical data on drinking water intakes for Burlington, Neosho Falls, Iola, and any other intakes on the Neosho River between JRR and Iola.-Correspondence, reports, and any other information related to any past restrictions on water withdrawal, if any have occurred.

If none have occurred, a statement that these restrictions have never been implemented.

• More detailed data regarding the groundwater quality study performed from 1973-87.Provide the locations of the wells included in the study, their depths, production rates, and water uses. Discuss any regulatory involvement, including the regulatory program of which the study was a part, which agency(ies) reviewed and approved workplans and conclusions, the chemical and radiological parameters that were measured, the periodicity of the sampling, and the standards to which results were compared.

Provide the rationale for ceasing the program only two years into operations, including any regulatory concurrence in this action.-A map showing the locations of all groundwater monitoring or production wells in the local area, including their depths, rates of production, and use of water, if known.Section 2.9.1 states that 80% of water use in the basin is from surface sources -describe the source, location, and use of the other 20%.* More detailed meteorological data, including historic rainfall data, to provide additional information for the evaluation of water use conflicts in Section 2.10 of the ER (WCGS, 1980). Include average rainfall, seasonal variations, and information on extreme conditions.

Please provide the average peak and low-flow values for the Neosho River.Also provide information on seasonal variability, if it exists.-Clarification of the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the "Certificate of Appropriation" discussed in ER Section 4.1.It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river. Please verify if this is correct. Also identify if a different agency implements the controls in either case, or if this is a single agency.

Aquatic Ecology Audit Needs request #108"Please clarify the relationship between the WCNOC contract with the Kansas Water Resources Board, versus the 'Certificate of Appropriation' discussed in Section 4.1. It appears that the contract has controls based on available supply within the reservoir, while certificate has controls based on the flow rate in the river -is this correct? Is it a different agency that implements the controls in either case, or a single agency?It is correct that the contract has controls based on available supply within John Redmond Reservoir (JRR), and that the certificate (appropriation) has controls based on Neosho River flows. The Kansas Department of Agriculture

-Division of Water Resources (DWR) administers the Kansas Water Appropriation Act, which governs such water appropriation.

The Certificates of Appropriation are between the owners of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) and the DWR.The Kansas Water Resources Board (KWRB, currently known as the Kansas Water Authority) has also appropriated Neosho River flows through the DWR, and stores this water in JRR through a contract with the U. S. Army Corp of Engineers, and through Kansas legislative authority, has contracted with the owners of WCGS to purchase the water for WCGS. This contract water is between the owners of WCGS and the KWRB.For clarification purposes, a review of surface water use at WCGS is helpful. Coffey County Lake (CCL) is a 5090-acre lake formed by a dam across Wolf Creek, an intermittent stream. Natural runoff from the Wolf Creek watershed, and direct precipitation on the CCL is not typically sufficient to maintain the lake at its normal operating level. Consequently, rights to makeup water have been obtained from the natural flows of the Neosho River (Appropriation Water), and water stored in the conservation pool of nearby John Redmond Reservoir (JRR, Contract Water). This makeup water is transferred via a pumping station located on the east bank of the Neosho River immediately downstream of the JRR dam. This water is pumped approximately

2.5 miles

through underground piping and discharged to CCL. Water to be pumped from the conservation storage in JRR is released to the Neosho River through the JRR dam as detailed in the ER-OLRS, Section 4.1.A more detailed review is as follows: Appropriation Water Appropriation refers to the use of natural water flows for beneficial use permitted by the DWR, as provided for in Kansas Statutes Annotated (KSA) 82a-703. At WCGS, three such appropriations apply to CCL water. These are: 1. Water appropriation (file number 20,275) for all natural flows of Wolf Creek upstream of the CCL dam,

2. Water appropriation (file number 14,626) for withdrawal via MUSH of natural flows in the Neosho River at a diversion rate of < 55 cubic feet per second (cfs)and a quantity < 25,000 acre-feet per calendar year.3. Water appropriation (file number 19,882) for withdrawal via MUSH of natural flows in the Neosho River at a diversion rate of < 170 cubic feet per second (cfs)and a quantity < 57,300 acre-feet per calendar year.The first appropriation refers to the natural flows of Wolf Creek. The other two refer to natural flows in the Neosho River diverted to CCL via the makeup pumps. Both require that withdrawals of natural flows shall be made only at such times and under such conditions that a minimum flow of at least 250 cfs remains in the Neosho River immediately downstream from the intake structure.

In practice, makeup withdrawals using these appropriations are only used when greater than 250 cfs, plus the withdrawal volume, is being discharged from the JRR dam. Due to physical operational limitations, minimum flow typically needs to be 320 cfs or 370 cfs, depending on MUSH pumping status. These conditions are typically during normal or above normal hydrological conditions in the river There are provisions in Neosho River water appropriations where WCGS can request of the Chief Engineer of the DWR to allow withdrawal during times when flows at the makeup diversion point are less than 250 cfs. Only flows not needed to satisfy vested rights, prior appropriations, and prior applications for permits to appropriate water for beneficial use may be requested.

The Chief Engineer may permit such withdrawal to the extent that is found to be in the public interest.

However, the Chief Engineer shall withhold from appropriation that amount of water deemed necessary to establish and maintain the desired minimum stream flow (KSA 82a-703a).

Thus, such requests for makeup withdrawal will not include flows necessary to maintain a minimum of 40 cfs (greater during fish spawning season if available) at Iola.Contract for Stored Water In addition to the appropriated natural flows of the Neosho River, a portion of the water stored in the conservation pool of JRR has been contracted for with the KWRB.Basically, this stored contract water can only be accessed for CCL makeup purposes when JRR is at or below its conservation pool level of 1039 feet msl. At this level, downstream flows are typically less than the 250 cfs criteria used to divert appropriated water, indicating that the Neosho River system would either be in a low flow period, or drought condition.

A greater detailed review of this contract is provided in the ER-OLRS, Section 4.1, and in the Final Environmental Statement related to the Operation of WCGS, Section 4.3.1.1.

55. Historical information on how the water withdrawal controls have been implemented in the past. If there have never been any incidents where low water levels in the reservoir or low flow in the river have resulted in water withdrawal restrictions, then state this. If there have been incidents where the rights of any user (WCGS or any other user) have been restricted, provide information on the cause of the incident, length of duration, restrictions placed on which users, and any other relevant information.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 2 of 2* Historical information on how the water withdrawal controls have been implemented in the past. If there have never been any incidents where low water levels in the reservoir or low flow in the river have resulted in water withdrawal restrictions, then state this. If there have been incidents where the rights of any user (WCGS or any other user) have been restricted, provide information on the cause of the incident, length of duration, restrictions placed on which users, and any other relevant information.

• Please provide actual historical data on water withdrawal volumes from the Neosho River.-Groundwater levels were predicted to rise 45.8 feet within 100 feet of the site 50 years after the filling of CCL. The height of the ground water table was predicted to rise 0.4 feet, 2 miles from the site after the lake was filled. Please provide the elevation of the water table before the lake was filled and the current water table elevation.

-The groundwater flow direction was noted to be generally SW from WCGS to the Neosho River. Are there any localized groundwater flow directions to Wolf Creek (below CCL)?-Regarding water use conflicts at Wolf Creek, although the ER Section 4.1 indicates no surface water use conflicts, our Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for license renewal says (section 4.4.2.1, p. 4-52): "Two nuclear power plants, the Braidwood Station and Wolf Creek Generating Station, have already experienced wateruse conflicts." Furthermore, the GElS on p. 4-53 (left column, first full para) uses WCGS as an example of potential water use conflicts.

Water use conflicts at Wolf Creek are also cited in section 4.4.3, p. 4-57, left column. Although there seems to be a discrepancy, perhaps all water use conflicts have been solved. If so, Wolf Creek should provide this information.

-An assessment of the impact of population increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply, as per 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ADRIAN J. POLAN SKY, SECRETARY CERTIFIED MAIL February 21, 2007 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP OPERATING CORP 1550 OXEN LN BURLINGTON KS 66839 RE: Minimum Desirable Streamflows, The Neosho River File No(s). 20049093

Dear Water User:

Enclosed in an Order of the Chief Engineer which ceases administration of minimum desirable streamflows (MDS) initiated by an order of the Chief Engineer dated November 8, 2006 regarding MDS on The Neosho River. As noted in the order, the conditions of K.A.R. 5-15-3(c) have been met and accordingly administration of water rights and permits to appropriate water is no longer necessary to maintain MDS on The Neosho River.You may now resume the lawful diversion of water under the authority of the water right or permit to appropriate water noted in the order, as long as such diversion is in accordance with the terms and conditions of such water right or permit. Particular attention should be paid to those terms and conditions which relate to the authorized quantity and diversion rate.If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact Katherine Tietsort, Water Commissioner, Topeka Field Office, Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture, 109 SW 9th Street, First Floor, Topeka, KS 66612-1283, (785) 368-8251.Sincerely, Katherine A. Tietsort Water Commissioner

Enclosures:

(1) Order ceasing MDS administration Division of Water Resources 109 SW 9th St., 2nd Floor Voice (785) 296-3717 Fax (785)David L. Pope, Chief Engineer Topeka, KS 66612-1283 296-1176 http://www.ksda.gov THE STATE OF KANSAS KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Adrian J. Polansky, Secretary of Agriculture David L. Pope, Chief Engineer BEFORE THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE MATTER OF WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP File No(s). 20049093 ORDER CEASING MINIMUM DESIRABLE STREAMFLOW ADMINISTRATION (NEOSHO RIVER)The Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture, under authority of Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 82a-703a, et seq., and K.A.R. 5-15-1, et seq., regarding minimum desirable streamflows (MDS) finds the following:

1. That on November 8, 2006, the Chief Engineer issued an order pertaining to the water right (identified by the file number above), under the authority of K.S.A. 82a-703a et seq., which initiated administration of the water under this water right, pursuant to K.A.R. 5-15-1, for the purpose of rotecting MDS for The Neosho River at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station located near Iola, Kansas.2. That the order issued by the Chief Engineer on November 8, 2006 is in effect and has been in effect since its issuance and prohibits the diversion of water under the authority of the water right (identified by the file number above) unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Engineer.3. That the Chief Engineer may determine that MDS administration is no longer necessary in accordance with the following:

K.A.. R. 5-1 5-3. Cessation of minimum desirable streamfiow administration. (a) Except as specified in subsection (c), whenever the chief engineer determines that both of the conditions specified in subsection (b) have been met, the administration of water rights and approvals of applicationswith a priority after April 12, 1984 to protect minimum desirable streamflows pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, shall be declared by the chief engineer to be no longer necessary.

The owners of those water rights and approvals of applications shall be notified by the chief engineer by certified mail, personal notice, or other verifiable means that the owners may recommence diverting water in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of their water rights or approvals of applications.(b)(1) The streamflows at the minimum desirable streamflow (MDS) gage have exceeded the streamflows established by K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for a period of 14 consecutive days.(2) If a significant alluvial aquifer exists, the average static water level in the alluvial aquifer has recovered sufficiently to maintain MDS in the stream.(c) Whenever the chief engineer determines that hydrologic conditions indicate that MDS values have been met or exceeded and are likely to be maintained for the foreseeable future, MDS administration may be declared by the chief engineer to be no longer necessary even if both of the conditions of subsection (b) have not been met."

IN THE MATTER OF FILE NO(s). 20049093 Page 2 4. That pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-703c, MDS for The Neosho River at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station located near Iola, Kansas, is 40 cfs in February and will remain at 40 cfs through 2007.5. That the streamflow in The Neosho River at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station located near Iola, Kansas, has exceeded 40 cfs since February 4, 2007.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Pursuant to K.A.R. 5-.15-3(b), MDS administration is no longer necessary to protect streamflow in The Neosho River at the U.S. Geological Survey gaging station located near Iola, Kansas.2. On and after the effective date of this order, MDS administration shall cease and the order of the Chief Engineer dated November 8, 2006, described in Finding No. 1 above, shall no longer be in effect with respect to the water right which is the subject of this order.3. Lawful beneficial use of water, in accordance with the terms and limitations of the water right which is the subject of this order, may be resumed upon receipt of this order and may continue until or unless otherwise ordered by the Chief Engineer pursuant to his authorities under K.S.A. 82a-701 et seq.4. This is a final order of the Chief Engineer and shall become effective upon service. Any appeal of this order must be made by filing a petition for review in the manner prescribed by the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA), K.S.A.77-601 et seq. A petition for judicial review must be filed with the appropriate district court for the district of Kansas, such as the District Court of Shawnee County, within thirty (30) days after service of this order. The agency officer designated to receive service of a petition for judicial review on behalf of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources, is: Chief Legal Counsel Kansas Department of Agriculturere 109 SW 9th Street, 4th Floor Topeka, KS 66612 Fax: (785) 368-6668 Entered in SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS.February 21, 2007 David L. Pope, P.E. Date Chief Engineer Certificate of Service A copy of the foregoing Order was sent by certified mail service this 21st day of February 2007, to the following:

WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP OPERATING CORP 1550 OXEN LN BURLINGTON KS 66839 Cathy an I M'A'AS kANSAs/2 DEPARTME NT OF AGRICULTURE KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, GOVERNOR/2 ADRIAN J. POLANSKY, SECRETARY 0 CERTIFIED MAIL November 8, 2006 0 6 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP OPERATING CORP 1550 OXEN LN BURLINGTON KS 66839 RE: Minimum Desirable Streamflows The Neosho River and Cottonwood Rivers File No(s). 20049093

Dear Water User:

Our records indicate that you are the owner of, designated water correspondent for, or a person having an interest in the land on which water is used under the water right(s) and/or approval(s) of application identified above and in the enclosed Order Regarding Minimum Desirable Streamflows (The Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers), which has been issued by the Chief Engineer.

This Order prohibits diversions from each and every water right or approval of application identified in the Order from November 10, 2006, until further notice, except as otherwise provided for in the Order. If you no longer have an ownership or other interest in this water right(s) and/or approval(s) of application, please advise this office immediately so that the proper persons can be notified of this Order.As of November 6, 2006, the minimum desirable streamfiow (MDS) established under the Kansas Water Appropriations Act for the Neosho River at the gaging station near Iola, Kansas, had not been met for seven consecutive days. Therefore, the Chief Engineer has issued the enclosed Order determining that administration of water rights and approvals of application for appropriation of water (MDS Administration) is required under K.A.R.5-15-1 through 5-15-4.The enclosed Order prohibits diversions from the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers and their tributaries, in the area set forth in the Order, under water rights and approvals of application with priority dates after April 12, 1984. The Order will remain in effect from November 10, 2006, until the Chief Engineer determines that the MDS required by law have been met and maintained for the Neosho River.As provided in Paragraph 3 of the Order, the Chief Engineer may grant a temporary stay of the Order to allow diversion of water on a limited basis. If you wish to be notified of a temporary stay you must contact the Topeka Field Office, request to be notified of any temporary stay, and provide a phone number where you or a person you designate can be reached during normal working hours.While the Order is in effect, no water may diverted under the water right(s) and/or approval(s) of application identified in the Order except as may be provided for by a temporary stay of the Order as set forth in Paragraph

3. Any person who makes unlawful diversions of water while this Order is in effect may be subject to criminal and/or civil enforcement under the Kansas Water Appropriation Act, which may include the assessment of civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day of violation and modification or suspension of the water right(s) or approval(s) of application.

If you have questions concerning this matter, please contact Katherine Tietsort, Water Commissioner,.Topeka Field Office, Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture, 109 SW 9th Street, First Floor, Topeka, KS 66612-1283, (785) 368-8251.Sincerely, Katherine A. Tietsort Water Commissioner

Enclosures:

(1) MDS Order, (2) MDS R&R Division of Water Resources David 1. Pope, Chief Engineer 109 SW 9th St., 2nd Floor Topeka, KS 66612-1283 Voi(e (785) 296-3717 Fox (785) 296-1116 htip://www.ksdo.gov I A O D THE STATE OF KANSAS 1 1 2 KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES Adrian J. Polansky, Secretary of Agriculture David L. Pope, Chief Engineer 2 0! BEFORE THE KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 0 DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES IN THE MATTER OF WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP File No(s). 20049093 ORDER REGARDING MINIMUM DESIRABLE STREAMFLOWS (NEOSHO AND COTTONWOOD RIVERS)The Chief Engineer of the Division of Water Resources, Kansas Department of Agriculture, under authority of Kansas Statutes Annotated (K.S.A.) 82a-703a et seq. regarding minimum desirable streamflows (MDS), finds the following:

1. That, pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-703a and 82a-703c, the Chief Engineer shall withhold from appropriation that amount of water he deems necessary to establish and maintain the desired MDS for the Neosho River near Parsons, Kansas.2. That, pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-703b, water rights or approvals of application to appropriate water with a priority date afterApril 12, 1984, shall be subject to MDS requirements identified and established by the Chief Engineer for the Neosho River near Parsons, Kansas.3. That K.A.R. 5-15-1 through 5-15-4, effective August 27, 2002, sets forth standards under which MDS may be administered by the Chief Engineer.4. That K.A.R. 5-15-1(d) provides that, "If the streamflow at an MDS gaging station falls below the level established in K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for a period of seven consecutive days and no streamflow trigger has been set for an MDS gaging station in K.A.R. 5-15-4, a determination of whether and when MDS administration will begin and how it should occur shall be made by the chief engineer...", based on several factors, including:

KAR 5-15-4 (d)1 the general hydrologic conditions affecting streamflow in the stream reach;2 the magnitude and duration of recent streamflows;

3) the extent to which groundwater contributes to stream flow;4)the effects of drought on streamfiow; the existence and effect of relevant water management agreements; 6 the magnitude of the effect that the administration of water rights with priorities junior the MDS values would have on stream flow; and (7) the effect of reservoir operations.

5. That as of November 6, 2006, the actual daily streamflow in the Neosho River at the gaging station near Iola has been below the streamflow established in K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for seven consecutive days, and that no streamflow trigger has been established for the Neosho River in KAR 5-15-4.6. That the Chief Engineer has confirmed that the gaging stations are accurately recording the flows of the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers, and that such flows are insufficient to meet those minimum desirable streamfiows sefforth in K.S.A. 82a-703c.

The determination to administer MDS immediately was based upon the general hydrologic conditions affecting stream flow in the stream reach, the magnitude and duration of recent stream flows, the extent to which groundwater contributes to streamflow and the magnitude of the effect that the administration of water rights with priorities junior to the MDS values would have on the stream flow and the effect of reservoir operations.

I IN THE MATTER OF FILE NO(S). 20049093 Page 2 G E 7. That the Cottonwood River is a tributary to the Neosho River and joins the Neosho River above the Iola gagin station. The flow at the USGS gaging station on the Cottonwood River near Plymouth, Kansas located in theNortheast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Southeast Quarter of Section 13, Township 19 South, Range 9 East, in Chase County, Kansas, has been above the streamflow established in K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, during the same period of time described in Finding 5.2 8. The flow at the USGS gaging station on the Neosho River near Americus, Kansas located in the Southwest Quarter of the Southwest Quarter of the Northwest Quarter of Section 24, Township 18 South, Range 10 East, in Lyon County, Kansas, has been above the streamflow established in K.S.A. 82a-703c, and 2 amendments thereto, during the same period of time described in Finding 5. The Americus gaging station is 0 on the Neosho River above the Iola gaging station.0 9. That administration of water rights and approvals of application for appropriation of water with priority dates after April 12, 1984, is required to establish and maintain the desired MDS for the Neosho River is required within that portion of the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers upstream from the USGS Iola gaging station located in the Southwest Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter of Section 9, Township 25 South, Range 18 East, in Allen County, Kansas, and downstream of the USGS gaging station on the Neosho River described in Finding 8, and downstream of the USGS gagin9 station on the Cottonwood River described in Finding 7, and those portions the Neosho and Cottonwood River Basins which drain to the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers in those portions of the Neosho and Cottonwood Rivers between said upstream and downstream points.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Effective November 10, 2006, and continuing until such time as the Chief Engineer determines minimum desirable streamflows have been met and maintained for the Neosho River, there shall be no diversion of water under the water right(s) or approval(s) of application identified by the file number(s) above, which has a priority date after April 12, 1984, as required by K.S.A. 82a-703a and 82a-703b.2. That any diversion of water from the appropriation right subject to this order on or after November 10, 2006, shall constitute an unlawful diversion of water and shall subject the party in violation of this order to all applicable criminal and/or administrative penalties which may include civil penalties up to $1000 per day the violation continues, and suspension or modification of the water right.3. If, during the administration of this order, stream flows increase temporarily to a level above the established MDS, the Chief Engineer may provide a tern porary stay of this Order to allow diversion of water under a water right or approval of application subject to this order on a limited basis. The Division of Water Resources will notify the holder of the water right(s) or approval(s) of application identified above or designated water use correspondent who has requested to be notified of a temporary stay and has provided contact information of the granting of any temporary stay and its anticipated duration.

Any questions regarding this provision should be directed to the Topeka Field Office at 785-368-8251.

4. This order is a final order. Any appeal of this order must be made within 30 days to a Kansas court of competent jurisdiction, such as the District Court of Shawnee County pursuant to the Kansas Act for Judicial Review and Civil Enforcement of Agency Actions (KJRA) (K.S.A.77-601 et seq.). The agency officer designated to receive service of a petition for judicial review on behalf of the Kansas Department of Agriculture, Division of Water Resources is: Chief Legal Counsel Kansas Department of Agriculture, Legal Section 109 SW 9th Street, 4th Floor Topeka, KS 66612 Entered in SHAWNEE COUNTY, KANSAS./tq fl)ovember 8 2006 David L. Pope, P.E. Date Chief Engineer Certificate of Service A copy of the foregoing Order was sent by certified mail service this 8th day of November, 2006, to the following:

WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPER CORP OPERATING CORP 1550 OXEN LN BURLINGTON KS 66839 Cathy Dfa.tall G': E D MINIMUM DESIRABLE STREAMFLOWS 1 August 27, 2002 1/2 K.A.R. 5-15-1. Administration of minimum desirable streamflow. (a) Except as/2 specified in subsection (d), if the streamflow at a minimum desirable streamflow (MDS) gaging 0 6 station falls below the streamnflow established in K-S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for a period of seven consecutive days, a determipation of whether the following conditions have been met shall be made by the chief engineer: (1). The actual daily average streamflow at the gage has been less than the streamflow trigger value set by K.A.R. 5-15-4.(2) If an alluvial aquifer has a significant effect on streamflow, the static groundwater level in the alluvial aquifer above the gage is insufficient to maintain MDS in the stream (b) Whenever the chief engineer determines that MI)S administration should occur according to subsection (d) or because the conditions specified in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) have both been met, water rights and approvals of applications with a priority after April 12, 1984 shall be administered in order of priority as necessary to protect the appropriate minimum desirable streamflow specified in K-S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto. Owners of record in the office of the chief engineer of water rights and approvals of applications that are being administered shall be notified by the chief engineer that water rights and approvals of applications are being administered to protect MDS. This notification shall be made by certified mail, personal notice, or other verifiable means.(c) After administration to protect MDS has begun, no person that has received notice according to subsection (b) may divert water' under the authority of a water right or approval of application with a priority after April 12, 1984, unless one of the following conditions is met: (1) The owner of the water right or approval of application has. entered into an annual MDS consent order with the chief engineer in accordance with the provisions of KA.R. 5-15-2 and is diverting water in accordance with the terms of that MDS consent order.(2) The chief engineer has determined, in accordance with the provisions of K.A.Rý 5-15-3, that administration ofwater rights and approvals ofapplications with a priority after April 12, 1984 is no longer necessary to protect MDS and has notified the owners by certified mail, personal notice, or other verifiable means that diversions may continue ini accordance With the terms, conditions, and limitations of the water right or approval of application.(d) Ifthe streamflow at an MDS gaging station falls below the level established in K.SA.82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for a period of seven consecutivedays and no streamrflow trigger value has been set for an MDS gaging station in K.A.R. 5-15-4, a determination ofwhether and when MDS administration will begin and how it should occur shall be made by the chief engineer, based on the following factors: (1) The general hydrologic conditions affecting strearnflow in the stream reach;(2) the magnitude and duration of recent streamflows; (3) the extent to which groundwater contributes to s.treamflow; (4) the effects of drought on streamflow; (5) the existence and effect of relevant water management agreements; (6) the magnitude of the effect that the admixistration of water rights with priorities junior to the MDS values would have on the streamflow; and (7) the effect of reservoir operations.

M-A-G, E D This regulation shall be effective on and after August 27,'2002. (Authorized by K.S.A. 82a-I 1 706a; implementing K.S.A. 82a-703a, 82a-703b, and 82a-703c; effective, T-5-4-29-02, April 29, 2 1 2002; effective Aug. 27, 2002.)/0 K.A.R. 5-15-2. Minimum desirable streamflow consent orders. (a) An annual minimum 0 O desirable streamflow (MDS) consent order accordinig to K.A.R. 5-15-1 (c)(1) may be entered into by the chief engineer and the owner of the water right or approval of application to divert surface water.This consent order shall contain the following provisions:

(1) -,%Whenever the chief engineer has determined that the administration of water rights and approvals of applications to divert surface water with a priority after April 12, 1984 is necessary to protect the minimum desirable streamflow set by K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, water shall not be diverted under the authority of these water rights or approval of applications unless the owner has been notified by the chief engineer by certified mail, personal notice, or other verifiable means that either of the following conditions has been met: (A)(i) The chief engineer has determined that the average daily streamflow has been, or is likely to be, at or above the temporary surface water diversion threshold for a period oftime specified in K.A.R 5-15-4 or set by the chief engineer-according to K.A.R. 5-15-1(d);

and (ii) the chief engineer has determined that water is available to be diverted during that time period under the priority of water rights or approval of applications with a priority after April 12, 1984 without impairing senior water rights or senior water reservation rights." (B) The chief engineer has determined that it is no longer necessary to administer water rights and approval of applications to protect the minimum desirable streamflow set by K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto.

(2) The owner of the water right or approval of application shall properly install and.maintain a water flowmeter on all points of diversion authorized by the water rights or approval of applications in accordance with regulations adopted by the chief engineer.(3) The water right owner agrees that failure to abide by either ofthe following will result in the suspension of the water right or approval of application pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-737, and amendments thereto, for the remainder of the calendar year, and any other enforcement actions that may be authorized by law: (A) The terms of the IM4DS consent order; or (B) the terms, conditions, and limitations of the water right or approval of application.

(4) The water right owner agrees to comply with any other provisions that the chief engineer determines are necessary to prevent impairment, protect MDS values, and protect the public interest.(b) If the chief engineer determines that hydrologic conditions indicate that some groundwater will be available to be pumped in the basin during the next water-use season or year by water rights or approval of applications with a priority after April 12, 1984, the owner of the water right or approval of application may enter into an annual MDS consent order pursuant to K.A.R. 5-15-1(c)(1) to divert groundwater, upon approval of the chief engineer.

This consent order shall contain the following provisions:

(1) Whenever the chief engineer has determined that the administration of water rights and approval of applications to divert groundwater with a priority after April 12, 1984 is necessary to protect minimum desirable streamflows set by K-S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, groundwater shall not be diverted under the authority of the water right or approval of application M D unless the owner has been notified by the chief engineer by certified maiL personal notice, or other 1 1 verifiable means that one of the following conditions has been met: 2 (A) During MIDS administration during that calendar year, the owner is authorized to 1divert, pursuant to the owner's water right or approval of application, a quantity of water not to 0 " 6.. exceed that quantity of water set forth in KA.R 5-15-4 as the well pumping allowance.(B) The chief engineer has determined that it is no longer necessary to administer water rights and approvals of applications to protect the minimum desirable streamflows set by K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto.(2) The owner of the water right or approval of application shall properly install and maintain a water flowmeter on all points of diversion authorized by the water right or approval of application in accordance with regulations adopted by the chief engineer.(3) The total quantity ofwater authorized to be diverted under the water right or approval of application during a calendar year shall not exceed the annual quantity of water authorized.

(4) The water right owner agrees that failure to abide by either of the following will result in the suspension of the water right or approval of application for the remainder ofthe calendar year, and any other enforcement actions that may be authorized by law: (A) The terms of the MDS consent order; or (B) the terms, conditions, and limitations of the water right or approval of application.

(5) The water right owner agrees to comply with any other provisions that the chief engineer determines are necessary to prevent impairment, protect MDS values, and protect the public interest.

This regulation shall be effective on and after August 27, 2002. (Authorized by K.S.A. 82a-706a; implementing K.S.A. 82a-703a, 82a-703b, and 82a-703c, and K.S.A. 2001 Supp. 82a-737;effective, T-5-4-29-02, April 29, 2002; effective Aug. 27, 2002.)K.A.R. 5-15-3. Cessation of minimum desirable streamflow administration. (a) Except as specified in subsection (c), whenever the chief engineer determines that both of the conditions specified in subsection (b) have been met, the administration of water rights and approvals of applications with a priority after Apri1 12, 1984 to protect minimum desirable sýreamflows pursuant to K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, shall be declared-by the clhief engineer to be no longer necessary.

The owners of those water rights and approvals of applications shall be notified by the chief engineer by certified mail, personal notice, or other verifiable means that the owners may recommence diverting water in accordance with the terms, conditions, and limitations of their water rights or approvals of applications.(b)(1) The streamflows at the minimum desirable streamflow (MDS) gage have exceeded the streamflows established by YK S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto, for a period of 14 consecutive days.(2) If a significant alluvial aquifer exists, the average static water level in the alluvial aquifer has recovered sufficiently to maintain MDS in the stream.(c). Whenever the chief engineer determines that hydrologic conditions indicate that MDS values have been met or exceeded and are likely to be maintained for the foreseeable future, MDS administration may be declared by the chief engineer to be no longer necessary even if both of the conditions of subsection (b) have not been met.

11 K U,.E D 1 1 I/~'1*0 0 6 This regulation shall be effective on and after August 27, 2002. (Authorized by K.S.A. 82a-706a; implementing K.S.A. 82a-703a, 82a-703b, and 82a-703c; effective, T-5-4-29-02, April 29, 2002; effective Aug. 27, 2002.).K.A.R. 5-15-4. Standards for minimum desirable streamflow.

The streamflow trigger values, temporary surface water diversion thresholds, and well pumping allowances set forth in the following table shall be used whenever appropriate in these regulations.

MDS gaging strearflow.

trigger temporary surface well pumping stationn....

value water diversion allowance threshold Republican River 150 percent of the .115 percent of MDS 32 percent of the Concordia daily average MDS .value* for a period of maximum annual value* for the 60 at least five days. quantity of water that preceding days has not been diverted under the authority of that water right or approval of application, at the time MDS administration begins Republican River 150 percent of the 100 percent of MDS 32 percent of the Clay Center daily average MDS value* for a period of maximum annual value* for the 60 at least five days quantity of water that preceding days. has not been diverted under the authority of that water right or approval of application, at the time MDS administration begins* "MDS value" means the minimum desirable strearnflow value established by K.S.A. 82a-703c, and amendments thereto.

This regulation shall be effective on and after August 27, 2002. (Authorized by K.S.A. 82a-706a; implementing K.SA. 82a-703a, 82a-703b, and 82a-703c; effective, T-5-4-29-02, April 29,.2002; effective Aug. 27, 2002.)

56. Please provide actual historical data on water withdrawal volumes from the Neosho River.

Water Use/Water Quality Page 2 of 2-Historical information on how the water withdrawal controls have been implemented in the past. If there have never been any incidents where low water levels in the reservoir or low flow in the river have resulted in water withdrawal restrictions, then state this. If there have been incidents where the rights of any user (WCGS or any other user) have been restricted, provide information on the cause of the incident, length of duration, restrictions placed on which users, and any other relevant information.

• Please provide actual historical data on water withdrawal volumes from the Neosho River.-Groundwater levels were predicted to rise 45.8 feet within 100 feet of the site 50 years after the filling of CCL. The height of the ground water table was predicted to rise 0.4 feet, 2 miles from the site after the lake was filled. Please provide the elevation of the water table before the lake was filled and the current water table elevation.

• The groundwater flow direction was noted to be generally SW from WCGS to the Neosho River. Are there any localized groundwater flow directions to Wolf Creek (below CCL)?-Regarding water use conflicts at Wolf Creek, although the ER Section 4.1 indicates no surface water use conflicts, our Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GELS) for license renewal says (section 4.4.2.1, p. 4-52): "Two nuclear power plants, the Braidwood Station and Wolf Creek Generating Station, have already experienced wateruse conflicts." Furthermore, the GElS on p. 4-53 (left column, first full para) uses WCGS as an example of potential water use conflicts.

Water use conflicts at Wolf Creek are also cited in section 4.4.3, p. 4-57, left column. Although there seems to be a discrepancy, perhaps all water use conflicts have been solved. If so, Wolf Creek should provide this information.

-An assessment of the impact of population increases attributable to the proposed project on the public water supply, as per 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(I).

WATER USEJWATER QUALITY Please provide actual historical water withdrawals from Neosho River Water pumped from Neosho River, after being released from JRR.Ref. Annual Environmental Operating Reports, 1985 -2005 YEAR Billion Gallons of Water 1985 0.571 1986 0.465 1987 0.973 1988 3.876 1989 2.914 1990 2.583 1991 6.810 1992 0.484 1993 0.487 1994 2.639 1995 3.824 1996 5.030 1997 4.019 1998 1.448 1999 3.434 2000 3.942 2001 4.807 2002 4.728 2003 4.801 2004 4.920 2005 3.703 H.0 r"s X&AC"SC CCWAWk*.0.0.01 Iin May 1, 19 KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P. 0. Box 208 Wichita. Kansas 67201.bxc: 05/05/86 NAPetrick CJRoss/MEvans CTerrill/CLRoSsKRerowr/WCadman 501 GO ILRIfte9/620 GO RTerrill 702 GO JABailey/GRathbun/WCGS HLJohnson MS3-01 WGEales MS6-03 EWCreel/iWHutz RWHolloway DNO FTRhodes RMGrant/WJRudolph JZell OH arid:( 2)21j Records Mgmt MS 2-03 EDProthro/IDFile 202 GO mr. R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cammission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 U Re: Subj: 86-09 Docket No. STIR 50-482 Annual Environmental Operating Report

Dear Mr. Martin:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant.

to Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of March 11, 1985, to December 31, 1985.Yours very truly,, Original signed GLENN L. KOESTER 1-1 MXK: Bom cc: PO'Connor (2)XJ~tins Document Control Desk UCENSING ROUTING Vi1 NRCLK KMLNRC TE 40090-A nn L. Koester e President

-Nuclear TE 4ObY+w/a I J.1 TE 5000.!-00 Atwond CherrOff-Hall _______Paterson R~qhbu.n Chrone)IngicF't*CGS

&Chronobl.,akl-H

0.

H.'ITI 1, W.WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL NVIRONmENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1985 KANSAS GAS AND ELD-TRIC COMPANY I" 0.i.j: 0', KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

• 1.2.0 ENVIRONMETAL MONITORING

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

1.. .2.. .AQUATIC.

.........1.. **.....*****...*..66.*.000 1 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ....... 1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ........ 1 2.1.3 Cold Shock ....... .........

2 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment 2.....................

2 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River .............................

o...... 2 2. 2 TERRESTRIAL

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

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

...0 2 2.2.1 Control of" Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ....... 2 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake * .3 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

4........

3 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

..... 3 S2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program 0 ................

• .*..... 4 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program ...... ..........

4 2.2.7 Land Management Program ......................

...... 4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIRE2MENTS

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

3. 1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES .... ........3 2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIR AL REPORTS .. .. ........3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports ........,................

3.2.2 Unusual

or Important Enviromental Event Evaluations......

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL

NOtCOMPLI.ANCES ATrAQtM4ENT 1 SUMMtARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1985 4 4 5 5 5 6 H.':3*0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) has committed to minimizing the 0 impact of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WOGS) facility construction and operation on the environment.

The 1985 Annual..* Environmental Operating Report (AEOR) is being submitted in accordance 0 with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as O .required by Facility Operating License NPF-42, to demonstrate that the.* plant is- operating in an environmentally acceptable manner;2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.11...... 2--1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on- the Neosho River-WCGS has contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to remove 9,692,000,000 gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir.

In 1985, only 571,584,651 gallons or 5.9 percent of this allotment was........

used. Based on monitoring studies completed by Ecological-

-.Analysts,.-no changes attributable to these withdrawals have-been witnessed in river water quality or populations of....- *****. phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates or..fishes.

...2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Chlorine concentrations at the circulating water discharge structure to the cooling lake were postulated in the FES/-OLS (Section.4.2.6.l) to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l total residual chlorine (TRC). These values were expected to result from three 30-minute chlorine doses per day (411 lbs. per dose) and to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms.

The area in which aquatic biota could be adversely affected by chlorinated effluents was conservatively estimated at 40 acres (FES/OLS Section 5.5.2.2).Administered by the State of Kansas, the WCGS NPDES permit No. I-NE07-P002 limits circulating water TIC effluent values to a maximum of 0.2 mg/l and chlorination time to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below these allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages have averaged about 26 lbs. per dose and daily TIC compliance has been maintained at 100%, while operating time comp-liance has achieved 98%. These compliance figures resulted in an average 0.1 mg/l TIC effluent value and were tabu-lated for the first 310 days of NPDES permit monitoring, beginning on April 24, 1985. This average TRC value equals that concentration identified in the ER/OLS (Section 5.1.3)which was expected to have no meaningful effect on the overall biological productivity of the cooling lake.

H .o 2.1.3 Cold Shock 0[ In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level in winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to "cold shock", a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) stated, "Cold O3 shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause U.. significant mortality to aquatic. vspecies in the cooling lake". ....In. 1985, precipitous wintert4me.power, declines were avoided sufficiently to preclude any observable cold shock S.................

events. -...Re-evaluations.of -colid shock potential were made in light of elevated condenser delta T's experienced at both summer and wintertime water temperatures, and these summaries appear in Section 3.1 of this report..2. 1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of impingement and entrainment were projected to be significant in the WZGS EPP, with condenser mortality for entrained organisms expected to approach 100% [ER(OLS) Sec-tion 5.1.3.3].

Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor these impacts were not required-by the NRC and have not been implemented by KG&E.2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling-Lake Discharges to the Neosho River....WCL discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by WCGS NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are sporadic, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter.

Effluent parameters measured included a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentrations.

Wolf Creek additions to the Neosho River are regulated to maintain a zone of passage for aquatic organisms at the confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowable from Wolf Creek may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon thesimilarity between Wolf Creek and Neosho 0 River water quality and temperature, with a maximum of 90 F allowable in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone. In 1985, no NPDES violations at the dam (Outfall 004) were recorded.

Based on monitoring studies by Ecological Analysts, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality on phytoplankton, macroinvertebrate or fish populations.

2. 2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station H.-7 rIi 0 facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type 0 condition.

Landscaping and grass establishment have not o) been entirely completed to date, however all areas have o been mowed at least once annually for security and W aesthetic purposes.

No restoration areas (areas not to .be mowed) were established within the exclusion zone.0.JL_ ..2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a buffer zone around WOCL, all agricultural pro-.....duction activities were curtailed..in 1980.below elevation 1095' MSL, eight feet above WOCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were allowed to return to a natural......................

state. -Cultivated lands were -allowed to- -advance through natural successional stages. Land management activites specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures No herbicides were applied on WCGS -associated power transmission line corridors in 1985.--Herbicide-was applied -on- the WCGS switchyard facilities on June 17, 1985. A soil sterilant consisting of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247 and approved for use in Kansas) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401 and approved for use in Kansas) per 100 gallons of water was applied at a rate of 20-50 gallons per acre. Application was completed by a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No noteworthy applications of herbicides were applied on other WCGS facilities during the period addressed by this report.2.2.4 waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan involving both state and federal personnel has been formulated to provide guid-ance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

During routine wildlife monitor-ing and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

H, 47, G.2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]N), 0 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and 0. continued through 1985. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U.S. .75 near New Strawn, Kansas. A 0 summary of the 1984 Visibility Monitoring Report is included in Attachment 1 of this report and the entire V report is available for review at the WGS job-site.4- 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. This included a general survey program for waterfowl collision events. As outlined in the 1984/85 annual wildlife study plan, specific objec-tives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and Bald Eagle usage of WO3CL, to assess- transmission line collision mortality of waterfowl.

using IWCL, to maintain a wildlife species list, and- -to ..... -develop an annual wildlife report. This report is summar-ized in Attachment 1 and is available for review in its.entirety at the ICGS job-site.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except-the-453 ha (1120- acre)- W-GS exclusion area -were designed to achieve balances between agricultural produc-tion and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted tech-niques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wild-life management.

These included construction or repair of livestock fences and ponds, and construction or establish-ment of terraces, waterways, permanent vegetative cover, and shelterbelts.

The 1985 Land Management report is available for review at the WCGS job-site.

A summary appears in Attachment 1 of this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC!TION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Plant

Design or Operating Changes [EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operating changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant Modification Request (PMR) or operating change which received an environmental evaluation prior to implementation in 1985 is presented.

H, Evaluation 85-01 -WCGS Operation at Elevated Condenser Delta T's K)0 Periodic loss of one of the three circulating water intake"0' pumps for maintenance has resulted in increased heating of the reduced cooling water volume. The maximum 3 pump condenser

-\ delta T postulated in the FES (OLS) Section 4.2.6.3 was 31.5;F 0 and delta T's 6t 2 pump, 100% power operation are now projected L.. to approach 42 F. Because licensing documents-predicted"significant" discharge cove cold shock mortality in the-event of a midwinter plant trip and 100% entrainment mortality during*. routine operation, an increase in delta T should not fundamentally alter the magnitudes of these impacts.Additionally, this will not likely impinge on NPDES limitations for the temperatures of discharges into the Neosho River.Therefore, operation at elevated condenser delta T's was-,----approved.Evaluation 85-02 -Late Spring, Sumner, and Early Fall Operation at Elevated Condenser Delta T's The potential for cold shock in the WCGS discharge cove has been evaluated as problematic during the coldest months[FES(CP) Section 5.5.2.3].

Hence, this evaluati 8 n approved prolonged operation at elevated delta T's (>31.5 F) from late spring-through early fall when-WDCL-fishes avoid the immediate discharge area due to higher-than-preferred temperatures.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments which involved a potentially signifi-cant unreviewed environmental question in 1985.3.2 Non-Routine Environmental Reports [EPP Subsection 5.4.2]3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports No non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact were submitted to- the NRC from March through Decem-ber 1985. The single unusual or important environmental event evaluation completed during this period is summarized in the following section.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations May 20, 1985 Fish Kill in Construction Pond 3A On May 17, hydrazine and ammonia was inadvertently released from the condenser to the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake through NPDES Outfall 002. The hydrazine comibined with the free oxygen in the water resulted in.a number of fish dying from oxygen starvation in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. The loss of these fish had little to no impact on the cooling lake and resulted in no offsite impact.Therefore it was determined that this event was not reportable pursuant to EPP Sections 4.1 and 5.4.2.

(71 D.3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WZ(S in 1985, all envirom-ental noncompliances were recorded along with the events surrounding them. The noncomlxiances of interest were of two types, either deviations from NPDES permit limitations or short-term fog visicneter malfunctions..

These nonconpliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP Section 5.4.1. All 1985 environmental noncompliances are available for review at the WZCS job-site.4 rfl 0..0 0 U'4: ATrTACMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS' AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1985 Kansas Gas and Electric Coapany Envi ronmental Management Burlington, Kansas H 1. 1985 LAND MANAGEM1ENT REPORT In keeping with annual land management plan guidelines, an annual progress report was formulated.

Land maintenance items outside the exclusion zone involved stock pond and fence construction or repair. Improvenent activi-ties included native grass seeding and shelterbelt establishment.

Grazing, haying, and cultivation lease control were primary mechanisms used for 0 managing company land resources for both agricultural benefits and U1: enhancement of wildlife, soil, and native plant resources.

2. 1985 EA, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TBCHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENAL MONITORING REPORT Environmental monitoring performed by EA, Engineering, Science, and Tech-nology,. Inc.,. in 1985 included those tasks done.in..1984 plus bottom-to-....

surface dissolved oxygen profiles on WCCL and Neosho River benthic and fish community sampling.

Seasonal mean concentrations of water quality parameters during 1985 were within previously established ranges for the Neosho River. Unusually high precipitation resulted in consistently elevated flows, resulting in chlorophyll concentrations and carbon fixation " rates near the previously recorded minima. Similarly, highly variable river.fishery and macroinvertebrate data show no long-term patterns, differences between upstream and downstream locations, or alterations attributable to plant construction and/or operation.

Cooling lake water quality has been* uniform among locations.

with dissolved and suspended constituents having shown declining trends since lake filling, indicating an improvement in overall water quality and no adverse impacts from plant operations.

The WCCL macroinvertebrate population is fairly typical of midwestern reservoirs, with locational dissimilarities reflecting primarily depth and substrate differences.

Operation of WCGS has caused no apparent changes in the cooling lake benthos camunity in 1985. Lastly, groundwater monitoring in the WCGS vicinity since 1973 indicated the well water to be very hard and to contain high levels of dissolved constituents.

These observations have not altered since the filling of WCCL or since WCGS has been constructed and begun operation.

3. 1984 BCOLOGICAL ANALYSTS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT Environmental monitoring completed by Ecological Analysts in 1984 included studies on the Neosho River, WOCL, and adjacent lands. Items accomplished by this study were: 1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and cooling lake 2. determination of general groundwater quality in the vicinity of the facility 3. characterization of the cooli~g lake benthic community I.

H-.a~..4. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and cooling lake L 5. determination of zooplankton biomass in the cooling lake 0 b4 In addition to the above specific objectives, the studies documented nat-'\" u rally occurring variations in the aquatic communities of the Neosho River o' and cooling lake. Study results have shown that chemical and biological changes in WCCL have followed the trends expected for a newly impounded reservoir.

Water quality and biological parameters in the Neosho River show patterns dependent primarily on John Redmond Reservoir releases.4. 1984 PREOPERATIONAL FISHERY MONITORING REPORT Fishery. monitoring surveys were conducted..on WCL. near..WGS, from April 1984 through October 1984. Collection methods employed included seining, electrofishing, otter trawling, gill and fyke netting. These resulted in the collection of 8,221 fish representing 10 families and 27 species. Data collected and data from the 1983 Fishery Report were used to describe the--fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of--increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Plant construction during this period resulted in no observed impacts to the fishery. As in 1983, black bullheads ranked first in numbers caught, with gizzard shad and bluegills/Lepomis spp. following and black crappie and largemouth bass at fifth and sixth, respectively.

Black bullheads also dominated biomass measurements, making up 16.3% of the total. These were followed by largemouth bass (13.6%), walleye (10.0%), common carp (9.5%), wiper (9.2%) and gizzard shad (5.7%). Relative biomass values reflected an unusually high ratio of predator fi'sh to roughfish when compared with other midwestern reservoirs.

This ratio was attributed primarily to pre-impoundIent renovation and stocking efforts and high predator diversity.

Average growth rates and condition (Wr or KTL) of predators (largemouth bass, wipers, and black crappie) were-at or above Kansas and regional averages while walleyes were the only species examined which showed below average condition.

Proportional and Relative Stock Densities (PSD and RSD)were calculated for the most important WCCL species and found to be increasing as initial year classes grow into the larger size categories.

Changing predator/prey interactions were considered along with the effect of submersed macrophyte (Potamogeton) growth in predicting a decline in initial, rapid predator growth rates with a-continuation of the observed predator dominance over gizzard shad. Data for 1985 in this area has not been ccmpletely compiled but will be reported in a supplement to this re-port.5. 1984 ANNUAL VISIBILITY REPORT Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. Route 75 in New Strawn, Kansas. The site chosen for monitoring was considered conservative due the relatively high frequency of cooling lake-induced fog predicted to occur at this location, as well as the theoretical impact of increased fogging on traffic safety along Route 75.

H Preliminary results based on data collected in 1984 during the preopera-tional period indicated that the frequency of natural fog at Wolf Creek was in general agreement with climatological averages of fog occurrence in the 1-J region. Fog episodes were more numerous, lasted longer, and were more in-0 tense during cooler months of the year. On a daily basis, early morning was 0 the most favorable period for fog development.

Most fog episodes were of W, relatively short duration, lasting an average of about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.O visibility data will be collected through the first year of plant operations M in order to quantify changes, if any, in the frequency, intensity, and dura-tion of fog at the monitoring site. These data will be analyzed by compari-son with data from the meteorological tower at Wolf Creek to determine the extent of cooling lake effects on local fogging. Data for 1985 in this area has not been completely compiled but will be reported in a supplenent to this report.6. 1984-1985 WILDLIFE MONITORING REPORT Wildlife monitoring studies were conducted in the vicininty of WCGS from September 1984 through April 1985. Use of WOCL by wildlife was determined especially for waterfowl, waterbirds, and Bald Eagles. Bird mortality due to collisions with transmission lines traversing 1V=L was assessed.

With* special attention to threatened and endangered species, records of all manmals, birds, and herptiles observed were maintained for comparisons to past construction and preoperational studies conducted since 1973.A total of 145 avian species were observed during the 1984-1985 monitoring program. The most abundant species were the mallard and american coot, which comprised 34.2 and 19.2 percent respectively.

Comparative use of the coo1ing-lake and John Redmond Reservoir by waterfowl and waterbirds was determined.

Of the commonly observed species, only the american coot used WCCL to a greater extent than John Redmond Reservoir.

Comparative use between five cooling lake areas was determined with pondweed (Potamogeton) concentrations within WCCL generally being used to a greater degree.Transmission line collision surveys revealed 30 mortalities representing 10 species. No mortalities of threatened or endangered species were observed.Twenty-five percent of those individuals identified were not waterbird species and were considered incidental mortalities not influenced by WCCL attraction.

No significant avian mortality due to transmission line impaction was observed.Twenty-three mammal and 16 herptile species were observed in the vicinity of WCGS during the 1984-1985 monitoring.

One mammal and two reptiles were not previously documented.

No threatened or endangered species were observed.The Bald Eagle, prairie falcon and interior least tern represented the threatened or endangered bird species observed in the vicinity of WCGS.Bald Eagles were common winter residents and fed on fish and weakened waterfowl.

Eagles in the vicinity of WCGS used the cooling lake solely as a feeding and loafing site, however not to the extent observed on John Redmond Reservoir.

No Bald Eagles were observed roosting on W1CL. The prairie falcon and interior least tern are two species which migrate through the area and are expected to be observed occasionally in the future. Data for 1985 in this area has not been completely compiled but will be reported inca supplement to this report.

.oM. tiO Lt Ill EKE 0.0i\W-T4~TITI1~I ~uJ__ ~-' 0~~~ ~KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY P.O. Box 208 Wichita. Kansas 67201 bcc: 6/18/86 NAPetrick CJRoss/MEvans CTerrill/CLRoss KRBrown/WCadman 501 GO June 16, 19 8 6 RLRives/620 GO RTerrill 702 GO JABailey WCGS JPippin MS3-01 WGEales MS6-03 EWCreel /MJohnson MS 7-01 WLMutz MS7-03 RWHolloway DNO FTRhodes RMGrant /WJRudolph JZell Ljaynard (2)Records Mgmt MS2-03 EDProthro/IDFile 202 GO Reports, Revision 1 U p Y Mr. R. D. Martin, Regional Administrator U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region IV 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite lgo Arlington, Texas 76011 Re: Subj: 86-111 Docket No. STN 50-482 Annual Environmental Operating

Dear Mr. Martin:

Enclosed is Revision 1 to the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of March 11, 1985, to December 31, 1985.This revision is being issued to include data that was not completely compiled when the original report was issued. Revision bars have been added in the right hand margin to indicate the changes from the original report.Also, the letter number of the original report was incorrectly labeled KM[AC 86-077 and should have been KMLNRE 86-082.If you have any questions please contact me or Mr. 0. L. Maynard of my staff. .Yours very truly, Original signed JOHN A. BAILEY for/Glenn L. Koester Vice President

-Nuclear GLK:see cc: PO'Connor (2)DcM.minC Document Control Desk (18) 0 0 0*WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMNTAL OPERATING REPORT 1985 KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY

.7 0" KANSAS GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY I71. WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 0 1985 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 0 0i. 0 INTRODU CT ON ................................

.. ... ......... ..2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING 1..................

....... .... 1 0 S2.1 AQUATIC ...........

.... ......2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ....... I 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ....... 1 2.1.3 Cold Shock ................

• 6...........*

....... .. 2 2. 1. 4 Impingement and Entrainment

... * .............

2 2. 1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River .........

...........

.. .2 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

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

2 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ...........

.2 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ........ ..... .......3 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

3 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

..... 3 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program ........ * .............

.....*. ...... 4 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program .........................

4 2. 2.7 Land Management Program ....................

....... 4 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMNITS

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

4 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES .........

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

4 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ............................

5 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports ........ .................

5 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

...........

5 3 3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

..........

6 ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1985

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Kansas Gas and Electric Company (KG&E) has committed to minimizing the impact of the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) facility 0. construction and operation on the environment.

The 1985 Annual 0 .Environmental Operating Report (AEOR) is being submitted in accordance U with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42, to demonstrate that the plant is operating in an environmentally acceptable manner.0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River WCGS has contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to remove 9,692,000,000 gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir.

In 1985, only 571,584,651 gallons or 5.9 percent of this allotment was used. Based on monitoring studies completed by Ecological Analysts, no changes attributable to these withdrawals have been witnessed in river water quality or populations of phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates or fishes.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Chlorine concentrations at the circulating water discharge structure to the cooling lake were postulated in the FES/-OLS (Section 4.2.6.1) to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l total residual chlorine (TRC). These values were expected to result from three 30-minute chlorine doses per day (411 lbs. per dose) and to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms.

The area in which aquatic biota could be adversely affected by chlorinated effluents was conservatively estimated at 40 acres (FES/OLS Section 5.5.2.2).Administered by the State of Kansas, the WCGS NPDES permit No. I-NE07-P002 limits circulating water TRC effluent values to a maximum of 0.2 mg/l and chlorination time to 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below these allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages have averaged about 26 lbs. per dose and daily TRC compliance has been maintained at 100%, while operating time cow-liance has achieved 98%. These compliance figures resulted in an average 0.1 mg/l TRC effluent value and were tabu-lated for the first 310 days of NPDES permit monitoring, beginning on April 24, 1985. This average TFC value equals that concentration identified in the ER/OLS (Section 5.1.3)which was expected to have no meaningful effect on the overall biological productivity of the cooling lake..1 H" r11 Oi 2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level in winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to "cold shock", a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) stated, "Cold Ltj shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling 0' lake". In 1985, precipitous wintertime power declines were U! -avoided sufficiently to preclude any observable cold shock events. Re-evaluations of cold shock potential were made in light of elevated condenser delta T's experienced at both summer and wintertime water temperatures, and these summaries appear in Section 3.1 of this report.2. 1.4 Impingement and Entrairxnent Impacts of impingement and entrainment were projected to be significant in the 1'CGS EPP, with condenser mortality for entrained organisms expected to approach 100% [ER(OLS) Sec-tion 5.1.3.31.

Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor these impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented by .FG&E.2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River WOCL discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by WCGS NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are sporadic, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter.

Effluent parameters measured included a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentrations.

Wolf Creek additions to the Neosho River are regulated to maintain a zone of passage for aquatic organism at the confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowable from Wolf Creek may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon the similarity between Wolf Creek and Neosh8 River water quality and temperature, with a maximum of 90 F allowable in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone. In 1985, no NPDES violations at the dam (Outfall 004) were recorded.

Based on monitoring itudies by Ecological Analysts, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality on phytoplankton,.macroinvertebrate or fish populations.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

(EPP Section 2.21 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station Il" facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Landscaping and grass establishment have not NO been entirely completed to date, however all areas have 0 been mowed at least once annually for security and 0 aesthetic purposes.

No restoration areas (areas not to be mowed) were established within the exclusion zone.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake 0 Lq To create a buffer zone around WOML, all agricultural pro-duction activities were curtailed in 1980 below elevation 1095' MSL, eight feet above WO- normal operating surface-r water elevation (1087' MSL). Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were allowed to return to a natural state. Cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages. Land management activites specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures No herbicides were applied on WCGS -associated power transmission line corridors in 1985.Herbicide was applied on the WCGS switchyard facilities on June 17, 1985. A soil sterilant consisting of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247 and approved for use in Kansas) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401 and approved for use in Kansas) per 100 gallons of water was applied at a rate of 20-50 gallons per acre. Application was completed by a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Department bf Agriculture.

No noteworthy applications of herbicides were applied on other WCGS facilities during the period addressed by this report.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan involving both state and federal personnel has been formulated to provide guid-ance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

During routine wildlife monitor-ing and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

DI.C) 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and Ncontinued through 1985. The purpose of this study has been C to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL.0 on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. A w summary of fog monitoring activities is included in Attachment 1 of this report. Additional documentation is available for review at the WCGS job-site.2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. This included a general survey program for waterfowl collision events. As outlined in the 1984/85 annual wildlife study plan, specific objec-tives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and Bald Eagle usage of W=L, to assess transmission line collision mortality of waterfowl using WCCL, to maintain a wildlife species list, and to develop an annual wildlife report. Wildlife monitoring activities are summarized in Attachment

1. Additional documentation is available for review at the WCGS job-site.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural produc-.--tion- and conservation-values.---An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted tech-niques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wild-life management.

These included construction or repair of livestock fences and ponds, and construction or establish-ment of terraces, waterways, permanent vegetative cover, and shelterbelts.

The 1985 Land Management report is available for review at the WCGS job-site.

A summary appears in Attachment 1 of this report.3.0 ENVIRONMEnTAL PRODTcr-ION PLAN REPORTING REQuIRmuwENTS

3.1 Plant

Design or Operating Changes [EPP Section 3.11 Proposed plant design and operating changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant Modification Request (PMR) or operating change which received an environmental evaluation prior to implementation in 1985 is presented.

H'7 0 Evaluation 85-01 -WCGS Operation at Elevated Condenser Delta T'S Periodic loss of one of the three circulating water intake pumps for maintenance has resulted in increased heating of the reduced cooling water volume. The maxim=m 3 pump condenser 0 delta T postulated in the FES(OLS) Section 4.2.6.3 was 31. 5 F and delta T's Bt 2 pump, 100% power operation are now projected to approach 42 F. Because licensing documents predicted 0 "significant" discharge cove cold shock mortality in the event of a midwinter plant trip and 100% entrainment mortality during routine operation, an increase in delta T should not fundamentally alter the magnitudes of these impacts.-r Additionally, this will not likely impinge on NPDES limitations for the temperatures of discharges into the Neosho River.Therefore, operation at elevated condenser delta T's was approved.Evaluation 85-02 -Late Spring, Summer, and Early Fall Operation at Elevated Condenser Delta T's The potential for cold shock in the WCGS discharge cove has been evaluated as problematic during the coldest months[FES (CP) Section 5.5.2.31.

Hence, this evaluati 8 n approved prolonged operation at elevated delta T's (>31.5 F) from late spring through early fall when WCCL' fishes avoid the immediate discharge area due to higher-than-preferred temperatures.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments which involved a potentially signifi-cant unreviewed environmental question in 1985.3.2 Non-Routine Environmental Reports [EPP Subsection 5.4.2]3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports No non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact were submitted to the NRC from March through Decem-ber 1985. The single unusual or important environmental event evaluation completed during this period is summarized-in the following section.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations May 20, 1985 Fish Kill in Construction Pond 3A On May 17, hydrazlne and ammonia was inadvertently released from the condenser to the wolf Creek Cooling Lake through NPDES Outfall 002. The hydrazine combined with the free oxygen in the water resulted in a number of fish dying from oxygen starvation in the immediate vicinity of the outfall. The loss of these fish had little to no impact on the cooling lake and resulted in no offsite impact.Therefore it was determined that this event was not reportable pursuant to EPP Secilons 4.1 and 5.4.2.

,;-7 ITI 3 -- 3.3 Environmental Noncocmpliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]0 At WCGS in 1985, all environmental noncompliances were recorded 01' along with the events surrounding them.. The noncompliances of 0 interest were of two types, either deviations from NPDES permit limitations or short-term fog visiometer malfunctions.

These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable

0. pursuant to EPP Section 5.4.1. All 1985 environmental M nonccmpliances are available for review at the OGS job-site.

m 0.Wi ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVI RONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1985 Kansas Gas and Electric Ccnparny Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas m Oi 1. 1985 LAND MANAGEMENT REPORT In keeping with annual land management plan guidelines, an annual progress Ki'- report was formulated.

Land maintenance items outside the exclusion zone o. involved stock pond and fence construction or repair, Improvement activi-O ties included native grass seeding and shelterbelt establishment.

Grazing, W4 haying, and cultivation lease control were primary mechanisms used for managing company land resources for both agricultural benefits and enhancenent of wildlife, soil, and native plant resources.

0 Lq 2. 1985 EA, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONME2NTAL MONITORING REPORT 4I: Environmental monitoring performed by EA, Engineering, Science, and Tech-nology Inc., in 1985 included those tasks done in 1984 plus bottom-to-surface dissolved oxygen profiles on W'CL and Neosho River benthic and fish community sampling.

Seasonal mean concentrations of water quality parameters during 1985 were within previously established ranges for the Neosho River. Unusually high precipitation resulted in consistently elevated flows, resulting in chlorophyll concentrations and carbon fixation rates near the previously recorded minima. similarly, highly variable river fishery and macroinvertebrate data show no long-term patterns, differences between upstream and downstream locations, or alterations attributable to plant construction and/or operation.

Cooling lake water quality has" been uniform among locations with dissolved and suspended constituents having shown declining trends since lake filling, indicating an improvement in overall water quality and no adverse impacts from plant operations.

The W macroinvertebrate population is fairly typical of midwestern reservoirs, with locational dissimilarities reflecting primarily depth and substrate differences.

Operation of WCGS has caused no apparent changes in the cooling lake benthos community in 1985. Lastly, groundwater monitoring in the WCGS vicinity since 1973 indicated the well water to be very hard and to contain high levels of dissolved constituents.

These observations have not altered since the filling of WCCL or since WCGS has been constructed and begun operation.

3. 1984 ECOLOGICAL ANALYSTS ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT Environmental monitoring completed by Ecological Analysts in 1984 included studies on the Neosho River, WOCL, and adjacent lands. Items accomplished by this study were: 1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and cooling lake 2. determination of general groundwater quality in the vicinity of the facility 3. characterization of the cooling lake benthic community H 4. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River andcooling lake M 5. determination of zooplankton biomass in the cooling lake 0 In addition to the above specific objectives, the studies documented nat-0 urally occurring variations in the aquatic communities of the Neosho River and cooling lake. Study results have shown that chemical and biological changes in WXCL have followed the trends expected for a newly impounded o reservoir.

Water quality and biological parameters in the Neosho River show tln. patterns dependent primarily on John Redmond Reservoir releases.4. FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 1984 Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WOCL near WCGS, from April 1984 through October 1984. Collection methods employed included seining, electrofishing, otter trawling, gill and fyke netting. These resulted in the collection of 8,221 fish representing 10 families and 27 species. Data collected and data from the 1983 Fishery Report were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Plant construction during this period resulted in no observed impacts to the fishery. As in 1983, black bullheads ranked first in numbers caught, with gizzard shad and bluegills/tepomis spp. following and black crappie and larganouth bass at fifth an sithIi, respectively.

Black bullheads also dominated biomass measurements, making up 16.3% of the total. These were followed by largemouth bass (13.6%), walleye (10. 0%), common carp (9. 5%), wiper (9.2%) and gizzard shad (5.7%). Relative biomass values reflected an unusually high ratio of predator fish to roughfish when compared with other midwestern reservoirs.

This ratio was attributed primarily to pre-impoundment renovation and stocking efforts and high predator diversity.

Average growth rates and condition (Wr or KTL) of predators (largemouth bass, wipers, and-black crappie) were-at or above Kansas and regional averages while walleyes were the only species examined which showed below average condition.

Proportional and Relative Stock Densities (PSD and RSD)were calculated for the most important WCCL species and found to be increasing as initial year classes grow into the larger size categories.

Changing predator/prey interactions were considered along with the effect of submersed macrophyte (Potamogeton) growth in predicting a decline in initial, rapid predator growth rates with a continuation of the observed predator dominance over gizzard shad.

.1.0 1985 Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on W'CL from March through December 1985. As in the past, collection methods used included seining, 0 electrofishing, otter trawling, gill and fyke netting. The total catch consisted of 12,128 fish representing 32 species. Relative abundances in 1985 from a standardized sampling effort showed a drop from 20.0% in 1984 to 1) 5.8% for black bullheads while bluegill/Lepomis spp. jumped from 29.0 to 38.7%. Largemouth bass increased 9.9% t-o 13.9 and gizzard shad declined 0 from 18.6 to 5.2%. These same trends, however, were not reflected in In relative biomasses from standardized catches. Wipers, showing little change in relative abundance between years, more than doubled in percent biomass--(9.2 versus 20.8%), indicating growth of the 1981 year class. Gizzard shad biomass fell from 5.7 to 2.2%. The marked increases in W10L centrarchid abundances were not reflected in their bionasses, with largemouth bass increasing only 3.1 and bluegill/Lepomis spp. rising even less. This was due to the preponderance of the catch being small, newly hatched fish caught seining and trawling.

Increases in these fishes were predicted as Potamogeton growth expanded due to their dependence on cover for protection and for the food associated with it. As in the past, relative biomass data indicated an unusually high predator/prey ratio. Growth rates of the 1981 wiper and largemouth bass year classes declined during 1985. Gizzard shad condition (Wr) increased to approximately 95 and average largemouth bass Wr remained in The 95-105 range, with 100 being the North American average.Wiper condition (K,,) declined from 1.30 in 1984 to 1.16 in 1985. Marked declines in wiper and condition were likely attributed to the reduced number and bicmass of gizzard shad, their primary forage.Plant operational effects on WCCL fishes observed in 1985 varied with plant mode of operation and with seasonal temperature changes. Operation of the circulating water system in spring prior-to thermal inputs attracted to the discharge high densities of all three WCCL Morone species because they require flowing water when spawning.

Later, 7argemouth and smallmouth bass, channel catfish, and gizzard shad were also attracted.

Throughout summer as ambient lake temperatures rose, plant power bevel also increased, thus elevating discharge temperatures to above 90 F and out of the preferred range for WCCL fishes, creating an area of avoidance.

During that time, any prolonged drop in plant power level which reduced discharge temperatures below approximately 90 F precipitated a return of fishes to the discharge area. In November and December, as ambient temperatures fell, discharge temperatures were once again attractive, and high fish densities returned.Studies were initiated to monitor the delta T caused by condenser passage'as it affected discharge temperature and temperatures throughout the discharge cove.In summary, through 1985 the WOCL predator population continued to develop and function unusually well to control gizzard shad and keep impingement rates low. While WCGS operations caused the changes in the discharge cove fish distribution which were predicted in the ER(CP) and the FES(CP), data indicate no decernable negative impacts to date on WOCL fishes either locally in the discharge cove, or in the lake as a whole..I N.7 r. 5. FOG MONITORING ACTIVITIES SVisibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WXCL on fog occurrence along U.S. Route 75 in New Strawn, Kansas. The site chosen for monitoring was considered 0 conservative due the relatively high frequency of cooling lake-induced fog 0 predicted to occur at this location, as well as the theoretical impact of increased fogging on traffic safety along Route 75.0 1984 Preliminary results based on data collected in 1984 during the preopera-tional period indicated that the frequency of natural fog at Wolf Creek was in general agreement with climatological averages of fog occurrence in the region. Fog episodes were more numerous, lasted longer, and were more in-tense during cooler months of the year. On a daily basis, early morning was the most favorable period for fog development.

Most fog episodes were of relatively short duration, lasting an average of about 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />.Visibility data will be collected through the first year of plant operations in order to quantify changes, if any, in the frequency, intensity, and dura-tion of fog at the monitoring site. These data will be analyzed by compari-son with data from the meteorological tower at Wolf Creek to determine the extent of cooling lake effects on local fogging.1985 Visibility was monitored at New- Strawn,. Kansas during 8-months -in 1985.Approximately 220 hours0.00255 days <br />0.0611 hours <br />3.637566e-4 weeks <br />8.371e-5 months <br /> of fog were detected at the monitoring site, compared to the 1984 total of 122 hours0.00141 days <br />0.0339 hours <br />2.017196e-4 weeks <br />4.6421e-5 months <br />. Since visibility was monitored for a comparable number of hours during both years, this change represents a substantial increase in the frequency of fog occurence from the previous year. The change can be partially attributed to the fact that visibility was monitored more intensively during the winter months in 1985 compared to the previous year. In fact, about 100 hours0.00116 days <br />0.0278 hours <br />1.653439e-4 weeks <br />3.805e-5 months <br /> of fog were recorded during January and February of 1985, a period for which visibility data was not available during 1984.It should also be noted that the majority of fog episodes were recorded in the months of January through May. This represents the pre-operational period for Wolf Creek Generating Station, which received it's full power operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on June 4, 1985.Since visibility was monitored during only three months of the operational period in 1985, there is insufficient data at this point to draw conclusions concerning the effects of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake operations on the frequency of fog along Route 75 in New Strawn.

H.-7 0 In addition to the increase in total fog-hours during 1985, corresponding increases in heavy and dense fog were also seen at the monitoring site.Heavy fog (hourly average visibility less than 1 mile) was recorded on 25 Kj days during 1985. Compared to 12 days in 1984. The incidence of dense fog 0 (visibility less than 1/4 mile during any part of an hour) was also O; approximately twice the 1984 total. In general, the Intensity of fog episodes was greatest during the first quarter of the year.0 6. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES September 1984 through April 1985 4: Wildlife monitoring studies were conducted in the vicininty of WCGS fromv September 1984 through April 1985. Use of WCCL by wildlife was determined especially for waterfowl, waterbirds, and Bald Eagles. Bird mortality due to collisions with transmission lines traversing WCCL was assessed.

With special attention to threatened and endangered species, records of all marmmals, birds, and herptiles observed were maintained for comparisons to past construction and preoperational studies conducted since 1973.A total of 145 avian species were observed during the 1984-1985 monitoring program. The most abundant species were the mallard and american coot, which comprised 34.2 and 19.2 percent respectively.

Comparative use of the cooling lake and John Redmond Reservoir by waterfowl and waterbirds was determined..

Of the commonly observed species, only the american coot used WOCL to a greater extent than John Redmond Reservoir.

Comparative use between five cooling lake areas was determined with pondweed (Potamogeton)-concentrations within WOCL generally being. used-to a greater-degree.

Transmission line collision surveys revealed 30 mortalities representing 10 species. No mortalities of threatened or endangered species were observed.Twenty-five percent of those individuals identified were not waterbird species and were considered incidental mortalities not influenced by W attraction.

No significant avian mortality due to transmission line impaction was observed.Twenty-three manmal and 16 herptile species were observed in the vicinity of WCGS during the 1984-1985 monitoring.

One mammal and two reptiles were not previously documented.

No threatened or endangered species were observed.The Bald Eagle, prairie falcon and interior least tern represented the threatened or endangered bird species observed in the vicinity of WCGS.Bald Eagles were common winter residents and fed on fish and weakened waterfowl.

Eagles in the vicinity of WCGS used the cooling lake solely as a feeding and loafing site, however not to the extent observed on John Redmond Reservoir.

No Bald Eagles were observed roosting on WOCL. The prairie falcon and interior least tern are two species which migrate through the area and are expected to be observed occasionally in the future.

.7.I::;,May 1985 through December 1985 Kid This synopsis provides a summary of data collected from May through December 1985 as part of the 1985-1986 operational wildlife monitoring program. Use of by waterfowl, waterbirds, and Bald Eagles was assessed from September through December 1985. Records of all mammals, birds, and herptiles observed were maintained for comparisons to past construction and preoperational studies conducted since 1973. Special attention was given to 0 -both state and federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species during all observations.

-- A total of 131 avian species were observed during the 1985 monitoring.

The most abundant species were the Amerian coot, Franklin's gull, and mallard.These species have commonly been observed during all preoperational studies.Other species totals that increased from the same time period during 1984 include the common merganser (77 percent), American wigeon (18 percent) and Canada goose (2 percent).

Apparent factors that have influenced usage of WCL during 1985 continue to include relatively clear water, secluded wind protected areas, and concentrations of aquatic weed growth. The lake and land management activities surrounding it have continued to provide foraging, loafing, and nesting habitats.Transmission line collision surveys in 1985 revealed 19 mortalities representing 11 different species. These surveys were conducted from September through December 1985. No mortalities of threatened and endangered species were observed.

Twenty-one percent of the specimens found were not water-related birds and were considered incidental mortalities not influenced by WOCL attraction.

This percentage compares closely with those observed during preoperational studies. Collision rates were 25 percent lower than .those observed during the same time period -in 1984. No significant avian mortality due to transmission line impaction was observed.Twenty-five mammal and 12 herptile species were observed in the vicinity of WCGS during 1985 monitoring.

No new species were identified.

No threatened or endangered mammal or herptile species were observed.There were three threatened or endangered avian species observed in the vicinity of WCGS. These included the Bald Eagle, prairie falcon, and interior least tern. As during preoperational observations, Bald Eagles were common winter residents.

Eagles in the vicinity of WCGS used the cooling lake solely as a feeding and loafing site, however not to the extent observed on John Redmond Reservoir.

No changes in Bald Eagle usage of WXL due to station operation were identified.

The prairie falcon and interior least tern are two species which migrate through the area and are expected to be observed occasionally in the future.

I5e W~IF NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 0 0 April 29, 1987 o-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, D. C. 20555 LUtter: ET 87-0166 Re: Docket No. 50-482 Subj: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period or January 1, 1986 to December 31, 1986.Very truly yours, John A. Bailey" Vice-President Engineering and Technical Services JAB:jad Enclosure cc: PO'Connor (2)RMartin JCummins P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer MtFHCIVET.* " .

3* ~zI 0r I-n WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION DOCKET NO. 50-'482 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1986 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GROUP WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 PUBLISHED APRIL 1987 PREPARED BY DAN HAINES BART VINCE BRAD LOVELESS M Page 1 of 18 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 0 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION a 1986 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

...........

...... .. ......*.. 2 0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING o.............................

.... 2 2. 1 AQUATIC ... o ... ...............

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

• ... 2?.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ...... 2 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake .........

2 2.1.3 Cold Shock ...................

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

3 2, 1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

"*3 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ........................................

3 2.2 TERRESTRIAL.................

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

o... 4 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .........

4 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ...... .....*..........I.

.... 4 2.263 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

Al 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

..... 5 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program .............

5 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program 5 2.2.7 Land Management Program ............

5 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

6 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ... ..........

6 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .............................

f. 9 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports .................

9 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

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

9 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

9...... 9 ATTACHMENT I

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK 10 GENERATING STATION, 1986

-H W.C.G.S.M 1986 A.E.O.R.0 2 of 18

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Generating Station has committed to minimizing the impact of 0 facility operation on the environment.

The 1986 Annual Environmental Operating Report (AEOR) is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by o Facility Operating License NPF-42. The report is to demonstrate that the plant is operating in an environmentally acceptable manner.T 0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to remove 9.692 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John-'Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1986, only 465,388,931 gallons or 4.8 percent of this allotment was used. Based on monitoring studies completed during the year, no changes attributable to these withdrawals have been witnessed in river water quality or populations of phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates or fishes.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Total. residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4.2.6.1 of the Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/1 at the circulating water discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations*i These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (Section 5.5.2.2, FES/OLS).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Env-ironment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows circulating water TRC effluent to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/l and chlorine dose time to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine hourly dosages have averaged about 26 pounds each during 1986. Compliance with the daily TRC permit allowances during the year was 100 percent. Chlorination time period compliance was achieved greater than 99 percent of the time. Permit monitoring of TRC at the discharge detected an average of less than 0.1 mg/l during 1986, well below W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.3 of 18 the 0.2 mg/i allowed. In Section 5.3.1 of the Environ-mental Report/Operating License Stage (ER/OLS), the postulated overall effects on the aquatic populations 0 within the cooling were expected to be minimal. Because O the actual monitored values were well below the evaluated W levels and no fish mortalities due to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1986 did not O have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to "cold shock", a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) stated, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake". In 1986, no cold shock mortality events due to plant shutdowns were observed. .However, a fish kill ass 8 c-iated with a series of temperature transients (10 F)caused by circulating water pump maintenance was observed and documented.

This event was confined to the WCCL and was not considered to have significantly impacted the fisheries.

This event was documented and evaluated as described in Section 3.3.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100% [ER(OLS)Section 5.1.3.3].

Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented.

Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal, thus no sampling ef-forts to monitor impingement impacts have been implemented.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by WCGS NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are sporadic, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Wolf Creek additions to the Neosho River are regulated to maintain a zone of passage for aquatic organisms at the confluence.

Consequently, the flows W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.0.R.4 of 18 allowable from Wolf Creek may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon the similarity between Wolf Creek and Neosh 8 River water quality and temperature, with 0 a maximum of 90 F allowable in the Neosho River downstream O of the mixing zone. In 1985, no NPDES violations at the dam (Outfall 004) were recorded.

Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious 0 effects to Neosho River water quality or phytoplankton, macroinvertebrate or fish populations.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2)0 L9 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Landscaping and gr~ass establishment have not been entirely completed to date,- however all areas have been mowed at least once annually for security and aesthetic purposes.

One restoration area (area not to be mowed) was established within the exclusion zone. Although a small portion of this area is still used as a topsoil source most of it (approximately 15 acres) was used to store topsoil during construction.

This area is south of the powerblock along the lake shoreline.

The permanent native grass restoration is to provide a maintenance-free cover, wildlife habitat, increase aesthetics, and reduce wind-blown dust in the site environs.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a buffer zone around WCCL, all agricultural pro-duction activities were curtailed in 1980 below elevation 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shore-line. Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were allowed to. return to a natural state. Cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages. Land management activites specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures Herbicide was not applied on the transmission line corridors or switchyard associated with WCGS during 1986.

!H , W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.5 of 18 Herbicide was applied on the gravel areas of the Protected Area Boundary fence and on a graveled lay-down storage area. This sprayed area of the storage yard was less than two acres. A soil sterilant consisting of 8 pounds of 0 Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust L4 (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water was applied at a rate of 20-50 gallons per acre. Both Karmex and Oust 0 were approved for use in Kansas. Application was completed (by a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Depart-ment of Agriculture.

o 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan involving both state and federal personnel has been formulated to provide guid-ance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

During routine wildlife monitor-ing and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.,.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1986. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. A summary of fog monitoring activities is included in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. This monitoring included a general survey program for waterfowl collision events. As outlined in the 1985/1986 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and Bald Eagle usage of WCCL, to assess transmission, line collision mortality of waterfowl using WCCL, to maintain a wildlife species list, and to develop an annual wildlife report.Wildlife monitoring activities are summarized in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural produc-tion and conservation values. An annual management plan W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.6 of 18 was formulated.

to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included construction or repair 0 of livestock fences and ponds, and construction or 0 establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative cover. A summary of the 1986 Land Management report appears in Attachment 1 of this report.0 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 Plant

Design or Operating Changes [EPP Section 3.1]U'Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant Modification Request (PMR) or operating change which received an environmental evaluation prior to implementation in 1986 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments which involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1986.Evaluation 86-01 -Discharge Routing Change From NPDES Outfall 003(a) to Outfall 002 It became necessary to reroute excess Condensate Demineralizer Regenerative Wastes from the Secondary Liquid Wastes to the turbine sumps for waste discharge.

These wastes were initially evaluated and permitted to be discharged through the Radwaste System Discharge into Circulating Water System Discharge (NPDES Outfall 003a). Due to the rerouting, these wastes were to be discharged through the Oil/Water Separator Discharge (NPDES Outfall 002). Methods of plant operation identified to the KDHE during the NPDES permitting process which subsequently change require a follow-up notification.

The change described above required such a notification and an evaluation.

Formal written approval from the KDHE for this change was received on 3/12/86.The discharge was not expected to constitute a significant increase of evaluated parameters, primarily sulfates and TDS, within the cooling lake. It was concluded that the modified flow path should not result in a significant increase in the evaluated level of environmental impact.Evaluation 86-02 -Herbicide Use on WCGS Laydown Yard and Herbi-cide Brand Change on Protected Area Boundary The usage of herbicides within the site exclusion zone was evaluated based on Section 2.2 of the EPP. The herbicides evaluated were currently EPA-approved.

The evaluated application on the station lay-down yard and Protected Area Boundary were within the site exclusion zone and herbicide use was determined to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities as specified in Section 2.2(a) of the EPP.

41 W. C..G.S.M1986 A.E.O.R.7 of 18 n- Evaluation 86-03 -Increase in Emergency Siren Noise and Number An environmental evalution was required because the placement of a 0 new emergency siren would require work outside the site exclusion zone. In addition, the evaluation considered the increased noise level caused by the replacement of an existing siren and the 9placement of a new one. Installation of the new siren, consisting of a pole and guy wires, resulted in minimal disturbance and no o environmental impacts were obvious. The expected noise level was V considered to be similar to that of the existing alert system.Impacts from this system were evaluated to be infrequent and in-o significant in Section 5.12 of the FES-OLS.LO Evaluation 86-04 -Experimental Application of Aquatic Herbicide (Aquathol K) in WCCL The effects of pondweed control in experimental plots with the aquatic herbicide Aquathol K was evaluated.

Based on literature review, Aquathol K treatment has shown little effect on water quality. Secondary die-offs of fish from plant decomposition was not expected due to the small test area and relatively slow acting nature of Aquathol K. Acute effects were expected to be minimal because of the higher thresholds of aquatic organisms to the herbicide than that postulated to occur in the lake.Bioaccumulation and persistence in the environment were not characteristics of Aquathol K. Based on the evaluation, the proposed application in WCCL presented no significant danger to water quality or the organisms which were likely to encounter it.Evaluation 86-05 -Herbicide Weed Control on Areas Within Site Exclusion Zone The use of herbicides to control weeds on site facilities not previously evaluated were considered and conditionally approved.Conditions were that all herbicides -be limited to those EPA approved, all label directions and precautions be followed, all wastes that were considered hazardous be handled through the site hazardous waste program, and all applicators be certified by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when required.

Use was considered compatible with the function and security of station facilities as specified in Section 2.2(a) of the EPP and no adverse environmental effects were expected given compliance with the stated conditions.

Evaluation 86-06 -Construction of Permanent Guard House and Facilities With the construction of a permanent guard house at the Exclusion Area entrance, disturbance was required outside, the Exclusion Area. These areas were for a small parking lot and other associated roadnmodifications.

Because of the small size and

%W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.8 of 18 M location of the work, no adverse environmental impacts were expected to be realized from the construction or operation of the guard house facility.0 o Evaluation 86-07 -Piping Installation to Vent Nitrogen L4~Piping to vent nitrogen gas to the outside atmosphere from area 0 five of the Auxiliary Building was assessed.

Since pure nitrogen 0' gas was not considered to be a pollutant and thus not regulated by regulatory agencies, no adverse environmental impact was 0 expected.

The Plant Modification Request to do this was C environmentally acceptable.

Evaluation 86-08 -WCGS Operational Ehvironmental Monitoring Program Modifications The intent of the evaluation was to define the operational environmental monitoring program at WCGS, compare it with the projections made in the ER(OLS) and FES(OLS), and evaluate its utility in detecting plant-caused impacts. Program reductions were made in areas where the data being-collected were of little-!--

value in monitoring environmental impacts of plant construction or operation.

Typical reasons for reductions included highly variable results, results with little or no variation, modification of one program area making the current sampling obsolete, or because a particular parameter or program area showed little promise of indicating plant impacts of the type and magnitude which were likely to occur. Areas where effort was increased or redistributed were changed to collect data which would either more accurately describe the chemical or biological conditions or would better detect plant-induced changes. With program changes taken into consideration, the operational monitoring effort fulfills the intent of early licensing commitments.

It functions to monitor, identify and quantify any plant impacts on the WCGS environs.Evalution 86-09 -Experimental Use of Nalco Super-Zinc 1360 Inhibitor and Sure-Cool 1370 Dispersent To test chemical component corrosion control, Nalco 1360 and 1370 were to be added to a small volume of service water to mimic the effects on WCGS components in a temporary consultant trailer. The flow would then be routed back through and discharged to WCCL.For purposes of the experimentation planned, Nalco 1360 and 1370 were to be used at concentrations of 20 ppm and less than I ppm, respectively., As such, even if these were emptied directly into WCCL and allowed to accumulate for extended periods of time, resultant fish mortality would not be likely. In addition, because these small flows (<25 gpm) were to be diluted with 50,000

'H ,. W.C.G.S.31986 A.E.O.R.i9 of 18 gpm of service water before passing through the plant, then by 480,000 gpm of circulating water before being discharged into WCCL, concentrations finally entering WCCL were minute. Thus, impacts to cooling lake biota would not be discernable.

O 3.2 Non-Routine Environmental Reports 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports 0 No non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact were submitted to the NRC during 1986.0 fl 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1986.3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WCGS in 1986, environmental noncompliances were recorded along with the events surrounding them. Noteworthy noncompliances included deviations from NPDES permit limitations, delayed completion of "Plant Design or Operating Change Evaluation" forms, a late weekly hazardous waste facility inspection, missed semi-monthly site surveillance, documentation of a temperature transient-caused fish kill, and late fog visiometer recorder calibration.

These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP Section 5.4.1.

H W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.10 of 18 f'J 0 0 bJ 0'3-0 w ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1986 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas "H W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.11 of 18 0 1. 1986 LAND MANAGEMENT REPORT In keeping with annual land management plan guidelines, an annual progress report was formulated.

Land maintenance or improvement activities outside C the exclusion zone included issuance of haying/grazing and cultivation 0 leases, controlled burning, native grass seeding, waterway construction, W terrace repair, and fence construction.

Grazing, haying, and cultivation lease control were 'Aprimary mechanisms used for managing company land resources for both agricultural benefits and enhancement of wildlife, soil, and native plant resources.

0 U 2. 1986 EA, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT Environmental monitoring completed by EA, Engineering, Science, and Tech-nology Inc,, a consultant, included studies on the Neosho River, WCCL, and adjacent lands. Objectives accomplished by these studies were: 1.. documentation of concentrations of generaL:,water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived-materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and cooling lake 2. determination of general groundwater quality in the vicinity of the facility 3. characterization of the Neosho River and cooling lake benthic com-munities 4. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and cooling lake 5. determination of zooplankton biomass in the cooling lake 6. characterization of the Neosho River fishery Water quality studies in the Neosho River near the WCCL have been conducted since 1973. Seasonal mean concentrations of water quality parameters during 1986 were within previously established ranges for the study area. Water quality among river locations were similar though slight natural differences between the John Redmond Reservoir tailwaters and the lower river were apparent.

Seasonal differences observed during 1986 and previous years reflect changes in discharge rates from John Redmond Dam and runoff due to local precipitation and snowmelt events. Since filling of the WCCL began in 1981 flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seep-age, releases for testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.

H W.C.G.S.1986 A.E.O.R.12 of 18 Ill Water quality studies of the WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Since 1982 makeup water has generally been added during routine use of the auxiliary raw water pumps and 0 quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. Therefore, the WCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River.Concentrations of water quality parameters were very similar among locations in the cooling lake, with the shallow upstream site slightly different in O water quality than near the main dam and the station intake. Concentrations T of dissolved and suspended constituents continued to show declining trends since operation of the WCCL began, indicating an improvement In overall O water quality. There appears to be no trend of increasing chemical l parameter values that would indicate adverse impact from plant operations.

Groundwater data collected near WCGS since 1973 have shown that quality of well water varied widely among wells. Data collected during 1986 indicated water quality parameters from the monitoring wells were within concentration ranges observed in previous studies. Well water at the monitoring sites has typically been very hard with high levels of dissolved constituents.

Water quality in the wells tend to reflect shallow perched water resulting from precipitation and runoff. These observations have not changed since dam closure or after WCGS began operation.

Macroinvertebrate studies of the Neosho River at the JRR tailwaters and upstream and downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek have been conducted since 1973. Aquatic oligoehaetes, mayflies, stoneflies, net-spinning caddisflies, and midge flies have been dominant organisms.

No long-term patterns, empirical, or statistical differences have been found that suggested any alterations attributable to the construction and/or operation of -the WCCL and WCGS. The data have been highly variable which has been attributed to fluctuating river flows that undoubtedly affect organism abundances but also greatly influences sampling efficiency.

The macroinvertebrate monitoring program on the Neosho River was reimple-mented in 1985 to coincide with startup of WCGS after the program was dis-continued in 1982. High, variable flows in 1985 resulted in low sample recovery and benthic densities that approached the lowest recorded since monitoring was initiated in 1973. Species richness and abundance improved substantially in 1986 as flows were comparatively stable and low. In 1986, the number of taxa encountered increased 43 percent (57 to 82 taxa), the number of organisms in qualitative samples increased nearly five-fold (381 to 1,741), and mean a~nual ponar densities increased nearly nine-fold (approximately 43 to 382/m ). The potential for WCGS to impact the Neosho River macroinvertebrate community has been minimal based on low diversion rates from the JRR tailwaters and the lack of substantial discharge from the WCCL.Benthic macroinvertebrates in WCCL have been sampled bimonthly since 1981 when the cooling lake was initially filled. The benthic fauna of WCCL is fairly typical of lakes in general and midwestern reservoirs in particular.

Quantitative dissimilarities in the faunas from the three sampling sites W.C.G.S.31986 A.E.O.R..13 of 18 m reflected differences in respective depths, substrate composition, and organic matter content. The data have exhibited high annual variation from 1981 through 1986 that likely reflects various ecological, climatic, and o limnological factors. Operation of WCGS caused no apparent changes in the 0 macroinvertebrate community during the initial two years of operation.

Although me n annual benthic macroinvertebrate densities in 1986 (195 organisms/m ) were at low for the six-year study, densities declined annually through 1984 after peaking in 1982 (1 2 521/m ). Mean annual densi-ties recovered by 45 percent in 1985 (410/mr ), the first year of station operation.

Downlake densities at the deepwater (17-22 m) location near the 0 main dam were primarily responsible for the annual trend. At the organism level, primarily oligochaetes and chironomids influenced the trend as both groups declined annually after peaking in 1982. An exception was tubificids which recovered in 1985 before reaching a low in 1986. The 1985 recovery was due almost exclusively to mean annual tubificid densities at the deepwater location, which were the second highest recorded for the WCCL study. Apparent changes in WCCL benthos reflect normal responses of pioneer organisms to newly-filled reservoirs and could be expected independent of operation of WCGS.Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates in the Neosho River from the tailwaters of John Redmond Dam to below the confluence

'- with Wolf Creek have been monitored since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from JRR. During periods of moderate to high flows, chlorophyll a concentrations and fixation rates immediately upstream and downstream of--the confluence with the creek were very similar to those observed in the tailwaters.

During low flow conditions, values for both parameters immediately upstream of Wolf Creek were often different (usually but not always'higher)-than those observed at the other locations.

The 1986 average annual chlorophyll a concentration (47.80 mg/m ) was the s cond highest of the 13-year study and carbon fixation rates (238.22 mg C/m /hr)averaged at least five times higher than previous annual maxima. Higher values in 1986 corresponded with lower river flow than in 1985 when values were below or near previous annual minima. There has been no indication that adverse effects on the phytoplankton of the Neosho River have occurred as a result of the construction and operation of WCGS.Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates (sur-face samples) as well as zooplankton biomass (vertical tows) in the WCGS cooling lake have been monitored bimonthly since initial lake filling in 1981. Average annual chlorophyll a concentrations declined by approximately 30 percent from 1981 to 1982, remained fairly stable from 1982 through 1984, and returned to near 1981 levels in 1985 and 1986. Temporally, phytoplankton standing crop has been generally greatest in late summer or early autumn, and spatially, it has generally been least in the downlake deep water location near the dam. However, exceptions to these general patterns have been observed, and chlorophyll a concentrations were unusually high in October and December 1985 and April 1986. Carbon fixation rates have been strongly influenced by phytoplankton standing crop as well as natural variations in ambient conditions (e.g. temperature), and as a result W. C.6. S.1986 A.E.O.R..l1 of 18 fixation rates have revealed few consistent spatial or temporal trends.Bimonthly and annual mean fixation rates in 1986 were the highest recorded)during the six-year study, averaging 2.5 to 5.5 times higher than previous O years. Bimonthly fixation rates were higher than previous values except O during initial lake filling in 1981 when higher February-March valjes were recorded.

Incubation temperatures during 1986 averaged nearly 2 C higher than in 1981-1985 because of warmer surface temperatures at the dam.0* Average annual zooplankton biomass, both dry and ash-free dry weights, dec-lined from 1981 through 1984, although dry weight biomass appeared to stab-\ ilizS in 1983 and 1984. Ash-freS dry weight has increased since 1984 (40 4 mg/m ) to 67 in 1985 and 92 mg/mr in 1986. Dry weight surpassed (1985) or equaled (1986) the previous annual maximum observed during lake filling in 1981. Few consistent spatial and temporal trends have been observed for zooplankton biomass, but there has been a tendency for greater biomass in the up-lake shallower water and for greater biomass in late winter or early spring from 1981-1985 with spring and fall peaks in 1985 and 1986.Annual trends in phytoplankton and zooplankton through 1984 were considered representative of a new lake that was initially-..Iilled with eutrophic water (from John Redmond Reservoir) and then gradually-assumed its own character.

Increases in plankton apparent in 1985 and 1986 were considered primarily a response to natural factors although operational effects of the thermal-- discharge and makeup water additions may have been contributing factors.Based on average annual chlorophyll a concentrations, the WCGS cooling lake remains in the mesotrophic classificatlon.

The fish community in the Neosho River at the John Redmond Reservoir tail-waters, and above and below the confluence with Wolf Creek has been monitored since 1973. -The study was curtailed in 1981 and discontinued from 1982-1984 before reinstatement in 1985 to coincide with startup of WCGS.Potential operational effects of WCGS on the fishery are limited to diversion of water from JRR tailwaters for raw water and/or makeup water for the WCCL and the effect discharges from the WCCL would have downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek. Following initial lake filling in 1981 maximum diversion of river water occurred in 1986 when use of two auxiliary raw water pumps diverted 2 cfs which was equivalent to 3.0 percent of the mean daily discharge from JRR the last four days of June. Maximum diversion of river based on mean monthly flows occurred in February 1985 (0.3 percent)and June 1986 (0.4 percent).A noteworthy fish kill occurred on the Neosho River during the first week of August 1986. Kansas Fish and Game Commission personnel estimated for six river miles that 11,900 fish were killed including 1600 blue suckers (Cey.ýleptus elongatus), currently a threatened species in Kansas. Storm runoff carried into the river large quantities of leaves, field crops, and other organic material which had been stripped by a devastating hail storm, and the decay of this material caused a depletion of dissoved oxygen killing these fishes in parts of the Neosho River and some tributary creeks. The river locations studied during this monitoring were within the area affected.

Subsequent fishery sampling during this monitoring revealed no detectable changes in the fish populations within the study area.

-H.. .W.C.G.S.l 1986 A.E.O.R.315 of 18 r3 Electrofishing and seining data between locations upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence suggested no effects to the Neosho River fishery due to WCCL and operation of WCGS. Overall, few long-term trends were apparent and annual differences were related to natural variability, releases from JRR, and river flows which influenced gear efficiency.

0 3. FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES a 1985-1986 Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on Wolf Creek Cooling Lake March 1985 through October 1986. These resulted in the collection of 6,851 fish representing 10 families and 31 species in 1985 and 4,500 fish from 11 families and 30 species in 1986. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of-increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Plant operations beginning with initial criticality in May 1985, the start of commercial operations in September 1985 and continuing through 1986 have had no observed significant impacts on the cooling ;ake fishery. As of 1986, bluegills ranked first in percent abundance with 30.4% and gizzard shad were second at 20.4%. Largemouth bass were next highest at 10.5%. Percent biomass showed bluegills and shad to be 11th and 7th, respectively, indicat-'- ing the majority of those captured to be small, young-of-the-year fishes.As expected, after dominating both abundance and biomass in 1984, black bullheads have declined to 12th on both lists in 1986. Largemouth bass rose to 18.8% in 1986 to top the percent biomass list, with carp rising from 4th in 1984 to 3rd in 1985 and 2nd in 1986. Wipers fell from the top species biomass in 1985 by 1/3 to 3rd place in 1986. This is not unexpected as the single, 1981 year class approaches the end of the wiper's expected life span of 4-7 years.Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Wr), and condition factor (KTL) show generally slowing growth with average condition for Wolf Creek's earliest predator age classes. Wiper growth has leveled off with body condition being moderate in 1986. Largemouth bass have body condition which is average for this region, consistent recruitment, and are on the average larger and more abundant than bass in most Kansas impoundments.

Both black and white crappie populations are primarily composed of large, old individuals and little recruitment is evident. Walleye growth continues at a slow rate and condition remains 15-20% below the Kansas average. Beds of submersed aquatic macrophytes of the genus Potamogeton which first appeared in 1984 expanded greatly in 1985 but remained at similar levels in 1986. These areas of dense cover are credited with increases in largemouth bass recruitment and in the number of young-of-the-year bluegills surviving until fall when the plants die and break off, exposing the bluegills to predation.

Except for a large drop in 1985, gizzard shad abundance and biomass have been very stable at low levels since lake fill, keeping impingement very low. Early year classes of predators have undergone slowing growth; sterile wipers will need restocking to i .'-W.C.G.S.

3 .1986 A.E.O.R.16 of 18 m prevent their disappearance and crappie recruitment appears to be'insufficient to maintain stocks at their current levels. Largemouth bass have shown good growth, reproduction, recruitment and promise to wax or wane 0 appropriately as prey densities and predation pressure from other WCCL o species vary.L4 A4. FOG. MONITORING AC'TIVITIES 0 The purpose of the study is to assess the impact of waste heat dissipation from Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) operations on the incidence of fogging o along U.S. Route 75 in New Strawn, Kansas. Visibility was monitored V1 continuously at New Strawn with an instrument that utilizes a light.scattering measurement technique.

In 1986, visibility was monitored for 3,300 hours0.00347 days <br />0.0833 hours <br />4.960317e-4 weeks <br />1.1415e-4 months <br /> during the months of January through May. Monitoring was not scheduled for the summer months of 1986 and was not conducted during the months of September through December due to a sensor malfunction.

A total of 82 hours9.490741e-4 days <br />0.0228 hours <br />1.35582e-4 weeks <br />3.1201e-5 months <br /> of fog were detected during the monitoring period, .including 31 hours3.587963e-4 days <br />0.00861 hours <br />5.125661e-5 weeks <br />1.17955e-5 months <br /> of dense fog. The greatest amount of fog was seen in February, when the frequency of fog occurrence was 9.8 percent.,. .Fog frequency during each of the remaining four months was less than one percent. No fog episodes were identified during 1986 as having been initiated by WCCL operations.

It was also considered unlikely that enhancement of existing natural fog hadoccurred for those fog episodes recorded at the monitoring site. Overall, 4,775 hours0.00897 days <br />0.215 hours <br />0.00128 weeks <br />2.948875e-4 months <br /> of visibility data were collected during the operational period. A total of 147 hours0.0017 days <br />0.0408 hours <br />2.430556e-4 weeks <br />5.59335e-5 months <br /> of fog were detected during this period, including 42 hours4.861111e-4 days <br />0.0117 hours <br />6.944444e-5 weeks <br />1.5981e-5 months <br /> of dense fog. The frequency of fog occurrence was 3.1 percent during operations, compared to 4.0 percent during preoperations.

Dense fog, which represents the greatest traffic hazard, was observed during 29 percent of'all fog-hours.

Northerly and northeasterly were observed to be the most commonly occurring wind directions associated with operational fog. This was considered a noteworthy change from preoperations, when easterly and southeasterly winds were most frequent.

The reduced frequency of southeasterly winds resulted in a reduced potential for lake-induced or enhanced fog to be transported from the discharge cove of WCCL towards the monitoring site in New Strawn. Current plans are to extend visibility monitoring through early 1988. Changes are anticipated for future monit-oring which will make it easier to evaluate the potential effect of enhancement of existing natural fog due to cooling lake operations.

5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES September 1985 through April 1986 Wildlife monitoring studies were conducted in the vicinity of WCGS from September 1985 through April 1986. Use of WCCL by waterfowl, waterbirds, and Bald Eagles was determined.

Bird mortality due to collisions with transmission lines traversing WCCL was also assessed.

With special atten-tion to threatened and endangered species, records of all mammals, birds, and herptiles were maintained for comparisons to past construction and pre-operational studies conducted since 1973.

-H 3-. .. W.C.G. S.'1986 A. E.O.R.17 of 18 A total of 133 avian species were observed during the 1985-1986 monitoring program. This number represents an eight percent decrease from similar o 1984/1985 studies..

Of these, 54 species of waterfowl and waterbirds were o observed during 30 ground lake surveys. Species diversity ranged from 22 during January to 34 species during March 1986. Comprising 32 and 28 percent, respectively, American coot and mallard were the most abundant o species observed.Comparative use of the cooling lake and nearby JRR was determined.

Duck usage of the two reservoirs was similar to the 1984/1985 season. Total number of ducks during the first year of station operation was not significantly different (p=O.05) from JRR counts. John Redmond Reservoir, as during preoperational studies, continued to maintain greater fall migrating duck usage than WCCL. Winter populations of ducks in the area appeared to switch to a higher degree of usage on WCCL than JRR during the first year~of operation.

Factors such as late harvest of crops in the area and presence of large wind-protected coves, seclusion, and hunter protection provided by WCCL may have contributed to this. The availability of large expanses of ice-free water caused from WCGS heatked cooling water discharge was also a factor. These birds were apparently-not, however, induced to remain in the area longer because of the heated effluent.'- Comparative use between five cooling lake areas was determined.

Greatest usage of WCCL were in areas that were adjacent to large cultivated fields, had large pondweed (Potamogeton) concentrations, and provided seclusion and wind protection.

This was similar to preoperational seasons and operation's heated effluents did not appear to alter it. No disease outbreaks or appreciable crop depredation events were identified for any of the major waterfowl concentrations observed on WCCL.Transmission line collision surveys revealed 60 mortalities near WCGS representing 14 species during the 1985/1986 monitoring.

Survey efforts for two additional months were added to the preoperational programs to identify possible collision correlations with peak lake usage periods. No significant correlations were found. Twenty percent of the birds found were not water-related species. This was similar to preoperational studies. No selectivity in the type of birds susceptible to collisions between the areas surveyed was identified.

Of the species found, none were listed as threatened or endangered species. It was concluded that no significant avian mortality due to transmission line impaction at WCGS was present.Twenty-five mammal and 12 herptile species were observed in the vicinity of WCGS during the 1985/1986 monitoring.

One mammal, the big brown bat, had not been previously documented near the site. No threatened or endangered mammal or herptile species.were observed.The Bald Eagle, prairie falcon, and interior least tern represented the threatened or endangered avian species observed in the vicinity of WCGS.Bald Eagles were common winter residents and fed on fish and weakened

• ~~W C. G.. S.c.1986 A.E.O.R.18 of 18 waterfowl.

Eagles in the vicinity of WCGS used the cooling lake solely as a feeding and loafing site, however not to the extent observed on JRR. No Bald Eagles were observed roosting on WCCL. The prairie falcon and interior ci least tern are two species which migrate through the area and are expected O to be observed occasionally in the future. Station operation is not expected to adversely impact these species.September through December 1986 This synopsis provides a summary of wildlife data collected from September o through December 1986 as part of the 1986/1987 Operational Wildlife Monitoring Program. This data is not presented in the report summarized above. In keeping with the 1986/1987 Wildlife Study Plan, records of mammals, birds, and herptiles observed were maintained for comparisons to past construction and preoperational studies conducted since 1973. Special attention was given to both state and federally listed threatened and endangered..wildlife species occurring in the vicinity of WCGS.A total of 40 waterfowl and waterbird species were observed on ground counts during fall and early winter of 1986. As during the same period in 1985, the most abundant species were the American coot;- mallard, and Franklin's gull. Apparent factors that have influenced usage of WCCL continue to include relatively clear water, secluded, wind protected coves, concentra-tions of aquatic weed growth, and availability of agricultural fields.Heated effluents during late December 1986 may have contributed, however because of the relatively mild weather and attractiveness of the conditions stated above, it was not felt that it played a major role in influencing local duck concentrations.

Transmission line collision surveys were completed during September through December 1986. Eleven mortalities representing six different species were found. No mortalities of threatened or endangered species were observed.All specimens found were water-related birds. None of the collision events observed during the fall and early winter of 1986 were considered significant.

Of the mammal and herptile species observed, all had previously been documented.

No threatened or endangered mammal or herptile species were observed.The Bald Eagle was the only threatened or endangered species observed.

As during past studies, the eagles were common winter residents first appearing during late November.

Eagles in the vicinity of WCGS used the cooling lake solely as a feeding and loafing site, however not to extent observed on JRR. No changes in Bald Eagle usage of WCCL due to station operation were identified.

H-.II FCREEK Li NCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION

o. Sa D. WlUwrs o CP. Es .vuten .Ofnic~April 26, 1988 0 WM 88-0105-o O U .S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

.9 ATTN: Document Control Desk Washing~on, D, C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report ..-Gent lemen: Attached is the Annual Environmental Operating Report; which is beinp submitt~ed pursuant tO Wolf Creek" (Generat~ing Station Facility Operating License 1HPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers t~he operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of January 1, 1987 t~o D~ecember" 31, '1987.Very truly yours, Bart: D. Withers President and*Chief Executive Officer S W//j ad Attachment UCNSN ROUTING Apr , 1 26 98 CC: B. L. Bart:lettl (NRC), via TE40090-A wia R. D. alertin (NRC), ei/a TEtoy ,o'sa RGoodsMn Se.D ATTN: Documen Coto Des CFA Inc. Co 2 UE Litensing P.O. BON 411A ppenindifx.

KS 668391 Phorce: (316) 3 o4-8831 C.n o Wolf ,r e AnEquaSOpIun~y Emvloy~mi " i H 3 4 U)ITT a--I.0 0 0 WCNOC DE 04-88 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1987 I ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT GROUP WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 PUBLISHED APRIL 1988 PREPARED BY DAN HAINES.I I. -o WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1987 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT W

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING...............................

...........

1 2.1 AQUATIC .....................................................

I 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River 1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ...... 2 2.1.3 Cold Shock ...............................

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

3 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ....................................

4 2.2 TERRESTRIAL...................................................5

2.2.1 Control

of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .....5..... 5.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake .........................................

5 i,2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

... 6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program ..............................

7 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program .... 4......................

7 2.2.7 Land Management.Program

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

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ..........................

8 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ...........................

12 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports .......................

12 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

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

12 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

13 ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK 14 GENERATING STATION, 1987 H 1 '- 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 1 of 32 0 W

1.0 INTRODUCTION

\Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) has committed to minimizing the impact of facility operation on the environment.

The 1987 Annual-0 Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The report is to demonstrate that the plant is operating in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

(EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to remove 9.692 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1987, only 973,185,887 gallons or 10 percent of this allotment was used. Auxiliary raw water was pumped at a rate ofl approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day which comprises 39 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from August 4 through August 11, 1987. Based on monitoring studies completed during the year, no changes attributable to these withdrawals have been witnessed in river water quality or populations of phytoplankton, macroinvertebrates or fishes.

H i -1987 Annual Environmental 0

Report.2 of 32 0 0 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake W Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 0-0 4.2.6.1 of the Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/i 0 at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected, to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (Section 5.5.2.2, FES/OLS).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Env-ironment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/1 in the circulating water effluent.Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice.

WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages have averaged approximately 40 pounds per day to the CWS. Compliance with the daily TRC limits and chlorination dose durations were 100 percent during the year. Monitoring during 1987 detected an average TRC concentration of less than 0.1 mg/l. well below the 0.2 mg/1 permitted level. In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual monitored values were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities due to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1987 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

H o Im 1987 Annual Environmental 0 Operating Report.3 of 32 0 Allowance in the NPDES permit was provided to enable WCGS L to discharge chlorinated water from the Service Water 0 System (SWS) when the CWS was not operating.

During the 1987 refueling outage, this situation existed. The CWS was o taken out of service on October 7 and remained off-line until November 25, 1987. The SWS comprises approximately eight percent of the normal CWS flow. The WCGS operational need for higher TRC concentrations in the normal SUS flow was not of environmental concern because of the immediate dilution of chlorine levels once the SUS flow was combined with CWS discharge.

Without CWS flow, however, the SWS discharged without dilution to WCCL. The KDHE acknowledged the need for this operational mode and allowance in the HPDES permit was provided to enable WCCS to collect real-time" data before permit TRC nimits would be established.

Average TRC measured at the SWS confluence with the CWS was 1.0 mg/l. Analysis of this flow path at the WCCL discharge revealed an average of 0.6 mgl! TRC. The average daily chlorine dose to SWS during this period was 549 pounds.Both the observed average TRC and actual dose rates were within the ranges evaluated in the FES/OLS (0.68 to 1.08 mg/l TRC at 1233 pounds/day), within which chlorination effects were judged to be acceptable.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to 'cold shock', a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) stated, 'Cold I H°1* 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 4 of 32.0 o shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause W significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake*. In 1987, no major cold shock mortality events due-to plant shutdowns were observed.0 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100Z. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not requir.ed by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and have not been implemented by WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been implemented.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are spor-adic, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Wolf Creek additions to the Neosho River are regulated to maintain a zone of passage for aquatic organisms at the confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowable from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon the similarity between Wolf Creek and Neosho River water 0 quality and temperature.

A maximum of 90 F is allowed in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone from Wolf H fri.. 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 5 of 32 0 O Creek. In 1987, no NPDES violations at the WCCL dam\ (Outfall 004) were recorded.

Based on monitoring studies 0 completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects£ to Neosho River water quality or phytoplankton, macro-0 invertebrate or fish populations due to WCGS operations.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

(EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.-

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Landscaping and grass establishment have not been entirely completed to date, however all areas have been mowed at least once annually for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, all agricul-tural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL. eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' KSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native.tallgrass areas were allowed to return to a natural state.Cultivated lands. were allowed to advance through natural successional stages. Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burn-ing and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

H m n_ 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 6 of 32 O O 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of o WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary.

a lay-down storage yard, meteorology tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, and on-site rail-road beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water. Applica-tion rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre.A weed and brush herbicide mixture was applied to selected problem areas within the transmission line right-of-ways associated with WCGS also during 1987. The Benton, LaCygne, and Rosehill 345 KV right-of-ways were treated. A wetting agent, a drift inhibitor, Garion 3A (EPA Reg. No.464-546), and Tordon 101 (EPA Reg. No. 464-306) were mixed in equal amounts to make a one percent solution of these chemicals with water.All chemicals used were approved for use in Kansas. The applicator was a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

All label instructions were followed.

No environmental problems were observed from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan involving both state and federal personnel has been updated to provide more detailed guidance for station biologists in the event of H F7 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 7 of 32 0 o suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking o place over this reporting period, no avian mortality 0attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

0.0 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study has been to evaluate the impact of waste beat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. A summary of fog monitoring activities is included in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.2)A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1986/1987 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and. bald eagle usage of WCCL, to assess transmission line collision mortality of waterfowl using WCCL, to maintain a wildlife species list, and to develop an annual wildlife report. Wildlife monitoring activities are summarized in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management J

H-: 1987 Annual Environmental 0 Operating Report 8 of 32 O plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted L techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and 0 wildlife management.

These included construction or repair_of livestock fences and ponds, and construction or o establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative cover. A summary of the 1987 Land Management Report appears in Attachment 1 of this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ( [EPP Section 3.1)Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant Modification Request or operating change which. received an environmental evaluation prior to implementation in 1987 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments which received evaluation that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1987.Evaluation 87-01 -Addition of Oil Drain Lines on Standby Diesel Generators This evaluation covered the route change of waste drip oil from the standby diesel generators.

The modification did not change the ultimate flow path through the oil/water separator, a NPDES permit monitored discharge.

Since no changes would occur at the monitored NPDES outfall, it was concluded that this route change would not result in a significant increase in the evaluated level of environmental impact.

H IT -. 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 9 of 32 0 0 Evaluation 87-02 -Construction and Operation of the Wastewater W Treatment Facility (includes 87-03 through 0 87.06).This review is the final and overall evaluation for the Wastewater O DTreatment Facility (WTF). Specific evaluations (87-03 through 87-06) assessing environmental concerns with construction and operation of the WTF were completed during the design process.These evaluations revealed no significant environmental impacts.All of these culminate in this evaluation (87-02) of the actual environmental effects of long term operation of the WTF.Consequently these evaluations are not presented individually in this report.In this evaluation it was de termined that total dissolved solids (TDS) addition to WCCL would be of greatest concern. This parameter with the WTF in service would be increased by five percent over the levels predicted in the WCGS Environmental Report (Operating License State) [ER(OLS)].

When the ER(OLS) evaluated I this, it was planned that sulfuric acid would be used to control condenser scaling. This system has not been put into service and is not likely to ever be used to the extent originally planned.Consequently, the WTF system without the sulfuric acid additions will comprise only about 10 percent of the TDS inputs which were designed and evaluated to enter WCCL.Effluent pH safeguards and discharge pollutant levels were also considered.

Discharges from the WTF will be tested twice for pH compliance prior to being released.

The WTF effluent was also not expected to show any new or unusually high levels of pollutants that are environmentally dangerous.

Past priority pollutant scans have not shown elevated pollutant levels, and WTF effluents are simply rerouting and treating past WCGS effluents.

i H M 1987 Annual Environmental ri Operating Report 10 of 32 Based on the small contribution that the WTF effluents are 0 expected to make to TDS, the operational requirements of a back-up pH check prior to WTF release, and the lack of any dangerous pollutant increases, the environmental effects of the WTF system and its effluents were not expected to be significantly greater 0 than those previously evaluated and permitted.

Evaluation 87-07 -Auxiliary Boiler Minimum Load Requirement Vent to Atmosphere.

This evaluation involves a modification completed to allow excess steam from the Auxiliary Boiler to be vented to the atmosphere if required.

No radiological concerns are involved with this evaluation.

These intermittent steam releases were evaluated with respect to noise disturbances to the environment.

Based on the remoteness of WCGS and the infrequency of releases, no increase in previously evaluated impacts were expected.Evaluation 87-08 -Oily Waste Interceptor Reroute through High TDS Tank This evaluation covered the by-passing of NPDES Outfall 002 effluent from the oily waste interceptor to the high TDS tank for pH neutralization before being released to its normal Outfall 002 discharge point. This rerou-ing would allow for greater NPDES pH compliance at this outfall and thus result in a positive net environmental effect. No adverse environmental impacts were anticipated.

Evaluation 87-09 -Aquatic Weed Harvest and Weed Disposal on WCCL Development of submersed macrophytes of the genus Potamogeton have created operational impingement problems.

Mechanical removal of problem weed beds was considered by WCGS management to be most H M -1987 Annual Environmental OJ Operating Report 11 of 32 0 feasible.

economically and environmentally.

This evaluation W covered the effects on WCCL of the entrapment and removal with the\ weeds of WCCL fishes. It was. calculated that 1/6 of the pondveed 0 present in WCCL would be removed. In addition.

a mortality estimate was achieved by counting the fishes in a one cubic-yard 0* subsample.

An estimate of 2700 fish, almost all young-of-the-year bluegill, would be trapped during one season of harvest. These losses will not noticeably impact the cooling lake fishery. This conclusion was based on the high natural mortality typically experienced by young bluegill, their tendency for multiple spawns, their ability to avoid capture more easily with increasing size.* and the delayed pondweed harvest anticipated in future seasons.Evaluation 87-10 -Erosion Repair and Stream Crossing Maintenance of WCGS Railroad Spur This evaluation covers the repair and maintenance of the, railroad easement.

Some repairs involved lands outside easement boundaries and as such have not been previously evaluated.

All repairs were less than one acre in size. All disturbed soil was reseeded with a quick growing cover grass to reduce initial storm erosion.Native grasses were planted to "takeover" and provide a natural cover typical of a bluestem prairie referenced in the FES/OLS. On stream crossings, mechanical removal of problem trees was employed.

No herbicides were used. Given the small size of the repairs, the restoration practices in these areas, the methods of controlling problem trees, and the actual long term benefits of the habitat diversity created by the maintenance of the railroad, no adverse environmental effects were expected.

H Il " 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 12 of 32 o Evaluation 87-11 -Temporary Modification to Defeat a Low Dilution Water Flow Switch 0 This evaluation covers a temporary modification to bypass a loy dilution water flow switch to allow a Radwaste discharge to NPDES XOutfall 003a when CWS is not running. It was assumed in this evaluation that discharge rates to Outfall 003a could be controlled to adequateiy dilute with SWS flow and thus remove the chance of violating pH limitations at the outfall. This is normally no problem when discharged when CWS is operating.

No increases in chemical constituents regulated at this outfall were expected given the dilution considerations.

No adverse environmental impacts were expected.Evaluation 87-12 -Water Removal from Duct Bank Manholes Increases of water flow through NPDES Outfall 002 were evaluated.

Removing excess storm water seepage via a new.sump pump from the duct bank manholes was not expected to cause environmental impacts. This conclusion is based on the relatively low volume expected, the short duration of each pumping event, and the seasonal infrequency of storm events.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports No non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact were submitted to the NRC during 1987.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1987.

H C1 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 13 of 32 0.0 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES (EPP Subsection 5.4.13 W C At WCGS in 1987, environmental noncompliances were recorded along-0 with the events surrounding them. Noteworthy noncompliancee O included.

minor oil spill and fish kill events, deviations from-NPDES permit criteria, fog monitoring delays, hazardous waste discharges, and late or mishandled ecological samples and evalua-tions. These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP Section 5.4.1.

M n-1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 14 of 32 0 tL4 I 0.D1 0 ATTACHMENT 1'p.I I I

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION. 1987 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas!i H 3.II '"1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 15 of 32 0 0 1. 1987 LAND MANAGDEENT REPORT W o This report assessed the implementation of the 1987 Land Management Plan for.0 1CGS. Unanticipated activities are also presented.

This land management plan only includes the mostly agricultural lands around the WCCL. Manage-ment of landscaped property associated with the power block area, switch-yard, and other plant support buildings was not part of the program. Four main objectives were targeted: 1. to reduce soil loss on agricultural and old-fieldO areas 2. maintain or increase agricultural production while enhancing wildlife benefits 3. establish, improve, and/or maintain the native grass areas 4. improve wildlife potential on non-agricultural lands To achieve these goals, various methods were employed.

These activities included controlled burning, native grass seeding, and construction of waterways, terraces, and fences. Some objectives were achieved via stipulations in agricultural leases. Company lands were managed for agricultural benefits, enhancement of wildlife, conservation of soil, and native plant resource improvement during 1987.2. 1987 EA, ENGINEERING, SCIENCE, AND TECHNOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING REPORT Environmental monitoring completed by EA. Engineering.

Science, and Tech-nology Inc., a consultant, included studies on the Neosho River, WCCL. and adjacent lands. Objectives accomplished by these studies were: i H II -1987 Annual Environmental rI: Operating Report 16 of 32 o 1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and WCCL S2. determination of 'general groundwater quality in the vicinity of the.WCCL 3. characterization of the Neosho River and WCCL benthic comnunities

4. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and WCCL 5. deteimianation of zooplankton biomass in WCCL 6. characterization of the Neosho River fishery Water quality studies in the Neosho River near WCCL have been conducted since 1973. Seasonal mean concentrations of water quality parameters during 1987 were withiA previously established ranges for the study area. Water quality among river locations was similar though slight natural differences between the JRR tailwaters (Location

1) and the lower river (Locations 4 and 10) were apparent.

Seasonal differences observed during 1987 and previous years. reflect changes in discharge rates from JRR and runoff due to local precipitation and snowmelt events. Since filling of WCCL began in 1981, flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to operation of UCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.Water quality studies of WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Since 1982 makeup water has generally been added during routine use of the auxiliary raw water pumps and H 3, C) 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 17 of 32 0 quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. Therefore, WCCL water quality o has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River.Concentrations of water quality parameters were very similar among locations o in the cooling lake, with the shallow upstream site (Location

2) slightly different in water quality than near the main dam (Location

6) and the 0 station intake (Location 8). Concentrations of dissolved and suspended-0constituents continued to show declining trends since operation.

of WCGS began, indicating an improvement in overall water quality. Surface water temperature in the cooling lake during spring and summer periods has been warmer than in preoperation years (particularly Location 2) as is expected due to plant operation-.

There appears to be a slight trend of increasing concentrations of iron and sulfate in the cooling lake; however, this trend-does not appear to indicate adverse impact from plant operations but rather natural changes in impounded water.Groundwater data collected near WCGS since 1973 have shown that quality of well water varied widely among wells. Data collected during 1987 indicated water quality parameters from the monitoring wells were within concentration ranges observed in previous studies.with few exceptions; some dissolved constituents (Cl, Mg, and Fe) were lower in one or more wells in 1987 than in previous years. Well water at the monitoring sites has typically been very hard with high levels of dissolved constituents.

Water quality in the wells tend to reflect shallow perched water resulting from precipitation and runoff. These observations have not changed since dam closure of WCCL or after WCGS has begun operation.

Macroinvertebrate studies of the Neosho River at JRR tailwaters as well as upstream and downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek have been conducted since 1973. Aquatic oligochaetes.

mayflies.

stoneflies, net-spinning caddisflies, and midge flies have been dominant organisms.

No long-term patterns, empirical, or statistical differences have been found that suggested any alterations attributable to the construction andlor i H'3).m 1987 Annual Environmental O Operating Report 18 of 32 O operation of WCCL and WCGS. The data have been highly variable which has Q W been attributed to fluctuating river flows that undoubtedly affect organism abundances but also greatly influence sampling efficiencies.

0 The macroinvertebrate monitoring program on the Neosho Ryiver was 0 reimplemented in 1985 to coincide with startup of WCGS after the program was discontinued in 1982. High, variable flows in 1985 resulted in low sample recovery and benthic densities that approached the lowest recorded since monitoring was initiated in 1973. Species richness and abundance improved substantially in 1986 as flows were comparatively stable and low. In 1987, the number of taxa encountered remained stable, and mean annual ponar density exhibited continued improvement.

The potential for WCGS to impact the Neosho River macroinvertebrate community has been minimal based on low diversion rates from JRR tailwaters and the lack of substantial discharge from VCCL.Benthic macroinvertebrates in WCCL have been sampled bimonthly since 1981 when the. cooling lake was initially filled. The benthic fauna of WCCL is fairly typical of lakes in general and midwestern reservoirs in particular.

Quantitative dissimilarities in the faunas from the three sampling sites reflected differences in respective depths, substrate composition, and organic matter content. The data have exhibited high annual variation from 1981 through 1987 that likely reflects various ecological, climatic, and limnological factors. Operation of WCGS caused no apparent changes in the macroinvertebrate community during the initial two years of operation.

Although mean annual benthic macroinvertebrate densities in 1987 (170 2 organisms/m ) were at a low for the seven-year study, densities declined 2 annually through 1984 after peaking in 1982 (1,521/m).

Mean annual 2 densities increased slightly in 1985 (332/m), the first year of station operation, but have since continued to decline. Downlake densities at the deepwater (17-22 m) location near the main dam were primarily responsible for the annual trend. At the organism level, primarily oligochaetes and H 3 .1987 Annual Environmental Ii=Operating Report 19 of 32 O chironomids influenced the trend as both groups declined annually after 0 peaking in 1982 except for tubificids which recovered in 1985 and then V" declined to relatively low densities in 1986 and 1987. The 1985 recovery 0 was due almost exclusively to mean annual tubificid densities at Location 6, which were the second highest recorded for the WCCL study. Apparent changes o in WCCL benthos reflect normal responses of pioneer organisms to newly-filled reservoirs and could be expected independent of WCGS operation.

Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates in the Neosho River from the tailwaters of JRR to below the confluence with Wolf Creek have been monitored since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from JRR. During periods of moderate to high flows. chlorophyll concentrations and fixation rates inmmediately upstream and downstream of the confluence with the creek- were very similar to those observed in the tailwaters.

During low flow conditions, values for both parameters immediately upstream of Wolf Creek were often different (usually but not always higher) than those observed at the other locations.

In 1987, both 3-the average annual chlorophyil-.-concentration (27.38 mg/mn-) and carbon fixa-3 tion rate (29.86 mg C/m /hr) were within the respective ranges (3.81-63.38 3 3 mg Chl a/m , 12.18-238.22 mg C/m /hr) observed for previous annual averages.

The 1987 results reflected a return to more normal conditions after the high phytoplankton values resulting from the generally low river flow of 1986. There has been no indication that adverse effects on the phytoplankton of the Neosho River have occurred as a result of the construc-tion and operation of WCGS.Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations and carbon fixation rates (sur-face samples) as well as zooplankton biomass (vertical tows) in the WCGS cooling lake have been monitored bimonthly since initial lake filling in 1981. Average annual chlorophyll a concentrations declined by approximately 30 percent from i981 to 1982, remained fairly stable from 1982 through 1984.and returned to near 1981 levels in 1985 and 1986. The annual value in 1987 3 declined by approximately 35 percent to 6.6 mg/m and was below the previous 3 range (7.5-11.0 mg/m ) of annual values. Temporally, phytoplankton standing H M 1987 Annual Environmental M Operating Report C1 ,20 of 32 0crop has been generally greatest in late summer or early autumn, and O spatially, it has generally been least in the downlake deep water location W near the dam. However, exceptions to these general pattdrns have been o bserved, and chlorophyll concentrations were unusually high in October and 0 December 1985 and April 1986. Carbon fixation rates have been strongly influenced by phytoplankton standing crop as well as natural variations in 0 ambient conditions (e.g. temperature), and as a result fixation rates have revealed' few consistent spatial or temporal" trends. " Unlike 1986 when unusually high fixation rates were common, the annual mean rate in 1987 (9.1 3 ag C/rm /hr) was slightly below the previously observed range of annual values (011.7-64.4 mg C/m3 /hr).Average annual zooplankton biomass, both dry and ash-free dry weights, dec-lined'from 1981 through 1984, although dry weight biomass appeared to stab-"ilize in 1983 and 1984.

• Ash-free dry weight increased from (40 mg/mn Y in 3 3 1984 to 67 mg/M in 1985 and 92 mg/m in 1986, and then declined to 53 3 3 mg/m in 1987. *Dry weight peaked in 1985 (234 mg/m ) and has since progressively declined in 1986 (154 mg/m3 ) and 1987 (123 mg/m3). Average annual dry weight in 1987 was less than that obvserved during lake filling in 1981 but greater than the 66 mg/m3 minimum of 1984. , Few consistent spatial and temporal trends have been observed for zooplankton biomass, but there has been a tendency for greater biomass in the up-lake shallower water and for greater biomass in late winter or early spring from 1981-1985 with spring and fall peaks in 1985 and 1986. A spring peak also occurred in 1987, but zooplankton sampling was discontinued before the normal period of the fall peak.Annual trends in phytoplankton and zooplankton through 1984 were considered representative of a new lake that was initially filled with eutrophic water and then gradually assumed its own character.

Increases in plankton apparent in 1985 and 1986 were considered primarily a response to natural factors although operational effects of the thermal discharge and altered lake circulation patterns associated with WCGS start-up may have been I H 1987 Annual Environmental M .Operating Report* 21 of 32 contributing factors. Plankton declines to normal levels during WCGS 0 o operation in 1987 support the conclusion that station operation is not W adversely affecting plankton production.

Based on average annual chlorophyll a concentrations, the WCGS cooling lake remains in the mesotrophic classification.

0 The fish conmmunity in the Neosho River at the JRR tailwaters, and above and below the confluence with Wolf Creek has been monitored since 1973. The study was curtailed.

in 1981 and discontinued from 1982-1984 before reinstatement in 1985 to coincide with startup of WCGS. Potential opera-tional effects of WCGS on the fishery were limited to diversion of water from JRR tailwaters for raw water and/or makeup water for WCCL and the effect discharges from WCCL would have downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek. Maximum diversion of river water occurred from August 2 to .1, 1987, when use of two make-up. water pumps diverted 100 cfs which was equivalent to 41 percent of the mean daily discharge from JRR during that period. Maximum diversion of river water based on mean monthly flows also occurred in August 1987 (3.1 percent) and was higher than previous maxima observed in June 1986 (0.4 percent).

Closure of the WCCL dam eliminated flood stage flows in Wolf Creek and generally improved the water quality.Trends in electrofishing and seining data between locations upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence suggested changes in Wolf Creek due to WCCL and operation of WCGS had no effects on the Neosho River fishery.Overall, few long-term trends were apparent and annual differences were related to natural variability, releases from JRR, and river flows which Influenced gear efficiency.

Changes in electrofishing gear that occurred in 1981 contributed to lower catches during the operational study. Catch data did not reflect potential influences of commercial fishing In 1980, impingement losses at the WCGS makeup water screenhouse in 1981, or a documented fish kill in August in 1986.

H 3 °1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report.rJ 22 of 32 3. OCCURRENCE AND ABUNDANCE OF ASIATIC CLAMS o (Corbicula fluminea)W o The Asiatic clam (Corbicula flumlnea) has been reported to cause biofouling-problems in power plant cooling systems. The first report of Corbicula near 0 WCGS was August 1986 when immature clams were collected at long-term_D monitoring sites located on the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek. To compliment the on-goIng ecological monitoring program, a discrete survey was conducted during the fall of 1987 to identify the distribution-of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS.. This late summer, effort will be continued annually.

This report presents the findings of this survey and combines it with information gathered during the ecological monitoring studies.During the special Corbicula survey, 51 discrete sampling efforts were completed of which included 23 efforts in WCCL, three in Wolf Creek, and 14 below and 21 above JRR in the Neosho River. Only four specimens were collected, three downstream of the Burlington low-water dam and one near the U.S. 75 bridge. These locations are on the Neosho River below the JRR dam.No Corbicula were found at the WCCL makeup pumps located near the JRR spillway, nor were any found upstream of JR.R. Similarly, searches on WCCL yielded, no evidence of Corbicula.

I At standardized monitoring locations in the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence, established Corbicula populations apparently have developed.

During the WCGS Ecological Monitoring Program.Ifour were collected in 1986 and 46 during 1987 at these locations.

Disarticulated shells were readily found along the river banks. As during the special survey, none were located in WCCL.The apparent lack of Corbicula upstream of JRR minimizes the potential that it will become established in WCCL. It is generally accepted that other than man mediated dispersion, downstream drift of the planktonic larval stage is the main factor affecting range extensions.

Therefore, before i H:D.1987 Annual Environmental O Operating Report 23 of. 32 O Corbicula could be introduced in WCCL via makeup water, it would have to 0 occur upstream in JRR. Although Corbicula has been found in most W substrates, suggested preferred substrates are not present in the Neosho o River immediately below or in JRR. This condition should further decrease.0 the likelihood of Corbicula pioneering into WCCL. Thus far, monitoring in O the vicinity of WCGS has shown Corrbtcula far below nuisance levels. Success of establishment in WCCL is limited but the potential for introduction exists provided the river population remains established.

Future annual*1 surveys should monitor population trends and document local range extensions near WCGS.I 4. FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 1987 I Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL near WCGS, Coffey County, Kansas from April through October 1987. These resulted in the collection of 4,037 fish representing 11 families and 30 species. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Plant operations began in October 1985 and have shown no I adverse impact on-the fishery thus far. As of 1987, bluegills, gizzard shad and green sunfish, three prey species, occupied the top three abundance I positions with 23.5Z, 21.4Z and 10.6Z, respectively, of the total fish I caught in the standardized effort. Next in abundance came predators with largemouth bass, white crappie, black crappie, white bass, walleye, smallmouth bass and wipers ranging from 7.2? to 2.5Z. When the total biomass of all fishes captured in the standardized effort is considered, the common carp reached the top place at 17.3Z in 1987 after continuing its trend of slow increase.

Largemouth bass dropped by more than 113 from 1986 to 1987 going from first ,(18.8Z) to third (11.9?). Wipers remained steady at 13.8Z in 1987. Walleye (9.4Z). white crappie (8.9Z), channel catfish (7.1Z), white bass (6.4Z). black crappie (5.7Z) and smallmouth buffalo (5.2?) occupied positions 4 through 9, respectively, in percent biomass.Gizzard shad biomass was tenth highest and was 3.6Z of the total in 1987.

H 3)L) .1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 24 of 32 0 Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density O (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Hr) and condition factor (K ) continue to show W TL large average sizes., slowing growth and low to moderate condition for Wolf o Creek predators.

Wiper growth continues but at more modest rates than in its earliest years. Growth of WCCL's initial largemouth bass year classes O also has slowed greatly. Growth of crappies, white bass, and walleyes continues at moderate rates. For all Wolf Creek predators, average sizes are large and the proportion of mature fish (quality size and larger) versus smaller, immature fish (stock size) is also large, leading to very high PSD's. At -the same time, condition of these predators is lower than the averages from other Kansas impoundments.

In contrast, both gizzard shad PSD and Hr values are close to the top of reservoirs surveyed in Kansas. While these qualities in shad have been shown to be optimal for production of a good prey base, few YOY gizzard shad in WCCL remain through their first winter. Little or no survival of the last'three year classes of gizzard shad indicate that the combination of predation pressure and vinterkill are adequate to control expansion of the WCCL shad population.

Thus, no impingement problems have been-.-. experienced

...thus far. The sportfish/roughfish ratio in Wolf Creek is very high when compared with other reservoirs in the midsection of the U.S. The unusually low number of gizzard shad and equally unusually high number of predators in WCCL mean predator condition is low but more importantly, so are impingment rates.5. FOG MONITORING ACTIVITIES The fog monitoring study was initiated in December 1983. The purpose of the 7study was to assess the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL operations on the occurrence of fog along U.S. Route 75 in New Strawn, Kansas. Visibility was monitored continuously at New Strawn with an instru-ment that utilizes a light scattering measurement technique.

Monitoring was scheduled throughout the year except for the months of June, July, and August. A total of 6.984 hours0.0114 days <br />0.273 hours <br />0.00163 weeks <br />3.74412e-4 months <br /> of preoperational phase visibility data was H 3 " M ,. 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 25 of 32 0*o collected prior to commencement of full power operations at WCGS on June 4, L4 1985. This database was used to represent baseline conditions of "natural" o fog occurrence in the site vicinity.-o o Operational phase monitoring was conducted through May 1986. A total of 0. 4,775 hours0.00897 days <br />0.215 hours <br />0.00128 weeks <br />2.948875e-4 months <br /> of operational data was collected during periods when WCGS was operating at or near full power. Although completion of visibility monitoring at the conclusion of this initial year of commercial operations fulfilled all WCGS commitments relevant to the fog study, the 1986 Annual Environmental Operating report expressed the intentions of the Environmental Management

-Group to conduct additional visibility monitoring during the period from September 1987 through February 1988. The reasons for conducting additional monitoring included (1) increasing the size of the operatlonal phase database, particularly for the autumn months where data I was lacking and (2) changing the methodology such that the effect of fog enhancement due to cooling lake operations could be more thoroughly evaluated.

Fog enhancement is the process where existing na-tural fog is made more dense by the addition of moisture from the warm surface of the cooling lake. Unfortunately, a series of instrument malfunctions delayed the scheduled start of monitoring to the point where it became obvious that little or no additional data could be collected during the 1987-88 monitoring season. This represented the second consecutive winter season that monitoring could not be conducted due to instrument malfunctions.

I Because sufficient data was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and all. commitments relevant to the fog study had been satisfied, it was decided that the benefits to be gained from collecting additional data were outweighed by the delay that this effort would entail. Consequently, the additional monitoring was cancelled and a summary report of the entire fog study was completed in March 1988.Visibility data were analyzed for this study primarily t'hrough the use of several indices which could reasonably be expected to provide an indication of increased fogging due to WCCL operations.

While the final analysis I H M -1987 Annual Environmental O Operating Report 26 of 32 0 showed that these indices were not in total agreement, the results were in sufficient agreement to confidently conclude that there was no appreclable increase in fogging at the monitoring site that was attributable to WCGS operations.

The results also suggested that the magnitude of normal year-to-year fluctuations in the frequency of natural fog is probably far greater 0 than any changes in fog frequency due to cooling lake effects.The frequency of 'naturalm fog recorded during the preoperational phase was determined to be 4.0 percent. Against this benchmark, fog frequency declined to 3.1 percent during WCGS operations.

Since it was expected that cooling lake induced fogging would be most prevalent during the winter months, a seasonal breakdown of fog frequency was also performed.

This analysis showed that the frequency of fog occurrence during the operational

• phase winter of 1985-86 declined to 4.3 percent compared to a value of 6.9 percent for the preoperational phase winter of 1984-85. These results were considered highly representative of the respective winter seasons since the availability of visibility data was above 95 percent during both winters.I The frequency with which southeasterly winds occurred in conjunction with fog events was considered to be a more reliable indicator of the influence of cooling lake operations than fog frequency.

This is because the monitoring site was located northwest of the WCCL discharge cove, making I southeasterly winds a prerequisite for the transport of cooling lake induced fog to the monitoring site. Southeasterly winds occurred during 25 percent of all fog-hours recorded during the preoperational phase, but during only 13.5 percent of all operational phase fog-hours.

This trend was most pronounced when comparing the preoperational and operational phase winters.where the decline was from 30.0 percent to 7.6 percent. This is convincing evidence that cooling lake operations did not appreciably affect fogging at the monitoring site during WCGS operations.

The only index utilized in this study that suggested some influence of cooling lake operations was the frequency.of dense fog relative to total fog. Dense fog was analyzed separately from other fog events because it has.I N 3)1987 Annual Environmental D Operating Report 27 of 32 o the most detrimental effect with respect to driving impairment.

The 0 frequency of dense fog relative to total fog increased from 24.7 percent during preoperations to 28.6 percent during operations.

However, the 0 importance of this increase was diminished by the fact that the frequency of* critical southeasterly winds during occurrences of dense fog decreased to 26 o percent during plant operations compared to a preoperational baseline value-of 38 percent. Therefore, the increase in-dense fog frequency at the monitoring site was most likely due to natural fluctuations.

The results of analyses for the persistence of fog episodes and the visibility class distribution of fog-hours were inconclusive.

An average fog episode during the operational phase was shorter than a preoperational phase fog episode, but the magnitude of the decrease was insufficient to determine whether a trend was present. Similarly, a decrease was noted for average visibility of. operational phase fog-hours, but-the magnitude of this decline was not significant.

Rather than rely solely on the aforementioned indices to detect the presence of man-made fog from the cooling lake, a search of the data base was condudted for individual fog episodes potentially of cooling lake origin which may have gone undetected by the other analyses.

Only eight days during the entire operational phase were identified as having this potential.

However, all fog occurring on each of those days was judged to be of natural origin. This judgement was based on a review of local visibility observations made by site personnel as well as regional observations by the National Weather Service.While this study has concluded that cooling lake operations did not cause an appreciable increase in fogging at the monitoring site in New Strawn, it did not conclude that man-made fog from WCCL will never pose a problem along Route 75. First, it must be considered that weather conditions during the operational phase of the study may not have been conducive for the initia-tion of steam fog or the subsequent transport of this fog to the monitoring i!

H 1987 Annual Environmental i

Report 28 of 32 0 site. An increased frequency of southeasterly winds coinciding with favor-0 able conditions for fog development may, in future years. cause fogging to W become more frequent at the former monitoring site. Secondly, although the 0 location chosen for monitoring was predicted to have the highest potential to experience fogging events resulting from cooling lake operations, there 0 may have been undetected episodes of cooling lake induced fog along other-0 portions of Route 75. Such an event was actually observed in February 1986 following the completion of operational phase monitoring.

Although this event was viewed as an isolated incident, additional documentation and evaluation would be warranted if such events are found to occur frequently.

6. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES September 1986 through April 1987 Avian density and diversity observed during operation of WCGS were similar to preoperational studies. An annual operational average of 131 different species were observed.

This average represents an 11 percent decrease from the three year -preoperational average of 147 species. During 1986-1987 monitoring, three new species were observed, bringing the total number of bird species observed in the vicinity of WCGS to 230 since monitoring began. Establishment of WCCL has resulted in an increase in species diversity observed in the local area. Annual species diversities have increased approximately 50 percent above those observed prior to lake filling. This was expected as the lake provided numerous waterbird habitats while upland areas supported similar bird populations present prior to lake filling. Detectable differences due to station operation were not found.During the 1986-1987 monitoring, 47 water-related species were observed on the cooling lake during waterfowl and waterbird surveys. Large numbers utilized WCCL during migration and a general increase over preoperational totals was observed.

Most species observed used JRR to a greater extent than WCCL.I 1987 Annual Environmental Q "Operating Report 29 of 32 O Threatened or endangered species observed since 1973 included the white-0faced ibis bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and interior least W tern. Bald eagles were common winter residents using WCCL primarily as a U feeding and loafing site. The prairie falcon was removed and the white-faced ibis was added to the Kansas threatened list as of May 1987. Thesei O species migrate through or infrequently visit the area and can be expected.to be observed in the future.Bald eagle usage on WCCL declined since plant operations while remaining' consistent on JRR. Operational usage on WCCL declined, it was assumed, because larger numbers of a more vulnerable and preferred food resources (primarily gizzard shad) were available on JRR than WCCL. Bald eagle usage during severe winter periods with WCGS operating could not be characterized because no harsh winters have occurred.Waterbird usage was similar between the two lakes. American coots used WCCL to a much greater extent than JRR. Pondweed development was thought to be the primary reason for this. Double-crested cormorants used both lakes similarly.

It was apparent that JRR provided easier foraging habitat while WCCL supplied roosting and nesting sites.Of the ducks observed on both reservoirs, fluctuating water levels on JRR appeared to greatly influence the distribution between the lakes of early fall migrants.

During periods of little fluctuation on JRR, WCCL with its aquatic macrophyte growth appeared to attract these ducks, especially during the 1984-1985 preoperational study. Continued use of these weed beds was not evident during operational studies. With high water levels on JRR, this influence was over-shadowed by the attractiveness of JRR. The operation of WCGS greatly influenced the duck distribution' between the two lakes during late winter. The heated effluent kept most of WCCL ice-free, providing previously unavailable late winter habitat. This, in combination with seclusion and close, abundant food supplies, appeared to keep ducks on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Spring ducks were attracted to JRR almost exclusively over WCCL as during preoperational seasons.i H 1987 Annual Environmental o

• Operating Report 30 of 32 0 Goose distribution between the two reservoirs was similar to preoperational 0 seasons. The increasing trend evidenced during previous years was continued during the 1986-1987 operational year to the point where more Canada geese 0, were observed on WCCL than on JRR.\o o During operational monitoring, it was shown that mallards, snow geese, and,-0 to a lesser extent. Canada geese increased on WCCL during winter periods when ice formation on JRR was present. Although the ice-free condition was probably a major factor, it was evident that wind protection, hunter refuge,.and/or high food availability also contributed.

The area where these factors were most prevalent on WCCL was preferred by mallards and snow geese. Large waterfowl concentrations may cause problems with crop depredations and disease outbreaks.

However. these concentrations, it is felt, have not reached levels high enough to cause wide-spread crop depredation problems.

Given similar usage patterns in the future, mallards and snow geese may be expected to have the greatest potential for causing depredation problems at WCCL. This is because these species occur in the*largest numbers and have consistently crowded -in areas of WCCL at times when late-harvested crops are most vulnerable.

Canada geese, although using the same crop types and at peak numbers during the same time periods, at this time should not pose as great a threat because they have tended to occur in smaller concentrations around the cooling lake. Although waterfowl disease outbreaks have not been observed, potential areas of concern will be similar as for crop depredation events because of the consistent use of the same areas.Results of collision surveys revealed similar mortality rates to those previously documented.

Ten species were identified during the study. No threatened or endangered species were found during these surveys. No significant relationships were found between the number of collision mortalities and the total use of the area by live birds. It was concluded that collisions with transmission facilities associated with WCCL during station operation did not cause sufficient avian mortality to be considered problematic.

H 3).0 0 0 W 0 0 Jo 1..1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 31 of 32 Twenty-five mammalian and 12 herptile species were documented of which one mammal was not previously reported.

No threatened or endangered species were observed.An increase in avian species diversity due to lake filling was identified by preoperational studies. Plant operation has not altered this. The major operational effect identified was the increase of wintering waterfowl likely caused by ice-free water on WCCL. However, no identifiable problems were observed as a result of this. No significant increases in avian collisions, with transmission lines due to station operation were observed and this continues to have little impact.October through December 1987 This synopsis provides a summary of wildlife data collected from October through December 1987 as part of the 198711988 Operational Wildlife Monitor-ing Program. These data are not presented in the report summarized above.Waterfowl and waterbird counts and transmission line collision surveys were continued.

SpeCial attention was given to both state and federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species occurring in the vicinity of WCGS.A total of 35 waterfowl and waterbird species were observed during 13 ground counts during fall and early winter of 1987. The most abundant species were the mallard, American coot, and Franklin's gull making up 57, 20, and nine-percent of the total, respectively.

This is similar to past monitoring seasons, however, since no surveys were completed during September, 1987 as in past years, the percentage rankings changed favoring later migrating waterfowl, especially mallards.

Apparent factors influencing usage of WCCL continue to include relatively clear water, seclusion, wind protected coves, concentrations of aquatic weed growth, and availability of agricultural fields. Heated effluents influenced waterfowl usage very little to none at all as WCGS was not operating due to a refueling outage throughout most of H w 1987 Annual Environmental Operating Report 32 of 32 CI this time period. No identifiable crop depredation or disease problems were hipresent among waterfowl concentration on WCCL during the fall and early.winter of 1987.C- Transmission line collision surveys were completed in November and December.1987. Sixteen mortalities representing five different species were found.No mortality of threatened or endangered species were observed.

All specimens positively identified were waterbirds associated with WCCL habitat. None of the collision events observed during the fall and early winter of 1987 were considered detrimental to the populations using WCCL.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species observed using WCCL. As during past studies, the eagles were common winter residents first appearing during late November.

1987. The cooling lake was used as a feed-ing and loafing site primarily, however not to the extent observed on JRR.No changes in bald eagle usage of WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1987 were identified.

H WCREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Bart D. Withers President and D Chief Executive Office April 26, 1989 O0 ,W1 89-0116 ti U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)" Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of January 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988.Very truly yours, Bart D. Withers President and Chief Executive Officer BDW/jad Enclosure cc: B. L. Bartlett (NRC), w/a E. J. Holler (NRC), v/a R. 0. Martin (NRC), w/a D. V. Pickett (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 4111 Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: 1316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/FMHCIVET H ITi C3 C)Id'u'WCNOC E24 02-89 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION-ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1988 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BUL NGTON, KS 66839 PUBLISHED APRIL 1989 PREPARED BY DAN HAINES H.-3)WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION C)0 1988 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

I 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

..1 2.1 AQUATIC."-

2.1.1 Impacts

of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River 1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake .2 2.1.3 Cold Shock ..................

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

..... 4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ........................

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

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

6 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion.Zone

.........

...6 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake .........................................

6 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

7 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and.Monitoring 7 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program...............................

8 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program ...........................

8 2.2.7 Land Management Program .............................

.9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

9 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ...........................

9 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ........ ..................

15 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports .................

15 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

16 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

16 H 1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 1 of 16 C)1.0, INTRODUCTION

.4: Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) has committed to minimizing the A impact of facility operation on the environment.

The 1988 Annual MI Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1988 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2:1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John'Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1988, 3.876 billion gallons or 40 percent of this allotment was used.Auxillary raw water was pumped at a rate of approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day which comprises about 13 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from June 16 through June 30 and from August 12 through September 15, 1988. Based on monitoring studies completed during the year, no changes attributable to these withdrawals have been witnessed in the river water quality or phytoplankton biomass.

H 3)1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 2 of 16 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4: 4.2.6:1 of the Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/i at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three .30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (Section 5.5.2.2. FES/OLS).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/i in the circulating water effluent.Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages to the CWS have averaged approximately 61 pounds per day. Compliance with the daily maximum TRC limit was 100 percent. Compliance with chlorination dose durations was greater than 99 percent.Monitoring during 1988 detected a daily average TRC concentration when the CWS was operational of less than 0.1 mg/l, well below the 0.2 mg/1 permitted level. In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS. the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual monitored values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities 31).1988 Annual Env.PIT r) Operating Rpt.Page 3 of 16 C attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted 03 chlorine discharges during 1988 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

C3 Allowance in the NPDES permit was provided to enable WCGS to. discharge chlorinated water from the Service Water System (SWS) when the CWS was not operating.

During the 1988 refueling outage, this situation existed. The CWS was taken out of service on October 9 and remained off until November 28, 1988. Both the CWS and SWS were not operated from November 8 through 13. 1988. The WCGS need for higher TRC concentrations in the SWS flow during normal operations was not of environmental concern because of the immediate dilution of chlorine levels once the SWS flow was combined with CWS discharge.

The SWS comprises approximately eight percent of the normal CWS flow and normal chlorine monitoring of the CWS verified significant chlorine dilution.

Without CWS flow, however, the SWS discharged without dilution to WCCL. Permit TRC limits may be established for this discharge once sufficient data are collected.

As of this report, the KDHE has not limited chlorine while in this operational*

mode. Average TRC measured at the SWS confluence with the CWS was 0.8 mg/l.By the time this flow path reached the WCCL discharge, TRC was reduced to an average of 0.5 mg/l. The average daily chlorine dose to SWS during this period was 650 pounds.Both the observed average TRC and actual dose rates were below the range evaluated in the FESIOLS (0.68 to 1.08 mg/l TRC at 1233 pounds/day).

Within this range chlorination effects were judged to be acceptable (Section 5.5.2.2, FESIOLS).

H f>3 1988 Annual Env.F11 Operating Rpt.Page 4 of 16 0 A different operational mode used during 1988 resulted in a third chlorine discharge route to the cooling lake. A portion of the SWS flow was diverted to the Essential I- Service Water System (ESWS) and discharged to the Ultimate 4: Heat Sink (UHS), which is. part of the cooling lake. This t') was done to supply warming lines that prevent ice formation at the ESWS intake. This diverted flow was continuous and had no additional chlorine added over that dosed to the swS. The KDHE approved this discharge and TRC data.collected during 1988 will be used to establish limits to this discharge.

This flow will be monitored as a new NPDES outfall. These data, collected from February 12 through March 13, 1988, ranged from 0.01 to 0.41 and averaged 0.2 mg/l TRC. This is below the evaluated range of 0.68 to 1.08 mg/l TRC, which was judged to be acceptable (Section 5.5.2.2, FES/OLS).

Further evaluation by WCGS personnel demonstrated that no increases in chlorine effects to the WCCL biota over those previously evaluated would result from this flow diversion during winter conditions (EPP Evaluation 88-04 summarized later).2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to 'cold shock', a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states. 'Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake'. In 1988, cold shock mortality events due to plant shutdowns were observed, however, they were judged not to be greater than impacts anticipated in licensing documents.

H 3).1988 Annual Env.P.1 0 Operating Rpt.Page 5 of 16 0 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100Z. Becauseof this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts V 1 were not required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and have not been implemented by WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been implemented.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are spor-adic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and infrequent blowdowns, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges are regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon. the water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. A maximum 0 of 90 F is allowed in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone from Wolf Creek. In 1988, no NPDES violations at the WCCL dam (Outfall 004) were recorded.

At no time H 1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 6 of 16 Q did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River. Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River 0 water quality or phytoplankton biomass due to WCCL.4: discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

(EPP Section 2.21 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, all agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087'MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grass stands were reestablished.

Land management activites specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the H* 1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 7 of 16 1'J o designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

O 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating N Station Structures

.11 A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water. Applica-tion rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre. A one percent solution of Roundup (EPA Reg. No. 524-308-AA) with water was also used in selected areas. These herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

No herbicides were applied to the transmission right-of-ways associated with WCGS during 1988.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCGS in the event of such problems.During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance H 31)1) 1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 8 of 16 0 activities taking place over this reporting period, no C) avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

0.4: 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]..'Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon conclusion of the 1987 data collection, its was determined.

that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program was completed during 1988. Through .casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any incidents of man-made fog along U.S. 75 during 1988. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1987/1988 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL, to H 1988 Annual Env.ri Operating Rpt.Page 9 of 16 (3 assess transmission line collision mortality of waterfowl Ci using WCCL, and to develop an annual wildlife report.Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP.4: reporting period overlaps with part of the 1988/1989 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were U" the same as for the 1987/1988 season minus the transmission line collision assessment.

Wildlife monitoring activities are summarized in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted-techniques for land-maintenance;-

soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included construction or repair of livestock fences and ponds, and the construction or establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1988 Land Management Report appears in Attachment I of this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES (EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant N 3)1988 Annual Env.13 Operating Rpt.'Page 10 of 16 Q Modification Request or operating change which received an environmental evaluation in 1988 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or* experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1988.Ul] Evaluation 88-01: Application of Hydrochloric Acid to Circulat-ing Water Screen House Floor This evaluation covered concerns with the by-products of an etching process required to prepare floors for a non-slip surface. This was to be done in the Mechanical Pump Room at the Circulating Water Screen House. Since the pH of the hydrochloric acid (muriatic acid) used would be neutralized before it was rinsed into the intake bays, no environmental impacts would occur. In the rinse, total dissolved solids and total suspended solids would be minor when diluted in the CWS flow and discharged to the cooling lake. No significant increase in evaluated environmental impacts would result from this project.Evaluation 88-02t Processing of High TDS Collector Tanks to the Site Oily Waste Separator through Turbine Building Sump An environmental evaluation was required due to an operational procedure revision involving the flow path of a plant effluent.

The procedure allowed for the High TDS Collector Tanks to be drained and ultimately discharged to the cooling lake via the Oily Waste Separator.

The discharge point is an NPDES monitored outfall and this effluent routing had been H 1) J 1988 Annual Env.El Operating Rpt.Page 11 of 16 O acknowledged and approved by the KDHE. The procedure's intent Q) was to allow a back-up route for these tanks when the Wastewater Treatment Facility was inoperable.

No increase in Ii evaluated impacts would result from this operational procedure.

4: 1% Evaluation 88-03: Processing of Low TDS Collector Tanks to the Site Oily Waste Separator through Turbine Building Sump This environmental evaluation was identical to Evaluation 88-02. The procedure covered operation of the Low TDS rather than the High TDS Collector Tanks. Routing through the Oily Waste Separator was approved by the KDHE and this is a monitored NPDES outfall. No increases in evaluated impacts would result.Evaluation 88-04: Diversion of Heated and Chlorinated Service Water System Flows to the Ultimate Heat Sink This was an evaluation of the environmental impacts from diverting a portion of the heated and chlorinated Service Water System (SWS) flows to the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) in the cooling lake during winter conditions.

The purpose was to supply warming lines to prevent: ice formation at the Essential Service Water (ESW) intake and to provide chlorinated water to the ESW components to reduce microbiologically induced corrosion.

These flows normally are discharged to WCCL with the CWS. The diverted flow was routed to the UHS discharge, 20 feet under the surface of the cooling lake.Because flow was low, the area of WCCL affected by the heated and chlorinated discharge was minute, basically limited to the H 1988 Annual Env.U] Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 16 immediate vicinity of the underwater discharge structure.

It 0 was concluded that no increases above those evaluated for the CWS discharge would result from discharging heated and O chlorinated SWS flows to the UHS. The temperatures and TRC concentrations measured combined with the small flows would not significantly increase the exposure of the WCCL fishery to cold Ul shock, increase area waterfowl disease or depredation events.nor increase chlorine effects on the cooling lake biota during winter conditions.

Evaluation 88-051 Auxiliary Building and Control Building Pressure Test This evaluation involved a temporary procedure change to allow routing the discharge of the condenser vacuum pumps to. the turbine, building.

This discharge normally went to the unit vent from the condenser air removal/absorber unit. Air and water vapor were the effluent components considered within the scope of this evaluation.

Thus, no adverse environmental impacts would result.Evaluation 88-06: Temporary Modification for the Injection of Betz Powerline WCN01 into the CWS.This evaluation covered the impacts associated with chemical application to inhibit scale formation in the CWS condensers to improve plant performance.

The chemical was an organic phosphonate liquid (Betz Powerline WCNO1). Its initial high pH would present no environmental problem because of its low feed rate (70 gallons per day) when compared to CWS (500,000 gpm).The concentration of the chemical was at approximately 1i10,000 1988 Annual Env.* Operating Rpt.Page 13 of 16 0) of that evaluated and found to cause no mortality in test 0 C organisms.

Consequently, no adverse environmental impact to WCCL would occur.N Evaluation 88-07: Temporary Procedure Change Routing Regenerative Waste to the Lime Sludge Pond Ul This procedure change covered an interim method to route water treatment regenerative wastes to the Lime Sludge Pond (LSP). Discharge from the LSP to the cooling lake is an NPDES monitored discharge (Outfall 005). The only environmental concern with this discharge was that of pH. Mechanisms to insure proper pH compliance before being discharged into and subsequently out of the LSP were identified.

Thus no environmental impacts would occur.Evaluation 88-08: Hazardous Waste Storage Area Upgrading This evaluation covered the environmental impacts associated with construction and upgrading of the Hazardous Waste Storage Facility.

Improvements were to include a concrete slab, concrete coatings, guttering, a drainage system, and potable water. The major environmental concern was with the etching of the concrete with hydrochloric acid (muriatic acid) for chemical resistant surface preparation.

With proper use of an acid neutralizing agent, verifying neutral pH, and rinsing with large amounts of water, no environmental impacts would exist.Evaluation 88-09: Modification to the Downstream Grating on the Make-up Pipe through the John Redmond Dam H *1988 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.U3 Page 14 of 16 The evaluation covered the use of the make-up pipe through John 0 Redmond Reservoir to supply water to the WCCL Hake-up Screen House. This pipe had not been used appreciably since- it was installed during construction of WCCL. The grating, designed to prevent people from entering the pipe, impinged unexpected numbers of fish. The numbers trapped were judged to be of t little Impact to the Neosho River fishery. To enhance the U1 pipes flow efficiency and reduce public unsightliness problems.the grating was modified by removing every other vertical and horizontal bar. This significantly reduced the problem.An addendum to this evaluation was completed to cover unforeseen problem with using this pipe during winter conditions.

The cold water temperatures greatly increased the susceptibility of the fish to becoming pulled through from above John Redmond Dam. More fish were trapped on the grating, although not as many as before the modifications.

What was evident was the increased numbers on the rock shelf on which the flow spreads before reaching the channel. However, it was concluded that the mortality was not great enough to significantly impact the fishery of the Neosho River. What was a problem was the visibility of these fish to the public. To remedy impingement on the grating, procedure changes requiring grating removal before use were considered.

To eliminate stranding fish on the rock shelf, a channel was cut from the grating to the make-up channel (approximately 45 feet). These mitigative actions taken will reduce environmental impacts with operating the make-up pipe during all seasons.

H 3)A 1988 Annual Env.DI Operating Rpt.U Page 15 of 16) Evaluation 88-10: Procedure Change Involving Anticorrosion (3 Chemical Discharge from the Component Cooling Water System This procedure covered the filling and venting of anticorrosion chemicals and water from the temporary cooling water piping to U1 the ILRT Air Dryers Condenser and After Cooler. Environmental concerns were with the high pH typical in the effluent.Provisions ensured that pH would be checked and change if necessary to comply with NPDES limitations before being discharged.

No environmental impacts were present.Evaluation 88-11: Removal of Lead from Non-power Block Plumbing Systems New federal potable water regulations required that solders containing lead not be used when constructing or altering potable water systems. Specification requirements maintained by WCGS were changed to allow only solders with OZ lead content. This evaluation covered altering 'solder specifica-tions on an existing Plant Modification Request to require use of OZ lead solder. No environmental concerns were present with this change. All impacts benefited human health.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routine Reports No non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact were submitted to the NRC during 1988.

H 1988 Annual Env.n. Operating Rpt.Page 16 of 16 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during.4: 1988.UI 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WCGS in 1988, nonradiological environmental noncompliances were recorded along with the events surrounding them. These noncomp-liance events included deviation from NPDES permit criteria, ecological samples destroyed in transit, and documentation of fish kill events. These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP Section 5.4.1.

H C3 ATTACHMENT 1

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1988 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas 4.

H A--Attachment 1 to 1988 S"Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 1 of 16 O 1. 1988 Land Management Report This document reports on the implementation of the 1988 Land Management Plan for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). Unanticipated activities are also presented.

This report only involves the mostly agricultural lands around U! the cooling lake. Management of landscaped property associated with the power block area, switchyard, and other plant support buildings is not part of this program. Activities presented were designed to satisfy Sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B of the Facility Operating License. General objectives of this plan were to: a. reduce soil loss on agricultural and 'old field, areas b. maintain or increase agricultural production while enhancing wildlife benefits c. establish, improve, and/or maintain the native grass areas d. improve wildlife potential on non-agricultural lands Grasslands were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. These included grazing and haying. Some were inaccessible, unfenced, or were deemed unfit for these purposes.

Other areas were left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, fulfill regulatory requirements, or reserved for its wildlife value. In these cases, the areas were rested. They comprise about 1150 acres of grass, 150 acres grass/tree mixture, and 275 acres of timber.Grazed rangeland totaling 1680 acres was managed by 13 separate agreements with area farmers. One 50 acre pasture was rested. Lease options or controls included grazing season length, rotation programs, and stocking rates. Absolute tenant compliance was not formally verified, however, blatant violations of lease requirements were not evident. Other management 4--7) Attachment 1 to 1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 2 of 16 E) activities included fence and pond construction and controlled burning.Approximately 417 acres were leased to 12 separate local farmers for hay production.

Cutting and bale removal dates specified in the leases were met by most tenants.A Controlled burning on WCGS grasslands was used to slow woody invasion, decrease less desirable cool season grasses and weeds, and increase prairie vigor and production.

Approximately 1450 acres were planned to be burned in 1988, of these 1161 acres were burned. Of those burned 140 were unplanned and were done to facilitate a neighbor's burning efforts. Several areas were burned during mid-May, which was later than past seasons. Good control of woody invaders was evident.Approximately 45 acres were planted to native grass. The acreage consisted of 'old field" areas along the lake shorelines.

Establishment of native prairie grasses will reduce weedy areas, diversify wildlife habitat, and allow for easier control of tree and brush invasion.

Soil erosion will also be checked.Approximately 1390 acres were leased to 15 local farmers for crop production.

Management of these leases was consistent with past seasons.Double-cropping and fall tillage. except for winter wheat, were again not allowed. Compliance with lease requirements of contour farming and leaving standing edge crops for wildlife was good. The root plow was used on selected fields during 1988. This was accomplished through tenant agreements in the lease contracts.

This should increase the crop production along the tree borders without harming the trees. Increased production in these areas will increase seed left for wildlife and higher harvests beyond the edge rows will also raise income. This was evident during the dry year experienced.

New terraces were built on two fields and repair to existing ones were completed on three fields. No new waterways were built. The H i)

• Attachment 1 to 1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 3 of 16* terraces will slow storm water runoff thus reduce soil erosion. Increased 0 land values, production capability, and decreased silt load to the cooling lake should be realized.

In summary, it was felt that company lands were o3 managed balancing wildlife and soil conservation benefits with agricultural production.

U.'

3)Attachment 1 to 1988 P .Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 4 of 16 0 2. 1988 Water Quality Monitoring Report Environmental monitoring completed by WCGS personnel included studies on the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). Objectives accomplished by these studies were: U.'1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and WCCL 2. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and WCCL Water quality studies in the Neosho River near WCCL have been conducted at locations above and below its confluence with Wolf Creek since 1973.Seasonal mean concentrations of most water quality parameters during 1988 were within previously established ranges for the study area and no between-location differences were seen for any of the parameters monitored.

Differences in average 1988 values as compared with previous years'conductivity, sulfates, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and nitrates were attributable to the drought which began in sulmmer 1988 and continued through the year's end. Below-normal rainfall meant little direct runoff into this section of the river and smaller, less frequent releases from John Redmond Reservoir* (JRR). than usually occur. In 1988, average river turbidity was lower than any previous study year and average conductivity was higher than found since 1983 as a result of the dry conditions.

Average values for river nitrates and COD in 1988 were near the bottom of their previous ranges while sulfates continued their recent trend of increase to levels not seen since 1979 and 1980. Since filling of WCCL began in 1981, flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for H Attachment 1 to 1988 Annual Env. operating Rpt.Page 5 of 160 testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no 0 apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to 114 operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.* Water quality studies of WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being U1 pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Between 1982 and 1986 makeup water was generally only added during routine use of the auxiliary raw water pumps and quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. In 1987 use of makeup water increased to nearly 0.97 billion gallons and this' rose 4-fold to 3.9 billion in 1988. Despite this increase and as has been seen in the years since filling, WCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River. Concentrations of water quality parameters were very similar among locations in-the cooling lake, with the shallow upstream site (Location

2) slightly different in water quality than near the main dam (Location

6) and the station intake (Location 8). In general.concentrations of dissolved and suspended constituents in 1988 fell within ranges established during previous years of cooling lake operation.

Exceptions to this were sulfates, total dissolved solids (TDS) and conductivity which were at their highest levels since lake fill. Not surprisingly, turbidity concentrations were at their lowest levels ever., With drought conditions during much of 1988, WCCL had reduced natural inflows and lower lake level than during previous years. In combination with forced evaporation due to plant operations, these conditions produced sulfate concentrations which continued their mild trend of increase while TDS and conductivity which are affected by sulfate levels also increased above previous operational marks. The TDS rise was a reversal of the decline seen in 1986 and 1987. In summary, no consistent trends in cooling lake chemistry have yet been seen which are attributable to WCGS operations.

Attachment 1 to 1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 6 of 16 1 Surface water temperatures in the cooling lake during spring and summer C3 periods have been warmer than during preoperation years. This was expected N. with operation of the plant and has been especially evident at Location 2, Q which receives heated effluent during spring, summer and fall when southerly winds prevail. Dissolved oxygen data indicated stratification with an 13 anoxic hypolimnion beginning in June, forming strongly in August and being Ul nearly dispersed by October. This pattern varied somewhat from previous years when WCCL generally stratified completely by June or July and had mixed, well oxygenated bottom waters by August. Based on WCCL's relatively large average depth (21 ft.) and data from other Kansas impoundments, longer periods of vertical stratification for the cooling lake would be expected but have not occurred during preoperational or operational years.Considering data prior to and including 1988, stratification patterns in WCCL appear to be independent of the generating station's intake, warming, and discharge of circulating water.Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations as indicators of standing crop have been -moni-tored in the Neosho River above and below the confluence with Wolf Creek since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from JRR. In 1988, due to summer and fall drought conditions, average Neosho River flows were low compared with previous years. The annual 3 average chlorophyll a concentration was 30.86 mg/m which fell in the middle 3 of previous years' range of averages (3.81-63.88 mg Chl a/m ). This was not expected since, as was seen in 1986, riverine algal production generally increases with reduced flows as the body takes on more lentic characteristics.

Nevertheless, chlorophyll a monthly and yearly average values above and below the Wolf Creek -Neosho River confluence were nearly identical in 1988 and were similar to those from previous years. Therefore, there is no indication that adverse effects have occurred on Neosho River phytoplankton as a result of plant operation.

3)0 Attachment 1 to 1988 1' -: Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 7 of 16 Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations in the WCGS cooling lake have been monitored bimonthly since 1981. Previous years' average values ranged 3 3*W4 from 11.0 mglm in 1981 to 6.3 mglm in 1987 but within that span have shown o slow oscillations

-down during 1982-1984 and up during 1985-1986.

-3 Concentrations in 1988 increased to 7.94 mg/m which fits well within the established range. Locational chlorophyll a differences within WCCL in 1988 Ill were similar to the pattern seen previously of highest levels at the shallow, upstream Location 2, lowest concentrations at the deep, pelagic Location 6 with samples from near the circulating water intake channel's Location 8 falling in-between.

Overall, chlorophyll a concentration as an indicator of phytoplankton standing crop shows WCCL to continue in the mesotrophic range with mild, infrequent fluctuations indicating little or no.plant operational impacts.

1nAttachment 1 to 1988 PAnnual Env. Operating Rpt.ri Page 8 of 16 0 3. Occurence and Abundance of Asiatic Clams IJ, (Corbicula fluminea)0 4-- The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been reported to cause biofouling problems in power plant cooling systems. The first report of Corbicula near U1 WCGS was August 1986 when immature clams were collected at long-term monitoring sites located on the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence.

To compliment the on-going ecological monitoring program, a discrete survey was conducted during the fall of 1988 to identify the distribution of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS. This late summer effort is completed annually.

This report presents the findings of this survey.During the Corbicula survey, 45 discrete sampling efforts were completed of which included 23 efforts in WCCL, 18 below and 2 above JRR in the Neosho River. Collected were 49 live clams and 59 isolated valves (unbroken, half-shell, dead). These included 15 live clams and 25 valves collected below and five live and 29 valves collected above the Wolf Creek confluence to the Neosho River. Twenty-seven live and three valves were found at the Burlington city dam while two live and two valves were found further upstream.

No Corbicula were found at the WCCL makeup pumps located near the JRR spillway, nor were any found upstream of JRR. Similarily, searches on WCCL yielded no evidence of Corbicula.

The apparent lack of Corbicula upstream of JRR minimizes the potential that it will become established in WCCL. It is generally accepted that other than man mediated dispersion, downstream drift of the planktonic larval stage is the main factor affecting range extensions.

Therefore, before Corbicula could be introduced in WCCL via makeup water, it would have to occur upstream in JRR. Although Corbicula has been found in most H Attachment 1 to 1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 9 of 16 D substrates, suggested preferred substrates are not present in the Neosho C) River immediately below or in JRR. This condition should further decrease the likelihood of Corbicula pioneering into WCCL. Thus far, monitoring in o the vicinity of WCGS has shown Corbicula far below nuisance levels. Chances that Corbicula will become established in WCCL are limited at this time but the potential for introduction exists provided the river population remains oil established.

Future annual surveys should monitor population trends and document local range extensions near WCGS.

H P1 AnulAttachment 1 to 1988 ril rAnnual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 10 of 16 1 o) 4. 1988 Fishery Monitoring Activities gaJ o Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL from April through October 4. 1988. These resulted in the collection of 3,313 individual fish representing 11 families and 29 species. Collection methods used were fyke U1 netting, seining, "electroshocking and gill netting. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Catch data calculated as percent relative abundance for all gears combined showed bluegill highest (27.4Z) and gizzard shad next (11.2Z). This shad percentage represents a drop of 48Z from 1987.Predators came next with largemouth bass (8.2Z), white crappie (6.9Z), walleye (6.7Z) and wipers (4.2Z) maintaining high numbers. Green sunfish were seventh in 1988 at 4.0Z which is down from 10.6Z and 3rd place in 1987. White bass were eighth at 3.9Z. When total biomass of all species in the standardized effort is considered, wipers were first at 16.5Z followed by common carp (13.7Z), walleye (13.1Z), largemouth bass (10.8Z), white crappie (9.3?), channel catfish (9.0Z) and smallmouth buffalo (7.2Z). White bass were eighth at 6.1Z. Considering a life expectancy of five to seven years and that the age of the dominant wiper year class was seven in 1988.it is surprising that natural mortality hasn't reduced their number further thus far. The only other noteworthy result was the increased catch of smallmouth buffalo which raised them to seventh. Gizzard shad from 1987 to 1988 dropped from 3.3 to 2.2Z and from tenth to eleventh position.

This decline in gizzard shad may have been due in part to cold shock mortality experienced in February 1988 following a plant trip.Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Hr) and condition factor (K ) continue to show TL large average sizes, slowing growth of early predator year classes and low H Attachment 1 to 1988 1 Env. Operating Rpt.I'D Page 11 of 16 to moderate condition for Wolf Creek predators.

Wiper growth continues but C] at rates which are more modest and variable than in its earliest years.Since lake fill, growth of largemouth bass and black crappies from the 1981 and 1982 year classes has been followed.

In 1988 the numbers of fish N: captured from these groups became very small due to natural mortality.

Growth of largemouth bass, crappies, white bass, and walleyes continues at 0l moderate rates. For all Wolf Creek predators, average sizes are large and the proportion of mature fish (quality size and larger) versus smaller, immature fish (stock size) is also large, leading to very high PSD's. At the same time, condition of these predators is lower than the averages from other Kansas impoundments.

In contrast, both gizzard shad PSD and Wr values are close to the top of reservoirs surveyed in Kansas. While these qualities in shad have been shown to be optimal for production of a good prey base, few young-of-the year gizzard shad in WCCL remain through their first winter. Little or no survival of the last four year classes of gizzard shad indicate that the combination of predation pressure and winterkill are adequate to control expansion of the WCCL shad population.

Thus, no impingement problems have been experienced so far. The sportfish/roughfish ratio in Wolf Creek is very high when compared with other reservoirs in the midsection of the U.S. The unusually low number of gizzard shad and equally unusually high number of predators in WCCL meant predator condition was low but more importantly, so were impingement rates.

H O"u Attachment I1 to 1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 16 CJ C) 5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities October 1987 through March 1988 0 Avian density and diversity observed during operation of WCGS were similar to preoperational studies. Establishment of WCCL has resulted in an increase in species 'diversity observed in the local area. Annual species diversities have increased approximately 50 percent above those observed prior to lake filling. This was expected as the lake provided numerous waterbird habitats while upland areas supported similar bird populations that were present prior to lake filling. Detectable differences due to station operation were not found.Threatened or endangered species observed since 1973 included the White-faced ibis, bald eagle, peregrine falcon, prairie falcon, and interior least tern. Bald eagles were common winter residents using WCCL primarily as a feeding and loafing site. The prairie falcon was removed and the white-faced ibis was added to the Kansas threatened list as of May 1987. These species migrate through or infrequently visit the area and can be expected to be observed in the future.Bald eagle usage on WCCL declined initially since plant operation began while remaining constant on JRR. A large increase was observed during the 1987-1988 winter. Initial operational usage on WCCL declined primarily because of the two mild winters which caused gizzard shad, a more vulnerable and preferred food resource, to be more available on JRR than WCCL. Because WCGS was not operating during much of the 1987-1988 monitoring, usage tended to be influenced by the continuous freezing and thawing of the ice-cover on WCCL. This exposed winter killed gizzard shad not usually abundant on WCCL. Intermittent operations through a normal winter period appears to H9 *Attachment 1 to 1988 0Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 13 of 16 o cause WCCL to be an attractive bald eagle feeding location.

Bald eagle 0 usage during severe winter periods with WCGS operating continuously could not be characterized.

C)Waterbird usage between the two lakes was similar to past years. American coots used WCCL to a much greater extent than JRR. Pondweed development was thought to be the primary reason for this. Double-crested cormorants used both lakes similarly.

It was apparent that JRR provided easier foraging habitat while WCCL supplied roosting and nesting sites.Of the ducks observed on both reservoirs, fluctuating water levels on JRR appeared to greatly influence the distribution between the lakes of early fall migrants.

During periods of little fluctuation on JRR, WCCL with its aquatic macrophyte growth appeared to attract these ducks, especially during the 1984-1985 preoperational study. Continued heavy use of these weed beds was not evident during operational studies. With high water levels on JRR, this influence was over-shadowed by the attractiveness of JRR. The operation of WCGS greatly influenced the duck distribution between the two lakes during late winter. The heated effluent kept most of WCCL ice-free, providing previously unavailable late winter habitat. This, in combination with seclusion and close abundant food supplies.

appeared to keep ducks on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Because WCGS did not operate continuously during the 1987-1988 monitoring, this pattern was not as distinct.

Spring ducks were attracted to JRR almost exclusively over WCCL as during preoperational seasons.Goose distribution between the two reservoirs was similar to preoperational seasons. The increasing trend evidenced during previous years was not continued during the 1987-1988 operational year possibly because WCCL reflected preoperational conditions.

H Attachment 1 to 1988 C Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 14 of 16 It was shown that WCCL usage by mallards, snow geese, and to a lesser 0 C extent, Canada geese increased initially after operations during winter U periods when ice formation on JRR was present. However, usage during the F3 1987-1988 study compared closer to preoperational studies due to an extended.: plant outage. Although ice-free condition was probably a major factor, it was evident that wind protection, hunter refuge, andlor high food availability contributed.

The area where these factors were most prevalent on WCCL was preferred by mallards and snow geese. These types of waterfowl concentrations are known to cause problems with crop depredations and disease outbreaks.

However, the concentrations as of this report have not reached levels high enough to cause wide-spread crop depredation problems.Given similar usage patterns in the future, mallards and snow geese may be expected to have the greatest potential for causing wide-spread depredation problems around WCCL. This is because these species occur in large concentrations.

Although snow geese usage from year to year has been highly variable, they have crowded in areas of WCCL at times when late-harvested crops were most vulnerable.

Canada geese, although using the same crop types and present on the lake during the same time periods, at this time should not cause problems because they have tended to occur in smaller concentrations around the cooling lake. Any Canada depredation problems would likely be highly localized.

Although waterfowl disease outbreaks have not been observed, potential areas of concern will be similar as for crop depredation events because of the consistent usage of the same areas.Results of collision surveys revealed similar mortality rates to those previously documented.

Eight species were identified during the study.None were threatened or endangered species. Inherent biases were identified and measured.

It was concluded that collisions with transmission facilities associated with WCCL during preoperational and operational monitoring did not cause sufficient avian mortality to be considered problematic.

Also, it was concluded that because of the collision consistency observed between H uAttachment 1 to 1988 VI Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 15 of 16 years, the collision potential of WCGS has been characterized and that no further studies are needed. This statement is valid only if usage of WCCL, U.especially that of bald eagles, remains similar to that reported.October through December 1988 UI This synopsis provides a summary of WCCL bird usage data collected from October through December 1988 as part of the 198811989 Operational Wildlife Monitoring Program. These data are not presented in the report summarized above. This monitoring program was reduced from previous years to streamline efforts needed to identify station impacts. Waterfowl, waterbird and bald eagle surveys were reduced from four to two per month from October through March of the following year. With the exception of September surveys, this follows the schedule used by local wildlife agencies monitoring other Kansas reservoirs.

This schedule will allow station biologists to determine if changes from previously characterized patterns justify increased monitoring or mitigative action. Formal transmission line collision surveys were discontinued because enough information had been collected to characterize the mortality caused by the lines and it was shown to be insignificant.

No problems were expected given similar usage in the future. Special attention was given to both state and federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species occurring in the' vicinity of WCGS.A total of 29 waterfowl and waterbird species were observed on 6 ground counts during fall and early winter of 1988. The most abundant species were the mallard, American coot, and Franklin's gull making up 35, 39, and 19 percent of the total, respectively.

This is similar to the fall monitoring completed during past monitoring seasons. Apparent factors influencing usage of WCCL continue to include relatively clear water, seclusion, wind protected coves, concentrations of aquatic weed growth, and availability of Attachment 1 to'1988 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.E3 Page 16 of 16 JJ agricultural fields. Heated effluents influenced waterfowl usage very little to none at all as WCGS was not operating due to a refueling outage'w throughout most of this time period. Some winter wheat fields on WCGS lands\may have experienced crop damage, however these were fairly localized and p 4: widespread depredation events were not present. No disease problems were present among waterfowl concentrations on WCCL during the fall and early* winter of 1988.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species observed using WCCL. As during past studies, the eagles were common winter residents first appearing during late November.

The cooling lake was used as a feeding and loafing site primarily, however not to the extent observed on MRR. No changes in bald eagle usage of WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1988 were identified.

W*F CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION M JOh A. Bafte Ve Prwhdg o NUdwM Opefahlo May 1, 1990% NO 90-0142 0 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being..submitted pursuant to .Wolf Creek. Generating' Station. (WCGS) -Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. .. This report covers the operation of ..Wolf.Creek Generating Station for- the period; of January I,.. 1989.-. to".," Dicember 31, 1989. ... ':* " " * " .* -.................. ...........

.....,...,-.. .'- <** .Very:, truly .. .." -.. ,. ...; .. : ..-., ".'John A. Bailey Vice President Nuclear Operations JAB/ jra Enclosure cct R. D. Hartin (NRC), v/a ...D. Persinko (NRC), via D. V. Pickett (NRC), via M. E. Skow (NRC), via.................

"....P.O. Box 411 18wngton, KS 66I391 Phone: (316) 364-8831 ; .'An .*, ",..r,,'.-

.....Y "

$4 Attachment to NO 90-0142 WCNOC EM 02-90 (3 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1989 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 APRIL 1990...I 14 Ti 0\~WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1989 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

2.1.1 Impacts

of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .....2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ......2.1.3 Cold Shock 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

2.2.1 Control

of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .........2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Co6ling Lake ...........

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring 2.2.5 Fog.Monitoring Program ..............................

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program ...........

.........2.2.7 Land Management Program ...........................

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES .....................

3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .........................

3.2.1 Submitted

Non-Routine Reports ....... ........3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL

NONCOHPLIANCES

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

1 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 5 5 5 6 6 7 7 8 a 8 13 13 14 14 H 1989 Annual Env.FOperating Rpt.Page I of 14 O

1.0 INTRODUCTION

o Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) has committed to minlmizingthe

.9 impact of facility operation on the environment.

The 1989 Annual N Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1989 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1)2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JER) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1989, 2.914 billion gallons or 30 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped at a rate of approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day which comprises about 12 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from March 20 through April 6 and from May 1 through May 18, .1989.The flows in the.Neosho River that were measured by the United StAtes Geological Survey at Burlington during these 1989 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 2 of 14 O pumping periods were consistent with those measured prior to and after pumping. This indicates that pumping 0 activities during 1989 only withdrew water from JRR and did-9 not reduce Neosho River flows downstream.

Consequently, no changes to the river water quality or phytoplankton biomass attributable to the withdrawals were expected and, based on monitoring studies completed during the year, none have been witnessed.

2.1.2 Chlorine

Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4.2.6.1 of the Final Environmental StatementlOperating License Stage (FESIOLS):to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (Section 5.5.2.2, FESIOLS).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/l in the circulating water effluent.Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages to the CWS have averaged approximately 61 pounds per day. Compliance with the permit limits for daily maximum TRC and chlorination dose durations vere 100 percent. Monitoring during 1989 detected a daily average TRC concentration of less than 0.1 1989 Annual Env.1Operating Rpt.Page 3 of 14 o mg/l, well below the 0.2 mg/l permitted level. In Section W 5.5.2.2 of the FESIOLS, the proposed chlorination o treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual monitored values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1989 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

A different operational mode used during 1989 resulted in a second chlorine discharge route to the cooling lake. A portion of the ServiceWater System (SWS) flow was diverted to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) and discharged to the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS), which is part of the cooling lake. This was done to supply warming lines that prevent ice formation at the ESWS intake. This diverted flow was continuous and had no additional chlorine added over that normally dosed to-the. SWS. The KDHE approved this discharge and limited TRC concentration to 1.0 mg/i.This flow was monitored as a new NPDES outfall. When flows were discharged to this outfall, measured TRC concentrations ranged from 0.0 to 0.9 mg/l. This range is within the evaluated range of 0.68 to 1.08 mg/l TRC, which was judged to be acceptable (Section 5.5.2.2, FES/OLS).2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to 'cold shock', a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document 7 1989 Annual Env.rp Operating Rpt.Page 4 of 14 0 O evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, *Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause o significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling 4- lake'. In 1989, one cold shock mortality event due to plant operation was observed.

This event was judged not to be greater than cold shock impacts anticipated in licensing documents.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP'. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 10OZ. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and have not been implemented by WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been implemented.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are spor-adic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and infrequent blowdowns, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of.each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges are regulated to 1989 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 5 of14 0 maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon the water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. A maximum 0 of 90 F is allowed in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone from Wolf Creek.. In 1989, no NPDES violations at the WCCL discharge were observed.

At no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River. Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality or phytoplankton biomass due to WCCL discharges.

2.2-..TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2)"2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectivelycontrolled to, be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent H 1989.Annual Env.-Operating Rpt.Page 6,of 14 0 O to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously U cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural-successional stages or native grass stands were reestablished.

Land management activites specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

.A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of* WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water. Applica-tion rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre. These herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

No herbicides were applied to the transmission right-of-ways associated with WCGS during 1989.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of 1989 Annual Env.MOperating Rpt.Page 7 of 14 O suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency%o contacts to be made by WCGS in the event of such problems.During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. .Upon conclusion of the 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program was conducted during 1989. Through casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any incidents of man-rmade fog along U.S. 75 during 1989. in addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the ii 1989 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 8 of 14 0 0 1988/1989 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL.B Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1989/1990 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1988/1989 season. Wildlife monitoring results are sunmmarized in Attachment 1 of this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural-production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included construction or repair of livestock fences and ponds, and the construction or establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1989 Land Management Report appears in Attachment 1 of this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES (EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each Plant Modification Request or operating change which received an 1989 Annual Env.oOperating Rpt.Page 9 of 14 environmental evaluation in 1989 is presented.

There were no D changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question Xduring 1989.Evaluation 89-01: Substitution of Nalco Sure-Cool 1370 for Betz Powerline WCN01 for Scale Control.This evaluation dealt with changing condenser scale inhibitor chemicals.

Betz Powerline WCNOl was evaluated during 1988 in which no adverse environmental impacts were projected.

Nalco Sure-Cool 1370 was substituted for Powerline during 1989 and varies from it in that'it does not contain organic phosphonate.

• Both have pH of about: "13. and both have very low toxicity." Injection rates and routes are identical.

Based on these similarities, and the fact that Powerline produced no noticeable impacts ...... noQ.environmental impacts from Nalco Sure-Cool 1370 were expected.

The KDHE, responsible for water quality issues, approved this substitution.

Evaluation 89-02z Injection of Nalco 1383 into Circulating Water System This was an environmental evaluation of a Plant Modification Request which called for continuous injection of Nalco 1383 into circulating water at rates between 100 and 120 ppb to control condenser scaling. Nalco 1383 is a solution of sodium phosphonate and polyacrylates which reduce scale formation in plant piping.Its. pH. is between 3.5 and 4.5 which will be unnoticeable once diluted with the cooling water. Toxicity data revealed no adverse effects to selected organisms at 1000 ppm, approximately 10,000 times the planned injection rate of 100 to 120 ppb. Based on

.7 M1989 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.0 Page 10 of 14 0 o these factors, no environmental impacts from the use of Nalco 1383 were expected.

KDHE approval was obtained prior to use of this o chemical.Evaluation 89-03: Application of Aquatic Herbicides to Control American Lotus in Wolf Creek Cooling Lake This was an evaluation to determine the possible impacts to the cooling lake biota from using herbicides to control developing American lotus (Nelumbo lutes). Control of approximately nine acres were desired before extensive establishment around the lake occurred which would make control difficult and expensive.

Four different chemicals were used. Weedtrine II, a granular 2,4-D formulation for aquatic application, was used in areas inaccessible by land. The remaining three were tank mixed and applied from shore. They were Esteron 99C (a liquid 2,4-D), Rodeo (a glyphosphate herbicide), and Cide-Kick II (a nonphosphate surfactant).

Available toxicity data on these herbicides revealed little to no adverse effects to common biota in the cooling lake at the concentrations to be applied. Depletion of dissolved oxygen from decaying plants was not considered a problem because the area covered by the lotus comprised only 0.2 percent of the total surface area of the cooling lake. Based on these factors, no adverse environmental impacts were probable.Evaluation 89-04: Replacing Vitaclean A & B Film Cleaning Chemicals with No Chrome.Environmental concerns with discharging waste No Chrome film cleaning chemicals through the NPDES permitted sewage treatment facility were evaluated.

The No Chrome product was determined to be nonhazardous and would have no environmental impacts. Although not originally a component of No Chrome, silver was picked up 1989 Annual Env.I Operating Rpt.0Page 11 of 14 a during the cleaning process and therefore became a constituent of the waste. In this waste, silver was found to be well below the a maximum concentration at which it would be classified as hazardous.

Intentions were to process the waste No Chrome through a silver recovery unit before discharging, but this proved to be ineffective.

Consequently, the KDHE did not approve discharge to the sewage treatment plant and the preferred alternative was to dispose of it as nonhazardous solid waste.Evaluation 89-05; Piping Installation Between the Discharge of the Oily Waste Interceptor Pumps to the High TDS and Low TDS Collector Tanks.This was an evaluation of treatment by-passes made possible by piping additions which may effect the water'quality at an NPDES regulated discharge.

Regulatory guidelines.are for influents to..the Lime Sludge Pond (LSP) to be greater than pH 6 and lower than 9. As long as plant effluents enter the LSP via the Wastewater Treatment Facility (WTF), neutralization to within this range-will have occurred.

The proposed piping addition would allow Turbine Building drains to flow to the LSP in the event of a WTF outage without being checked to assure that the pH would be between the 6 to 9 range. The piping addition was considered acceptable based on plant environmental requirements provided that procedural and/or mechanical safeguards were implemented which ensure that.effluents during a WTF outage to the LSP are within the 6-9 pH range. Given these conditions, no adverse environmental impacts were expected.Evaluation 89-06: Diversion of Service Water System (SWS) Flows Through the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) During Summer Lake Conditions.

1989 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 14 O This evaluation looked at the possible impacts of heated and chlorinated SWS discharges to the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)o discharge in the cooling lake. Based on engineering projections, Xthe temperature increase at the UHS discharge (approximately 20 0 feet under the lake surface) would be raised 15 F. This was 0 expected to cool to 4.5 F above ambient by the time it reached the 0 surface and to 2.7 F higher than ambient once dispersed to four acres. This indicated that little area would be thermally influenced and that the increased temperatures would quickly be within the variability of natural temperature fluctuations governed by the weather. Projected chlorine levels (0.6 mg/l TRC)were lower than the NPDES permitted level (1.0 mg/l TRC) and the level evaluated in licensing documents (0.68 to 1.08 mg/1 TRC)which impacts were considered.

acceptable.

Based on these main factors, no significant environmental impacts were considered probable.Evaluation 89-07: Disposal of Liquid Scintillation Cocktail to the Sewage- Treatment Plant This evaluation has been postponed pending further assessment of the operational need for this discharge.

Evaluation 89-08: Procedure Changes Involving Resin Changeout.

This was an evaluation of new procedures governing the changeout of resins in ion exchangers.

Waste resins from these procedures had not previously been addressed.

The used resins were determined to be nonhazardous solid waste with their disposal being regulated by a solid waste disposal authorization from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.

No adverse environmental impacts were expected.

1989 Annual Env.14 Operating Rpt.0 Page 13 of 14 10 Evaluation 89-09: Extension of the Plant's Domestic Sewage System.0 XThis evaluation covered the environmental and regulatory concerns with constructing a new main extension to the sewage system. The addition would not tax the Sewage Treatment Plant (STP) beyond its design capabilities.

No significant changes to the NPDES monitored STP effluents were probable.

KDHE approval was obtained prior to this main extension and no environmental or regulatory impacts were expected.Evaluation 89-10: Trial Chemical Treatment of the Service Water System (SWS) and Essential Service Water System (ESWS).Chemical treatment trials to find preferred ways to control unacceptably

_high corrosion rates in the SWS and ESWS were evaluated.

Four tests using Betz proprietary chemicals were'recommended.

-Based on the toxicity data available for the chemicals, no mortality to the most sensitive organisms tested would result from the doses to be used in the SWS and ESWS systems. Treatment durations and frequency of only 15 minutes once per month further reduced any possible effects. No significant risk of environmental impacts was apparent.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-Routlne Reports There were no non-routine environmental reports involving significant impact submitted to the NRC during 1989.

1989 Annual Env.FOperating Rpt.Page 14 of 14 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations 0 0 W No unusual or important environmental events reportable

\o under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1989.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WCGS in 1989, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were recorded along with the details surrounding them. These included such things as deviations from study plan schedules, a late balance calibration, nonsignificant bird collision events, disposal of film processing chemicals to the sewage treatment plant, sack deterioration of stored herbicide, and documentation of a fish kill event. These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

H o ATTACHMENT 1\0 A

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1989 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas CONTENTS 1. Land Hangement Activities........................2

2. Water Quality Monitoring Activities

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

6 3. Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

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

10 4. Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

12 5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities

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

14 H.Attachment One to 1989 1Annual Env. Operating Rpt.0 Page 2 of 16 1. 1989 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This report is on the implementation of the 1989 Land Management Plan for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). Unanticipated activities are also presented.

This land management program involves for the most part, agricultural lands around the cooling lake. Landscaped property associated with the power block area, switchyard, and other plant support buildings was not part of this program. Activities presented were designed in part to satisfy Sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B of the Facility Operating License. Other general objectives of this plan were to: a. reduce soil loss on agricultural and "old field' areas b. maintain or increase a ricultural production while enhancing* wildlife benefits* c. establish, improve, and/or, maintain the native grass areas d. improve wildlife potential on non-agricultural lands Company lands are composed of primarily range, cropland, and .woodland habitats.

These lands were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. Most were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

Some were inaccessible, unfenced, or were deemed unsuitable for these purposes.

Other areas were left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, fulfill regulatory requirements, or reserved for their wildlife value.Grasslands Grasslands at WCGS consist of .grazed rangeland, hay meadows and odd areas left idle primarily for their wildlife value. Also, by not renting the odd p Attachment One to 1989 fro Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 3 of 16 O areas, the licensing commitment to maintain a 500 acre buffer zone around (9 the cooling lake in a "natural occurring biotic community, was satisfied.

-Grasslands leased to local farmers included grazed rangeland totaling 1518 acres and approximately 452 acres of hay meadow. Grazing lease options included grazing season length, rotation programs, and stocking rates. Hay lease requirements included cutting and bale removal dates.Controlled burning on WCGS grasslands was used to discourage woody invasion, decrease less desirable cool season grasses and weeds, and increase prairie vigor and production.

Approximately 1557 acres were planned to be burned in 1989. Of these, 951 acres were burned. An additional 45 acres, which were not planned to be burned, were done to facilitate neighbor efforts. As a result of on-site judgement, 606 acres were not burned as planned. The dry spring conditions would have made control of some burns difficult with available manpower, so these were cancelled.

Unfavorable wind conditions prevented others.Kansas law requires landowners to control noxious weeds on their property to prevent infestation of neighbor properties.

Two species, musk thistle and Johnson grass, have appeared on WCGS grasslands.

Musk thistle was sprayed with Tordon 22K during the fall of 1988 by the Coffey County Noxious Weed Department.

Mowing and manual removal along fence rows were done in the summer of 1989 and a second spraying by the County was completed in the fall of 1989. Some musk thistle infestations found were small and easily controlled through manual removal. Johnson grass infestation on WCGS grasslands consisted of scattered small areas around the cooling lake which were sprayed with Roundup herbicide.

Both Johnson grass and musk thistle have trouble expanding-in well managed rangeland, however, they will always threaten disturbed areas such as old farmsteads, road ditches, dams, and abandoned cropland if left uncontrolled.

-7 Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 4 of 16 Approximately 35 acres were planted to native grass. The acreage consisted Wof 'old fieldo areas along the lake shorelines.

Establishment of native r prairie grasses will reduce weedy areas, increase wildlife habitat, and allow for easier control of tree and brush invasion.

Soil erosion will also be checked.Cropland Cropland at WCGS consists of those fields left unflooded by the cooling lake. Most are upland areas along the sides of- the lake with some bottom land along Wolf Creek upstream from the lake. Approximately 1412 acres were leased to 14 local farmers for crop production:

primarily corn, milo, soybeans, and wheat. These are common crops grown in this region. Limited legume crops were also produced from WCGS cropland leases. Crops produced were not dictated in the lease agreements, but coumon conservation practices such as contour farming and limited fall tillage were specified.

Legume establishment by interested tenants was encouraged.

By requiring or encouraging these practices where practical, soil loss is greatly reduced keeping WCGS cropland production sustainable, maintaining land values, and greatly reducing silt accumulation in the cooling lake. Wildlife also benefit.As on WCGS grasslands, noxious weed control was necessary on some cropland areas. These are handled primarily through. tenant agreements as part of their normal farming practices.

However, some areas required attention to insure that widespread infestation along the lake shorelines and odd areas would not occur. Control attempts with musk thistle and Johnson grass were effective.

Highly Erodible Land (HEL) plans are management plans required by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). These are the responsibility of the landowners and are required to remain eligible for Attachment One to 1989... Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 5 of 16 O government agricultural programs.

Even though WCGS does not participate in the programs, compliance is necessary to allow tenants to participate as they see fit. Determinations of EEL have been completed by the SCS of most fields in Coffey County, including those at WCGS. Only one field was determined to be EEL and a plan was developed for it by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and approved by the ASCS committee.

The requirements in this plan which were designed to keep soil loss tolerances acceptable included terrace maintenance, contour farming, crop rotations, and reduced tillage. The first two are common lease requirements on all WCGS fields. The latter two are common practices previously employed or easily done by the tenant. Because soil conservation is a primary objective of this land management program, compliance is not expected to be a problem.iNative grass seeding and, wildlife weed strip establishment in cropland areas were designed to increase wildlife food and cover habitat diversity along..field borders. These practices devote edge areas of limited crop production value to Wildlife habitat. They consist of planted native grasses or natural weed growth in strips adjacent to fences or tree lines. Wildlife strips established in previous years were maintained through 1989.Conclusion Land management activities during 1989 accomplished program goals to the extent practicable.

Fences necessary for continued leasing of company rangeland were completed.

The establishment of soil conservation structures progressed on cropland areas. Overall tenant compliance with lease requirements was good. Rent income in 1989 continued to increase while remaining competetive with local rental rates. These, as well as activities on unleased lands, continued to promote wildlife and soil conservation, increase land values, and ensure regulatory compliance while keeping agricultural production compatible on Wolf Creek lands.

-7 Attachment One to 1989 MAnnual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 6 of 16 0 2. 1989 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Environmental monitoring completed by personnel included studies on the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). Objectives accomplished by these studies were: 1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and WCCL 2. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the NeoshoRiver and WCCL Water quality studies in the Neosho River near WCCL have been conducted at locations above and below its confluence with Wolf Creek since 1973.., Seasonal mean concentrations of most water quality parameters during 1989 were within previously established ranges for the study area and no between-location differences were seen for any of the parameters monitored.

The differences in average 1989 values..for., conductivity, sulfates, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and nitrates which were attributed to drought conditions in 1988 remained similar during 1989, except for COD. The 1989 annual mean for COD rose higher than recorded previously, but still within the range of the previous high observed during 1984. Rainfall amounts were close to normal during 1989, but dry conditions prevailed during winter and spring.Average values for river nitrates remained near the bottom of their previous ranges while sulfates maintained levels close to their upper ranges observed during 1979 and 1980. Since filling of WCCL began in 1981, flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.

Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.0 Page 7 of 16 Water quality studies of WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being S.pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Between 1982 and 1986 makeup water was generally only added during routine use of the auxiliary raw water* pumps and quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. In 1987 use of makeup water increased to nearly 0.97 billion gallons and this rose to 3.9 and 2.9 billion in 1988 and 1989, respectively.

Despite this increase, WCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River. Concentrations of water quality parameters were very similar among locations in the cooling lake, with the shallower upstream sampling site slightly different in water quality than near the main dam and the station intake. In general, concentrations of dissolved and suspended constituents in 1989 were within ranges established during previous years of cooling lake operation.

Exceýptions to this were increasing trends-continued from 1988 for sulfates, total.dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides, and. conductivity.

These parameters were at their highest levels since lake ,fill. With drought conditions during much of 1988 and early 1989, WCCL had reduced natural inflows and lower lake level than during previous years. In combination with forced. evaporation due to plant operations, these conditions produced chloride and sulfate concentrations which continued their mild trend of increase while TDS and conductivity, which are affected by sulfate levels, also increased up to or slightly above previous observed marks. These same conditions helped maintain turbidity levels in the lake at low levels. The TDS rise was a reversal of the decline seen in 1986 and 1987. In summary, the mild trends observed in the cooling lake chemistry are indicative of limited natural inflows since 1987 compounded by increased forced evaporation due to plant operations.

Surface water temperatures in the cooling lake -during spring and summer periods have been warmer than during preoperational years. This was expected with the plant operating and has been especially evident at the 7 0Attachment One to 1989* Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 8 of 16 o upstream monitoring location.

This area receives heated effluent during 19 spring, summer and fall when southerly winds prevail. Dissolved oxygen data 0O indicated stratification similar to 1988 with an anoxic hypolimnion forming strongly by August and being dispersed by October. This pattern varied somewhat from that before 1988 when WCCL generally stratified completely by-June or July and had mixed, well oxygenated bottom waters by August. Based on WCCL's relatively large average depth (21 ft.) and data from other Kansas impoundments, longer periods of vertical stratification for the cooling lake would be expected but have not occurred during preoperational or operational years. Considering data prior to and including 1989, stratification patterns in WCCL appear to be independent of the generating station's intake, warming, and discharge of'circulating water..Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations as indicators of standing crop.have been monitored in the Neosho River above and below the confluence with* Wolf Creek since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). In 1989 average Neosho River flows were comparable with normal years. The annual average chlorophyll a 3 concentration was 19.56 mg/m which fell within the previous years' range of 3 averages (3.81-63.88 mg Chl a/m ). Chlorophyll a monthly and yearly average values above and below the Wolf Creek -Neosho River confluence were similar in 1989 and were similar to those from previous years. Therefore, there is no indication that adverse effects have occurred on Neosho River phytoplankton as a result of plant operation.

Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations in WCCL have been monitored 3 bimonthly since 1981. Previous annual averages ranged from 11.0 mg/m in 3 1981 to 6.3 mg/m in 1987 but within that span have shown slow oscillations.

Means were down during 1982-1984 and up during 1985-1986.

3 Concentrations in 1989 increased to 7.94 mg/m which fits well within the Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.j Page 9 of 16 0 oestablished range. Locational chlorophyll a differences within WCCL in 1989 were similar to the pattern seen previously.

The highest levels were at the O shallower, upstream area, lowest concentrations at the deep, pelagic location with samples from near the circulating water intake channel falling*.in-between.

Overall, chlorophyll a concentration as an indicator of phytoplankton standing crop shows WCCL in the mesotrophic range with mild, infrequent fluctuations indicating little or no plant operational impacts.g H.7 Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 10 of 16 3. ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES W(Corbicula fluminea)x The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been reported to cause biofouling problems in power plant cooling systems. The first report of Corbicula near WCGS was August 1986 when immature clams were collected at long-term monitoring sites located on the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence.

To compliment the on-going ecological monitoring program, a discrete survey was conducted during the fall of 1989 to identify the distribution of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS. This late summer effort has been completed annually and this report presents the findings of the 1989 survey.During the. Corbicula survey 47 discrete sampling efforts were completed,'...

including 24 efforts in WCCL, and 18 below and 5 above JRR in the Neosho River. Forty-one live clams and 101 isolated valves.(unbroken, half-shell,*

dead) were collected.

These included 19 live clams and 66 valves collected below and 10 live and 27 valves collected above the Wolf Creek confluence to the Neosho River. Eleven live and three valves were found at the Burlington city dam while one live and eight valves were found further upstream.

No Corbicula were found at the WCCL makeup pumps located near the JRR spillway, nor were any found upstream of JRR. Similarly, searches on WCCL yielded no evidence of Corbicula.

The apparent lack of Corbicula upstream of JRR minimizes the potential that it will become established in WCCL. It is generally accepted that other than man mediated dispersion, downstream drift of the planktonic larval stage is the main factor affecting range extensions.

Therefore, before Corbicula could be introduced in WCCL via makeup water, it would have to occur upstream in JRR. Although Corbicula has been found in most Attachment One to 1989 PAnnual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 11 of 16 0substrates, suggested preferred substrates are not prevalent in the Neosho i River immediately below or in JRR. This condition should decrease the O likelihood of Corbicula pioneering into WCCL. Thus far, monitoring in the vicinity of WCGS has shown Corbicula far below nuisance levels. Chances that Corbicula will become established in WCCL are limited at this time but the potential for introduction exists provided the river population remains established.

Future annual surveys should monitor population trends and document local range extensions near WCGS.

Attachment One to 1989 ij' Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 16 b 4. 1989 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES

\ Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL from April through October 1989. These resulted in the collection of 2,957 individual fish representing 11 families and 26 species. Collection methods used were fyke netting, seining, electroshocking and gill netting. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Catch data calculated as percent relative abundance for all gears combined showed gizzard shad highest (22.1Z) and bluegill next (21.7Z). This shad percentage represents a return to normal abundance levels established prior to 1988. Predators came next with largemouth bass (9.5Z). white bass (8.12), walleye (5.8Z) and wipers (5.5Z) maintaining high numbers. Smailmouth bass continue to rise to hit their highest abundance to date at 3.82 in 1989. When total biomass of all species in the standardized effort is considered, wipers were first at 21.2Z followed by largemouth bass (13.6Z), walleye (12.4Z), common carp (11.8Z), white bass (1I.6Z), channel catfish (7.7Z) and gizzard shad (4.4X). White crappie were eighth at 4.2Z.Considering a life expectancy of five to seven years and that the age of the dominant wiper year class was eight in 1989, it is surprising that natural mortality hasn't reduced their number further thus far. The only other noteworthy results were the increased catch of white bass., going from 6.1Z in 1988 to 11.6Z in 1989 and the tenfold drop in smallmouth buffalo from 7.2% to 0.61 during the last two years. Gizzard shad from 1988 to 1989 rose from 2.3Z to 4.4Z and from eleventh to seventh position.

This increase, while substantial, still left shad biomass within the narrow range (5.7Z to 2.2Z) that it has occupied since 1983.Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Wr) and condition factor (KT ) continue to show TL large average sizes, slowing growth of early predator year classes and low Attachment One to 1989 MAnnual Env. Operating Rpt.4 Page 13 of 16 to moderate condition for Wolf Creek predators.

Wiper growth continues but N at rates which are more modest and variable than in its earliest years and the 1981 year class is beginning to be supplemented by recruitment from 1988 and 1989 fingerling stockings.

Growth of largemouth bass, crappies, white bass, and walleyes continues at moderate rates. For all Wolf Creek predators, average sizes are large and the proportion of mature fish (quality size and larger) versus smaller, immature fish (stock size) is also large, leading to very high PSD's. At the same time, condition of these predators is lower than the averages from other Kansas impoundments.

In contrast, both gizzard shad PSD and Wr values are close to the top of reservoirs surveyed in Kansas. While these qualities in shad have been shown to be optimal for production of a good prey base, few young-of-the year gizzard shad in WCCL remain through their first winter. Little survival of. the last five year classes of gizzard shad indicate that' the combination of predation pressure and winterkill are adequate to control expansion of the WCCL shad population.

Thus, no impingement problem's have been experienced so far. The sportfishjroughfish ratio in Wolf Creek is very high when compared with other reservoirs in the midsection of the U.S.The unusually low number of gizzard shad and. equally unusually high .number of predators in WCCL meant predator condition was low but more importantly, so were impingement rates.

-T Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 14 of 16 O 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES IJ October 1988 through March 1989 The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or impacts that may be due from station operation to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl and threatened or endangered species.Of the latter category, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are of primary concern. Use of WCCL may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using WCCL is also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used WCCL during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.Thirty species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with mallard and American coot being most abundant, which was the case during most previous seasons. Increased numbers of mallards, Canada geese and snow geese were attracted to the ice-free water caused by the heated effluent from station operations.

This factor, in combination with seclusion and close abundant food supplies, kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Significant (p<_0.05) preferences for areas of WCCL providing these were found for these species. No disease or crop depredation problems were observed.The bald eagle, an endangered species, was a common winter resident.

During the first two operational winters (1985-1986 and 1986-1987), bald eagle usage of WCCL declined from preoperational levels. Responsible for this was the heated effluent from continuous station operations which reduced the quantity of winter-stressed fish, an important eagle food source. Also, the normally prevalent thawing and refreezing of the surface waters exposing winter-killed fish were absent because of mild weather, further discouraging Attachment One to 1989 P1 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 15 of 16 o eagle usage. However, because the plant operated intermittently through W much of the 1987-1988 winter, the quantity and to a greater extent the o availability of these fish were increased.

Colder than normal weather during February played a role in increasing forage availability on WCCL during the 1988-1989 survey period. These factors attracted and held larger-- numbers of eagles than observed previously.

It was shown that since operations began, more of the area eagles were found on WCCL when air temperatures declined.

No such relationship was present before station operation.

Past monitoring included formal transmission line collision surveys.However, upon analyses of data collected during the 1987-1988 program, it was concluded that enough monitoring had been completed to sufficiently , characterize line impaction mortality of birds using WCCL. The significance

.. of the estimated collision mortality was not considered very great.Consequently, no routine monitoring was planned to be completed during the 1988-1989 winter and usage surveys did not identify changes that increased collision potential.

Therefore, surveys to characterize such increases were not warranted.

October through December 1989 This synopsis provides a summary of WCCL bird usage data collected from October through December 1989 as part of the 1989/1990 Operational Wildlife Monitoring Program. These data are not presented in the report summarized above. Except for a lack of surveys during September, the WCGS monitoring schedule matched that used by local wildlife agencies monitoring other Kansas reservoirs.

This schedule will allow station biologists to determine if changes from previously characterized patterns justify increased monitoring or mitigative action. Formal transmission line collision-surveys were discontinued because enough information had been collected to Attachment One to 1989 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.*-Page 16 of 16 0 characterize the mortality caused by the lines and it was shown to be insignificant.

Special attention was given to both state and federally N listed threatened and endangered wildlife species occurring in the vicinity of WCGS.A total of 28 waterfowl and waterbird species were observed on 6 ground counts during fall and early winter of 1989. The most abundant species were the Franklin's gull, mallard, and American coot making up 54, 22, and 9 percent of the total, respectively.

This is similar to the fall monitoring completed during past monitoring seasons. Apparent factors influencing usage of WCCL continue to include relatively clear water, seclusion, wind protected coves, concentrations of aquatic weed growth, and availability of agricultural fields. The vast numbers of Franklin's gulls were most likely* attracted to WCCL because of its close proximity to the Coffey County landfill.

Some winter wheat fields on WCGS lands may have experienced crop A damage, however these were fairly localized and widespread depredation events were not present. No disease problems were present among waterfowl concentrations on WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1989 nor were usage pattern changes apparent that increased transmission line collision potential.

The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species observed using WCCL. As during past studies, the eagles were common winter residents first appearing during late November.

The cooling lake was used as a feeding and loafing site primarily; however, not to the extent observed on JRR. No changes in bald eagle usage of WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1989 were identified.

3)Ill 0 0 w 0 0 WF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Forrest T. Rhocie VIce Preidfit ENginerin

& TowJcmja Serince May 1, 1991 ET 91-0070 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Report Annual Environmental Operating Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42. Appendix B. This report covers the operating of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of January 1. 1990 to December 31. 1990.erytruly y 0rrest T. Rhodes, Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services FTR/aem Enclosure cc: L.L.A. T.R. D.D. V.Gundrum (NRC), w/a Howell (NRC), v/a Hartin (NRC), w/a Pickett (NRC), wla P.O. Boe 411 / Burtington, KS 6639 / Phone: (316) 364-831 An Equel Oppwrtr~y Enipioye M1F*4CNUE C),Enflosure to ET 91-0070 C3 0 b0 0 0 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1990 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 APRIL 1991 D&.n WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION o 1990 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1 0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

1 2.1 AQUATIC ......................................................

1 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River 1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ....... 3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ...........................................

5 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ...............................

...... 6 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

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

..........

6 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .........

6 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ..............................

...........

7 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

7 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

... 8 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program ..................

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

8 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program ......................

9 2.2.7 Land Management Program ..............................

9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

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

10 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ......................

.... 10 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ...........................

12 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ........................

12 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental-Event Evaluations

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

12 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

13 m 1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 1 of 13 C 0 W

1.0 INTRODUCTION

0 Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) has committed to minimizing the impact of facility operation on the environment.

The 1990 Annual o Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1990 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1990. 2.583 billion gallons or 27 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped at a rate of approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day and comprised about 17 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps, which operated on July 30 and from October 24 through-November 20, 1990.Measurements taken by the United States Geological Survey indicate that flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were largely unaffected by the pumping conducted on July 30.During the autumn pumping period, however, Neosho River flows decreased by about 6-8 cubic feet per second at the 1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.0 Page 2 of 13 onset of pumping and increased 8-10 cubic feet per second o within 48 hours5.555556e-4 days <br />0.0133 hours <br />7.936508e-5 weeks <br />1.8264e-5 months <br /> following the conclusion of pumping. These figures represent approximately one-third to two-thirds of 0 total flow in the Neosho River at that time due to existing low flow conditions.

While the reason for this decrease is not known for certain, it is suspected that blockages o experienced in the diversion pipe from JRR may have reduced the flow of water to a value less than the 120 cubic feet per second flow rate required by the make-up pumps. Under normal conditions, this diversion pipe is designed to supply all of the water needed by the make-up pumps directly from JRR without affecting river flows. Any deficit resulting from lower-than-normal flows through the diversion pipe would have been balanced by withdrawals from the Neosho River at the Make-up Water Screen House (MUSH).In order to maintain at least a small amount .of flow, JRR releases a minimum of 2A cfs and 21 cfs each year during October and November, respectively.

Due to the apparent diversion pipe blockage, Wolf Creek's makeup withdrawals inadvertently took a portion of JRR's release, leaving the remainder to provide flow in the river. This situation is still under evaluation to determine the cause of the flow reduction and the need for any changes.The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cfs (average annual predicted makeup requirements) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations.

This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows -occurred during the October 24 through (1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.o Page 3 of 13 0 November 20, 1990 period. While the low flow conditions attributed in part to WCGS' 1990 withdrawals may have had some impact on riffle species such as the Neosho madtom, it O would not have been nearly as severe as that documented in the years prior to JRR impoundment.

Sampling conducted subsequent to the October/November 1990 withdrawal found 0 Neosho madtoms present in numbers similar to previous years. Based on the follow-up collection data and the short duration of low river flows, this event was judged to have minimal, if any, impact.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4,.2.6.1 of the FES/OLS to range between .0.68 and 1.08 mg/l at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mgzl in the circulating water effluent.Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages to the CWS have averaged approximately 56 pounds per day. Compliance with the permit limits for daily maximum TRC and chlorination dose durations was 100 percent. Monitoring during 1990 detected 3.2 1990 Annual Env.m oOperating Rpt.Page 4 of 13 oa daily average TRC concentration of less than 0.1 mg/l, well below the 0.2 mg/l permitted level. In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual monitored values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1990 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

During 1990 the implementation of Plant Modification Request (PMR) 2149 initiated a continuous diversion of approximately 18,000 Spm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESW). PMR 2149 was intended to provide microbiologically induced corrosion and sedimentation control. This flow diversion differed from that of previous years when historically they had only occurred in an effort to prevent winter ice formation at the ESW intake.In order to contrast this operational change with the criteria evaluated by the FESlOLS, two environmental evaluations have been completed.

Evaluations 89-6 and 90-1 (detailed later in Section 3.1 of this report) describe the potential for unreviewed environmental impacts. Both evaluations conclude that selected benthic and pelagic organisms will likely experience mortality.

More importantly, however, these evaluations determined that the area of impact was predicted to be only 0.1 percent (approximately six acres) of the total cooling lake surface area. Therefore, it was concluded that the significance of this additional chlorine discharge should be negligible to H.1990 Annual Env.m Operating Rpt.Page 5 of 13 the WCCL ecosystem and the impacts should be within those Oconsidered acceptable in the FESIOLS.\In the EPP, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defers regulation of water quality issues to the WCGS NPDES permit administered by the State of Kansas. In the 1989 permit revision the KDHE established a 1.0 mgll TRC limit for ESW. Compliance with the ESW TRC limit in 1990 was greater than 97 percent, however values of 1.28 and 1.65 mg/l were recorded on March 18, 1990 and 1.1 and 1.3 on April 4, 1990 and May 1, 1990, respectively.

These permit noncompliances were reported to the KDHE and, following correspondence in which WCNOC committed to procedural and operational corrective action, were resolved to the KDHE's satisfaction.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to acold shock', a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake". There were no cold shock mortality events observed during 1990.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 1001. Because 1990 Annual Env.o Operating Rpt.Page 6 of 13 0 of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts 0 were not required by the.NRC and have not been implemented by WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake-was considered minimal, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been implemented.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are sporadic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and infrequent blowdowns, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, TDS, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges are regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. A maximum of 90°F is allowed in the Neosho River downstream of the mixing zone from Wolf Creek. In 1990, no NPDES violations at the WCCL discharge were observed.

At no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River.Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality or phytoplankton biomass due to WCCL discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone I1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.0 Page 7 of 13 The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha O (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station O facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been O mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grass stands were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad H Ii 1990 Annual Env.oOperating Rpt.o Page 8 of 13 p beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of 0 Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust W (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water.Application rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre.r These herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide.treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

No herbicides were applied to the transmission right-of-ways associated with WCGS during 1990.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCGS in the event of such problems.During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no avian mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were 3)1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 9 of 13 identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program was conducted during 1990. Through casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any O incidents of man-made fog along U.S. 75 during 1990. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.23 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1989/1990 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL.Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1990/1991 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1989/1990 season. Wildlife monitoring results are summarized in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included construction or repair

°3.1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.0 Page 10 of 13 O of livestock fences and ponds, and the construction or Q establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1990 Land Management O Report appears in the attachment to this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS 0 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES (EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A sunmmary of each PKR or operating change which received an environmental evaluation in 1990 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unrevieved.environmental question during 1990.Evaluation 90-01: Diversion of SWS Flows Through the ESW During Winter Lake Conditions Diversion of heated and chlorinated SWS flows through the ESW and discharged to the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) during winter lake conditions was considered.

This evaluation supplements EPP Evaluation 89-06 which dealt with summer lake conditions.

Thus, impacts during year-round conditions were considered.

Based on engineering projections, the temperature increase at the UHS discharge (approximately 20 feet under the lake surface) would be raised 15 0 F. Once this flow reached the surface, it was expected to be only 4.5 0 F higher than ambient. The conservative projections indicated that little area would be thermally influenced and that the heated plane temperature would quickly be within the variability of natural temperature fluctuations governed by the weather. Because of the small size and low 1990 Annual Env.QOperating Rpt.Page 11 of 13 increase in temperature, this thermal discharge was considered to have minimal impacts due to cold shock mortality in the event the X discharge was abruptly stopped to the cooling lake fishery.P Projected chlorine levels (0.6 mg/l TRC) were lower that the NPDES permitted level (1.0 mg/l TRC) and the level evaluated in-- licensing documents (0.68 to 1.08 mg/l TRC) for which impacts were considered acceptable.

Based on these main factors, no significant environmental impacts were considered probable.Evaluation 90-02: ESW Train A Post Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) Flow Balancing Test Procedure The configuration of Train A of the ESW system was changed in accordance with a PMR. Following completion of this modification, a flow balance test was conducted to assure adequate flow to safety-related systems following a loss of coolant accident.Performance of the flow balance *test procedure resulted in a 1270 gallons per minute discharge of unchlorinated and unheated water to a storm drain exiting to WCCL. It was determined that discharges related to the flow balance test would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts.Evaluation 90-03: ESW Train B Post LOCA Flow Balancing Test Procedure The evaluation and determination are identical to 190-02, except that this evaluation involved ESW Train B.Evaluation 90-04: Revision of Operations Procedure for Oil Spills at the MUSH A revision was made to an Operations procedure (CKL ZL-009, Rev. 4, 'Site Shift Log and Readings')

to provide that the

,H M1990 Annual Env.Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 13 Environmental Management Group be contacted in the event of any L oil spill occurring at the HUSH. Such notification will allow Environmental Management to perform a reportability determination 0 for oil spills at the MUSH for the purpose of compliance with 40 CFR 110. The proposed procedure revision was evaluated and the added checks that it places on activities at the MUSH are considered to provide additional assurances that these activities are in compliance with environmental requirements.

Evaluation 90-05: Permanent Chemical Treatment of Once Through Cooling Water Permanent chemical treatment of circulating water, service water and essential service water was evaluated.

Limited in-plant heat exchanger chemical treatment was also reviewed.

The extension of four previously reviewed trial treatment programs was recommended.

Due to the lack of dilution flow, chemical toxicity data indicated the potential for mortality of aquatic life near the UHS discharge.

The established commitment to administrative control of the treatment durations and discharge concentrations will minimize the affected area. No significant risk of environmental impacts was apparent.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1990.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable

• H'3.1990 Annual Env.O Operating Rpt.Page 13 of 13 under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1)1 1990.3.3 ENVIRONMJENTAL NONCOMPLIANCESi

[EPP Subsection 5.4.13 0 At WCGS in 1990, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were recorded along with the details surrounding them. These included such things as deviations from study plan schedules, use of uncalibrated fish scales, loss of a small amount of mercury from differential pressure gauges, and spills of oil and diesel fuel at various site locations and one off-site location.

These noncompliances were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

H P1 w~0 ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1990 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas CONTENTS Land Management Activities

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

2 Water Quality Monitoring Activities

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

7 Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

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

11 Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

13 Wildlife Monitoring Activities

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

15 1.2.3.4.5.

Attachment to 1990 M Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 2 of 17 0 1. 1990 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES W o This report is on the implementation of the 1990 Land. Management Plan for Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). Unanticipated activities are also presented.

This land management program involves, for the most part, o agricultural lands around the cooling lake. Landscaped property associated with the power block area, switchyard, and other plant support buildings was not part of this program. Activities presented were designed in part to satisfy Sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan, Appendix B of the Facility Operating License. Other general objectives of this plan were to*a. reduce soil loss on agricultural and "old field' areas b. maintain or increase agricultural production while enhancing wildlife benefits c. establish, improve, and/or maintain the native grass areas d. improve wildlife potential on nonagricultural lands Company lands are composed of primarily range, cropland.

and woodland habitats.

These lands were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. Most were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

Some were inaccessible, unfenced, or were deemed unsuitable for these purposes.

Other areas were left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, fulfill regulatory requirements, or reserved for their wildlife value.Grasslands Grasslands at WCGS consist of grazed rangeland, hay meadows and odd areas left idle primarily for their wildlife value. Also, by not renting the odd areas, the licensing commitment to maintain a 500 acre buffer zone around the cooling lake in a *natural occurring biotic community, was satisfied.

H" Attachment to 1990 C Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 3 of 17 0 w Grasslands leased to local farmers included grazed rangeland totaling 1338 acres and approximately 412 acres of hay meadow. A decrease of Q 180 acres of grazed rangeland compared to 1989 was a result of this amount of land outside the site boundary being traded for privately held acreage located under and adjacent to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake. Grazing lease 0 options included grazing season length, rotation programs, and stocking rates. Hay lease requirements included cutting and bale removal dates.Controlled burning on WCGS grasslands was used to discourage woody invasion, decrease less desirable cool season grasses and weeds, and increase prairie vigor and production.

Approximately 1066 acres were planned to be burned in 1990. Of these, 764 acres were burned. An additional 19 acres, which were not planned to be burned, were done to facilitate improvement efforts. As a result of on-site judgement, 312 acres were not burned as planned.Unfavorable wind conditions and time constraints were the primary reasons for not burning targeted grassland parcels.Kansas law requires landowners to control noxious weeds on their property to prevent infestation of neighbor properties.

Two species, musk thistle and Johnson grass, have appeared on WCGS grasslands.

Musk thistle was sprayed with Tordon 22K during the fall of 1988 by the Coffey County Noxious Weed Department.

Mowing and manual removal along fence rows were done in the summer of 1989 and a second spraying by the County was completed in the fall of 1989. Environmental Management sprayed 2,4-D on surviving plants in the spring of 1990. Further manual removal of plants and burning of seed heads was accomplished in June 1990. Repeat treatments may be required, but significant progress in eradicating these problem weeds is apparent.Johnson grass infestation on WCGS grasslands consisted of scattered small areas around the cooling lake which were sprayed with Roundup herbicide.

Both Johnson grass and musk thistle have trouble expanding in well managed rangeland; however, they will always threaten disturbed areas such as old 3)Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 4 of 17 Q. farmsteads, road ditches, dams, and abandoned cropland if left uncontrolled.

Planned native grass reseeding was not completed during 1990. The wet 0 spring did not allow for the seedbed to be prepared properly.

Establishment

• of native prairie grasses is designed to reduce weeds areas, increase wildlife habitat, and allow for easier control of tree, brush, and noxious weed infestation.

Soil erosion will also be checked.Cropland Cropland at WCGS consists of those fields left unflooded by the cooling lake. Most are upland areas along the sides of the lake with some bottom land along Wolf Creek upstream from the lake. Approximately 1380 acres were leased to 14 local farmers for crop production:

primarily corn, milo, soybeans, and wheat. These are common crops grown in this region. Crops produced were not dictated in the lease agreements, but common conservation practices suchas contour farming and limited fall tillage were specified.

Perennial legume establishment by interested tenants was encouraged.

By requiring or encouraging these practices where practical, soil loss is reduced keeping WCGS cropland production sustainable, maintaining land values, and limiting silt accumulation in the cooling lake. Wildlife also benefit.AS on WCGS grasslands, noxious weed control was necessary on some cropland areas. These are handled primarily through tenant agreements as part of their normal farming practices.

However, some areas required attention to insure that widespread infestation along the lake shorelines and odd areas would not occur. Continued control efforts with musk thistle and Johnson grass appeared to be effective, but continued attention may be required.Highly Erodible Land (HEL) plans are management plans required by the M Attachment to 1990 c Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 5 of 17 Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS). These are the L responsibility of the landowners and are required to remain eligible for government agricultural programs.

Even though WCGS does not participate in 0 the programs, compliance is necessary to allow tenants to participate as they see fit. Determinations of HEL have been completed by the SCS of most fields in Coffey County, including those at WCGS. Only one field was determined to be HEL and a plan was developed for it by the Soil Conservation Service and approved by the ASCS committee.

The requirements in this plan, which were designed to keep soil loss tolerances acceptable, included terrace maintenance, contour farming, crop rotations, and reduced tillage. The first two are common lease requirements on all WCGS fields.The latter two are common practices previously employed or easily done by the tenant. Because soil conservation is a primary objective of this land management program, compliance is not expected to be a problem.Native grass seeding and wildlife weed strip establishment in cropland areas were designed to increase wildlife food and'cover habitat diversity along field borders. These practices devote edge areas of limited crop production value to wildlife habitat. They consist of planted native grasses or natural weed growth in strips adjacent to fences or tree lines. As mentioned earlier,.

planned native grass seeding was not accomplished during 1990 due to inclement spring weather. Wildlife strips established in previous years were maintained through 1990.Conclusion Land management activities during 1990 accomplished program goals to the extent practicable.

Fences necessary for continued leasing of company rangeland were completed.

The establishment of soil conservation structures progressed on cropland areas. Overall tenant compliance with lease requirements was good. Rent income decreased in 1990 due to poor weather conditions.

These, as well as activities on unleased lands, continued to 3'.Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 6 of 17 Q promote wildlife and soil conservation, increase land values, and ensure 0 regulatory compliance while keeping agricultural production compatible on N Wolf Creek lands.\+

H Attachment to 1990 0Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 7 of 17 2. 1990 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 4 Environmental monitoring included studies on the Neosho River and Wolf. Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). Objectives accomplished by these studies were: 0 1. documentation of concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials and certain trace metals in the Neosho River and WCCL 2. determination of phytoplankton productivity of the Neosho River and WCCL Water quality studies in the Neosho River near WCCL have been conducted at locations above and below the Wolf Creek confluence since 1973. Seasonal mean concentrations of most water quality parameters during 1990 were within previously established ranges for the study area and no between-location differences were seen for any of the parameters monitored.

The differences in average 1989 values for conductivity, sulfates, chemical oxygen demand (COD) and nitrates which were attributed to drought conditions in 1988 remained similar during 1989, except for COD. The 1989 annual mean for COD rose higher than recorded previously, but still within the range of the previous high observed during 1984. The 1990 COD average fell back to normal levels monitored during most years. Rainfall amounts were high during the spring, but dry conditions prevailed during fall and winter.Average values for river nitrates remained near the bottom of their previous ranges while sulfates fell from levels close to their upper ranges observed during 1979 and 1980 to concentrations present during most other years.Since filling of WCCL began in 1981, flows from Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for testing of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. There have been no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River due to operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.

Attachment to 1990 rn Annual Env. Operating Rpt.0 Page 8 of 17 0 0 Water quality studies of WCCL began when the lake was initially filled Wduring 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being 0 pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Between 1982 and 1986, makeup water was generally added only during routine use of the auxiliary raw water pumps and quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. In 1987, O use of makeup water increased to nearly 0.97 billion gallons and this rose to 3.9, 2.9, and 2.6 billion in 1988, 1989. and 1990, respectively.

Despite this increase, WCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River. Concentrations of water quality parameters were very similar among locations in the cooling lake, with the shallower upstream sampling site slightly different in water quality than near the main dam and the station intake. In general, concentrations of dissolved and suspended constituents in 1990 were within ranges established during previous years of cooling lake operation.

Exceptions to this were continued increasing trends for magnesium, total dissolved solids (TDS), chlorides, and conductivity.

The mild increasing, trend for sulfates since 1986 stabilized in 1990. All of these parameters were at their highest levels since lake fill. With drought conditions during much of 1988 and early 1989, WCCL had reduced natural inflows and lower lake level than during previous years. Runoff during 1990 was also limited through most of the year. In combination with forced evaporation due to plant operations, these conditions produced chloride and sulfate concentrations which continued their mild trend of increase or stabilization while TDS and conductivity, which are affected by sulfate levels, also increased up to or slightly above previously observed marks. These same conditions helped maintain turbidity levels in the lake at low levels. The TDS rise was a reversal of the decline seen in 1986 and 1987. In summary, the mild trends observed in the cooling lake chemistry are indicative of limited natural inflows since 1987 compounded by increased forced evaporation due to plant operations.

Surface water temperatures in the cooling lake during spring and sum er periods have been warmer than during preoperational years. This was Attachment to 1990 Annual-Env.

Operating Rpt.Page 9 of 17 O expected with the plant operating and has been especially evident at the upstream monitoring location.

This area receives heated effluent during X spring., summer, and fall when southerly winds prevail. Dissolved oxygen 0 data indicated a stratification pattern in 1988 and 1989 with an anoxic hypolimnion forming strongly by August and being dispersed by October. This pattern varied somewhat from that before 1988 when WCCL generally stratified completely by June or July and had mixed, well oxygenated bottom waters by August. During 1990, an anoxic hypolimnion formed in May, disappeared in July, returned in August, and was again oxygenated in September.

Based on WCCL's relatively large average depth (21 ft.) and data from other Kansas impoundments, longer periods of vertical stratification for the cooling lake would be expected but have not occurred consistently during preoperational or operational years. Considering data prior to and including 1990, stratification patterns in WCCL appear to be Independent of the generating station's intake, warming, and discharge of circulating water.Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations as indicators of standing crop have been monitored in the Neosho River above and below the confluence with Wolf Creek since 1973. Flow in the study area is controlled by releases from John Redmond Reservoir.

In 1990 average Neosho River flows were comparable with normal years. The annual average chlorophyll a 3 concentration was 16.30 mg/m which fell within the previous years' range of 3 averages (3.81-63.88 mg Chl aim ). Chlorophyll A monthly and yearly average values above and below the Wolf Creek -Neosho River confluence were similar in 1990 and were similar to those from previous years. Therefore, there is no indication that adverse effects have occurred on Neosho River phytoplankton as a result of plant operation.

Phytoplankton chlorophyll a concentrations in WCCL have been monitored 3 bimonthly since 1981. Previous annual averages ranged from 11.0 mg/m in 3 1981 to 6.3 mg/m in 1987, but within that span have shown slow oscillations.

Means were down during 1982-1984 and up during 1985-1986.

3 Concentrations in 1989 increased to 7.94 mg/m and in 1990 fell slightly to Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 10 of 17 t3 Q 7.75 mg/m .These values fit well within the established range. Locational o chlorophyll a differences within WCCL in 1990 were similar to the pattern W seen previously.

The highest levels were at the shallower, upstream area O while the lowest concentrations were at the deep, pelagic location.

Samples from near the circulating water intake channel fell in-between these two extremes.

Overall, chlorophyll a concentration as an indicator of 0 phytoplankton standing crop shows WCCL in the mesotrophic range with mild, infrequent fluctuations indicating little or no plant operational impacts.

H.Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 11 of 17 0 3. ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES W (Corbicula fluminea)The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been reported to cause biofouling problems in power plant cooling systems. The first report of Corbicula near 0 Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) occurred in August 1986 when immature clams were collected at long-term monitoring sites located on the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence.

To compliment the on-going ecological monitoring program, a discrete survey has been conducted annually to identify the distribution of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS. This report presents the findings of the most recent sampling effort, which was conducted during October and November of 1990.During the Corbicula survey 49 discrete sampling efforts were completed, including 24 efforts in Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL), and 21 below and 4 above John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) in the Ndosho River. Fifteen live clams and 44 isolated valves (unbroken, half-shell, dead) were collected.

These included 3 live clams and 12 valves collected below and 9 live and 26 valves collected above the Wolf Creek confluence to the Neosho River. One live and three valves were found at the Burlington city dam while two live and three valves were found further upstream.

No Corbicula were found at the WCCL makeup pumps located near the JRR spillway, nor were any found upstream of JRR. Similarly, searches on WCCL yielded no evidence of Corbicula.

The apparent lack of Corbicula upstream of JRR minimizes the potential that it will become established in WCCL. It is generally accepted that, other than man mediated dispersion, downstream drift of the planktonic larval stage is the main factor affecting range extensions.

Therefore, before Corbicula could be introduced in WCCL via makeup water, it would have to occur upstream in JRR. Although Corbicula has been found in most substrates, suggested preferred substrates are not prevalent in the Neosho River immediately below or in JRR. This condition should decrease the 4 rri 0 Q I~J p 0 likelihood of Corbicula pioneering into WCCL.vicinity of WCGS has shown Corbicula far below that Corbicula will become established in WCCL the potential for introduction exists provided established.

Annual surveys are completed procedures to monitor distribution changes and Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 12 of 17 Thus far, monitoring in the nuisance levels. Chances are limited at this time, but the river population remains in compliance with department population trends.

H Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 13 of 17 0 o 4. 1990 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES W O Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL)4: from April through October 1990. These resulted in the collection of 2,706 individual fish representing 11 families and 30 species. Collection methods used were fyke netting, seining, electrofishing, and gill netting. Data collected were used to describe the fishery, which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Catch data calculated as percent relative abundance for all gears combined showed gizzard shad highest (27.52) and bluegill next (11.92). This shad percentage represents an increase of 242 from 1989. and is the highest to date. Predators came next with white bass (10.2Z), walleye (7.6Z), and largemouth bass (6.1X) maintaining high numbers. When total biomass of all species in the standardized effort is considered, walleye were highest at 16.7 percent, followed by channel catfish (15.52), wiper (13.9Z), common carp'(9.1Z), largemouth bass (8.62), white bass (7.6X), white crappie (7.22), and smallmouth bass (5.7Z).Considering a life expectancy of five to seven years and that the age of the dominant wiper year class was eight in 1989, it was surprising that natural mortality didn't reduce their number further. The decline in 1990 may be signaling this. Gizzard shad biomass from 1989 to 1990 dropped from 4.4 to 3.9gpercent.

Shad biomass has tended to vary slightly from year to year but rarely rises above five percent.Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Wr), and condition factor (K ) continue to TL show large average sizes, slowing growth of early predator year classes, and low to moderate condition for Wolf Creek predators.

Wiper growth continues, but at rates which are more modest and variable than in its earliest years.Growth of largemouth bass, crappie, white bass, and walleye continues at moderate rates. For all Wolf Creek predators, average sizes are large and the proportion of mature fish (quality size and larger) versus smaller Attachment to 1990 I:' Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 14 of 17 O immature fish (stock size) is also large, leading to very high PSD's. At 0 W the same time, condition of these predators is generally lower than the averages from other Kansas impoundments.

In contrast, both gizzard shad PSD 0 and Wr values are close to the top of reservoirs surveyed in Kansas. While these qualities in shad have been shown to be optimal for production of a-good prey base, few young-of-the-year gizzard shad in WCCL remain through 0 their first winter. Little or no survival of the last four year classes of gizzard shad indicate that the combination of predation pressure and winterkill are adequate to control expansion of the WCCL shad population.

Thus, no impingement problems have been experienced so far. The sportfish/roughfish ratio in Wolf Creek is very high when compared with other reservoirs in the midsection of the U.S. The unusually low number of gizzard shad and unusually high number of predators in WCCL meant that predator condition was low, but more importantly, so were impingement rates.

H .II Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 15 of 17 0 W 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES October 1989 through March 1990 The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends O or impacts that may be due from station operation to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species.Of the latter category, bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) are of primary concern. Use of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage. to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using WCCL is also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used WCCL during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.Thirty-one species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with Franklin's gull and mallard being most abundant.

Mallard usage has normally been comparatively high. Increased numbers of mallards, Canada geese and snow geese were attracted to the ice-free water. During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCCL.This, in combination with seclusion and close, abundant food supplies, kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons.Significant (plO.05) preferences for areas of WCCL providing these habitats were found. No disease or crop depredation problems were observed.

No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle, an endangered species, was a common winter resident.

During the first two operational winters (1985-1986 and 1986-1987), bald eagle usage of WCCL declined from preoperational levels. The heated effluent from continuous station operation was responsible for the decline because it H Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.0 Page 16 of 17 o reduced the quantity of winter-stressed fish, an important eagle food O source. Also, the normally prevalent thawing and refreezing of the surface waters. exposing winter-killed fish were absent because of mild weather, further discouraging eagle usage. However, because the plant operated intermittently through much of the 1987-1988 winter, the quantity and to a greater extent the availability of these fish were increased.

Colder than 0 normal weather during February played a role in increasing forage availability on WCCL during the 1988-1989 survey period as well. These factors attracted and held larger numbers of eagles than observed previously.

The mild winter of 1989-1990 reflected usage observed during the first two operational winters. It was shown that since operation began, more of the area eagles were found on WCCL when air temperatures declined.No such relationship was present before station operation.

No transmission line collision mortalities nor increased potential for such were observed.October through December 1990 This synopsis provides a summary of WCCL bird usage data collected from October through December 1990 as part of the 1990/1991 Operational Wildlife Monitoring Program. These data are not presented in the report summarized above. Except for a lack of surveys during September, the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) monitoring schedule matched that used by local wildlife agencies moni.toring other Kansas reservoirs.

This schedule will allow station biologists to determine if changes from previously characterized patterns justify increased monitoring or mitigative action.Formal transmission line collision surveys were discontinued because enough information had been collected to characterize the mortality caused by the lines and to show it to be insignificant.

Special attention was given to both state and federally listed threatened and endangered wildlife species occurring in the vicinity of WCGS.A total of 32 waterfowl and waterbird species were observed on six ground counts during the fall and early winter of 1990. The most abundant species Attachment to 1990 Annual Env. Operating Rpt.Page 17 of 17 0 o were the Franklin's gull, mallard, and American coot, which comprised 41, 27, and 12 percent of the total, respectively.

This is similar to the fall monitoring completed during past monitoring seasons. Apparent factors influencing usage of WCCL continue to include relatively clear water.seclusion, wind protected coves, concentrations of aquatic weed growth, and O availability of agricultural fields. The vast numbers of Franklin's gulls were most likely attracted to WCCL because of its close proximity to the Coffey County landfill.

Some winter wheat fields on WCGS lands may have experienced crop damage; however, these were fairly localized and widespread depredation events were not present. No disease problems were present among waterfowl concentrations on WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1990, nor were usage pattern changes apparent that increased transmission line collision potential.

The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species observed using WCCL. As during past studies, the eagles were common winter residents first appearing during early November.

The cooling lake was used as a feeding and loafing site primarily, but not to the extent observed on John Redmond Reservoir.

No changes in bald eagle usage of WCCL during the fall and early winter of 1990 were identified.

31 Lis~NUCEAROPERATING CORPORATION 1%)N 0 4: 0 Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services April 29, 1992 ET 92-0093 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555 Subjects Docket No. 50-482: Report Annual Environmental Operating Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operating of Wolf Creek Generating Station for the period of January 1, 1991 to December 31..1991.Forrest T. Rhodes Vice President Engineering

& Technical Services FTR/mes Enclosure CC= A. T..R. D.G. A.W. D.Howell (NRC). via Martin (NRC), via Pick (NRC), v/a Reckley (NRC), via P.O. Box 411 ; Burlington.

KS 66839' Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Emplloyer MWFHCNET 0 0\ YOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 0 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1991 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 APRIL 1992 U-1 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 0 1991 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 0 L9i

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

1 0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

1.0 2.1 AQUATIC ......................................................

1 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake .... 2 2.1.3 Cold Shock .......................

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

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ....................................

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

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

6 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone, ....... 6 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ......................................

6 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

7 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring 8 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program .............................

8 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program ........................

9 2.2.7 Land Management Program ...........................

9 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

...........

9 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES ........................

9 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .........................

14 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ......................

14 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

14 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

14

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1991 .....................................

ATTACHMENT i1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 1 of 14 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

0 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to o minimizing the impact of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) operation X\ on the environment.

The 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report is O being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1991 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1991, 6.810 billion gallons or 70 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped similar to past years at a rate of approximately

1.2 million

gallons per day and comprised about 5 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred to WCCL via the makeup pumps, which operated from March 13 through April 15, August 2 through September 17, and from October 26 through October 31. The makeup pumps were also operated for short periods on May 27 and July 26, 1991.Measurements taken during 1991 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that downstream flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were largely. unaffected by makeup pumping activities, unlike that suspected during 3)i 1991 Annual Environmental 0 Operating Report Page 2 of 14 0 1990. In 1990 downstream flow reductions were presumed to 0 w have resulted from blockages experienced in the diversion pipe from which makeup water was released from JRR. The 0 blockages reduced flow below the 120 cfs required to supply water to the makeup pumps. Due to insufficient discharge 0 from this pipe, the makeup pumps appeared to take a portion of the water released from JRR intended to maintain downstream flows. Evaluations determined that no adverse environmental impacts occurred as a result. In 1991, adequate water was released through the pipe to the makeup pumps, so pumping activities did not reduce downstream flows.The Final Environmental Statementloperating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cfs (average annual predicted makeup requirements) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations.

This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows occurred during the 1991 pumping. Normal downstream flow conditions were maintained and no reduction attributed to WCGS' 1991 withdrawals occurred.

Sampling conducted during November 1991 after the withdrawals, found Neosho madtome present in numbers similar to previous years.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

Total residual chlorine (TRC)

• was postulated in 0 0 Lu 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 14 Section 4.2.6.1 of the FES(OLS to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/l in the circulating water effluent.Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has fallen well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual chlorine dosages to the CWS have averaged approximately 58 pounds per day. Compliance with the permit limits for daily maximum TRC was 100 percent. The two hour chlorination dose duration limit was exceeded by 41 minutes on February 23, 1991, but for the year, compliance was still greater than 99 percent. Monitoring during 1991 detected a daily average TRC concentration of less than 0.1 mg/l, well below the 0.2 mg/l permitted level. In Section 5.5.2.2 of the. FES/OLS, the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL.Because the actual monitored values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1991 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

H 0i 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 4 of 14 0 Essential Service Water System Discharge:

w O During 1991, a continuous diversion of approximately 4 18,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the 0 Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed as part of Plant Modification Request (PMR) 02149. This was intended to provide microbiologically induced corrosion and sedimentation control. This flow diversion differed from that before 1990 when they had only occurred in an effort to prevent winter ice formation at the ESWS intake.In the EPP, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) defers regulation of water quality issues to the NPDES permit administered by the State of Kansas. In 1989 the KDHE established a 1.0 mg/i TRC limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Compliance with the TRC limit in 1991 was 100 percent. No fish mortalities or water quality changes attributable to PMR 02149 implementation were observed during 1991.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to "cold shock", a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake'. There were no cold shock mortality events observed during 1991.

1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 5 of 14 3 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment O Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be Z significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for o entrained organisms was expected to approach 1002. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1991, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges are sporadic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and infrequent blowdowns, water is sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges of these parameters are regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. In 1991, no NPDES violations at the WCCL discharge were observed and at no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River.Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality H F 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 6 of 14 or productivity due to WCCL discharges.

0 W 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]0 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation*(1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grass stands, were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

3)P1 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 7 of 14 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating W Station Structures 0 A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary, various 0 lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water.Application rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre.These herbicides are registered'by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No. environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

Selected areas of problem trees and brush were cut or sprayed along the Rose Hill and LaCygne 345 KV transmission lines associated with WCGS lands. The cut trees were stump treated to control resprouting with Tordon RTU (EPA Reg.No. 464-510).

The spray was a brush herbicide mixture which included Tordon 101 (EPA Reg. No. 464-306) and Garlon 3A (EPA Reg. No. 464-546) mixed in equal amounts to make a one percent solution in water. A wetting agent and drift inhibitor were also used. All chemicals were registered for use in Kansas. The transmission line right-of-ways were treated by a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

All label instructions were followed.

No environmental problems were observed from herbicide treatment of these right-of-ways in the vicinity of WCGS.

H P1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 8 of 14 0 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to 0 provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency 0 plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program was conducted during 1991. Through casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any incidents of man-made fog along U.S. 75 during 1991. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or loc.al agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

D f. 1991 Annual Environmental 11 Operating Report Page 9 of 14 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.21 0 W A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and 0 assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in'the 0 1990/1991 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL.Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1991/1992 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1990/1991 season. Wildlife monitoring results are summarized in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included construction or repair of livestock fences and ponds, and the construction or establishment of terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1991 Land Management Report appears in the attachment to this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1)Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the

[T 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 10 of 14 potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental W evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental D evaluation in 1991 is presented..

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that 0-involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1991.Evaluation 91-1: Replacement of Betz C-82 with Betz C-94 Biocide for Treatment of SWS and ESWS This evaluation addressed a small change in the biocide formulation used in the SWS and the ESWS. The change was to substitute Betz C-82 with C-94, another Betz product. The C-82 product was evaluated during 1990 and shown to have no adverse environmental impacts. The two biocides are identical except for the percent of NaBr, the active ingredient.

C-82 has 46Z compared to C-94's 40Z which lowers the freezing point of the solution.Dosage rates were to remain similar. Therefore, C-94 was considered to have a smaller impact probability than C-82, which was previously determined to be insignificant.

Evaluation 91-2: Procedure Formulation for Removal and Addition of Sand and Carbon Filter Media An environmental evaluation was completed of two procedures dealing with the operating instructions for the removal and replacement of sand and charcoal filter media in the Water Treatment Plant. The evaluation focused on the waste sand and charcoal filter media. Both were determined to be nonhazardous and could be disposed of at a landfill with a Solid Waste Disposal Authorization from the KDHE. Releases to the environment or any adverse impacts would not occur.

H P1 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 11 of 14 0 0 Evaluation 91-3: Modification of an Existing Site Building to L4 Accommodate Storage of Mixed Waste 0 This was an evaluation of the potential nonradiological issues relevant to the EPP of constructing and managing a mixed waste 0 storage area. Mixed waste, for purposes of this evaluation, included waste which met the regulatory criteria to be considered both a low level radioactive waste and a hazardous waste. This evaluation's scope did not address regulatory compliance as it relates to these wastes, just how the construction activities relate to EPP concerns.

An existing building outside the Exclusion Area Boundary, but within the Owner Controlled Area Boundary, was to be modified to house the facility.

All affected areas were previously disturbed during plant construction.

The proposed design allowed for extended storage durations with no potential for groundwater contamination.

Spill control measures were also incorporated.

No adverse nonradiological impacts were anticipated.

Evaluation 91-4: Change in SWS and ESWS Discharge Flow Path to the Lime Sludge Pond This evaluation addressed a temporary change in a discharge flow path of a portion of the SWS and ESWS cooling water as a result of valve leakage testing. The flows normally discharge with the cooling water effluent but were to be diverted to the Lime Sludge Pond. Effluent from this pond is currently an NPDES regulated discharge outfall. The leak test procedure involved isolating and draining the SWS and ESWS piping crossties and determining the leak rate of the crosstie valves. This crosstie piping contained water pumped from WCCL. No previously unevaluated chemicals were present in the piping. The addition of an estimated 100 gpm flow to the Waste Water Treatment Facility during testing was expected 3 D 0 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 12 of 14 0 to be insignificant.

No adverse environmental impacts nor NPDES W violations would result from this temporary flow change.0 Evaluation 91-5: Change in the ESWS Discharge to the Storm Drain System 0 This evaluation addressed ESWS flow balance testing which would cause a portion of ESWS's normal flow path to be redirected from the ESWS discharge (NPDES outfall 006) to the Oil/Water Separator (NPDES outfall 002). The flow was not to have any thermal loads, contain biocides, or any scale control agents. The increased flow's potential to flush oil through the Oil/Water Separator was addressed in the temporary procedures written to govern the testing. The procedure called for checking for excess oil and removing it as required to prevent this. No adverse environmental impacts or NPDES permit violations would occur as a result of this testing.Evaluation 91-6: Chemical Cleaning of Main Condenser This was an evaluation of environmental considerations of a condenser cleaning process scheduled during Refuel V. The cleaning was to use Betz DE-1762 to remove carbonate scale.Carbon dioxide and approximately 325,000 gallons of waste cleaning solution were to be by-products of the process. The carbon dioxide would be vented to the atmosphere and the waste DE-1762 solution would be discharged with cooling water to-the cooling lake. Verbal approval to discharge the solution was obtained from the KDHE. Procedural changes were instituted to assure compliance with a KDHE discharge concentration limit of 175 mg/l of DE-1762.Using available aquatic toxicity data and expected maximum discharge concentrations of the waste solution, no adverse environmental impacts were expected to occur.

H 3,)1991 Annual Environmental 0Operating Report Page 13 of 14 w Evaluation 91-7: Dredging of the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS) and Sediment Disposal in the Cooling Lake 0 This evaluation involved environmental effects of dredging the UHS 0-substrate and disposing of sediments in an area of the cooling lake remote from the UHS. The possible impacts to aquatic organisms from high turbidities were not considered significant to the lake as a whole due to the small size of the expected discharge plume. This area was conservatively estimated to cover 40 acres. Siltation effects to fish and invertebrate eggs or larvae were not considered probable since the dredging would take place during the fall and winter period. Spawning and feeding habitats of cooling lake fishes due to siltation would not be lost because the substrate at the discharge site was primarily a wave-swept shoreline already consisting of clays and wave deposited sediments similar to that being discharged from dredging.

The large distance between the sediment discharge site and the cooling lake's spillway eliminated potential NPDES dissolved solids exceedances.

All appropriate Kansas Division of Water Resources and United States Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permits were obtained prior to dredging.

No adverse environmental impacts would result from this project.Evaluation 91-8: Petroleum Product Recovery From Groundwater at Vehicle Maintenance Shop This evaluation addressed a change in the volume and composition of a discharge effluent caused by pumping groundwater and associated diesel fuel from a recovery well. The diesel came from a leaking underground transfer pipe which was recently replaced between the storage tank and the fuel pump. The groundwater and diesel pumped from the recovery well was to be discharged to the M 1991 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 14 of 14 0 Vehicle Maintenance Shop oil/water separator.

The effluent from the separator drains into a storm drain which ultimately 0 discharges to the cooling lake. The separator would effectively remove the diesel and the quality of the water reaching the lake was expected to be good. There would be an increase in effluent volume due to pumping activities, but this was not expected to jeopardize the effectiveness of the separator.

No adverse environmental impacts would occur.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1991.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1991.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES (EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WCGS in 1991, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were recorded along with the details surrounding them. These included such things as an accidental halon release, a diversion tank overflow, diversion of Neosho River flow to WCCL, various minor oil spills, a bird mortality event, use of uncalibrated fish scales, and study plan schedule deviations.

These events were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

0 0 ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1991 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas CONTENTS Land Management Activities

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

.......Water Quality Monitoring Activities.............

Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

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

Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

Wildlife Monitoring Activities

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

1.2.3.4.5.2 4 8 10 12 Attachment to 1991 M Annual Env. Operating Report 1Page 2 of 13 1. 1991 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 0 This report addresses the implementation of the land management program Wduring 1991 at WCGS. The goals this program was designed to achieve were (I) preserve or. improve both agricultural and natural resources, (2)prudently maximize rent income from agricultural lands. (3) satisfy 0 licensing commitments and (4) foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities.

Much of the program effort went into achieving the first two goals with the latter two being integrated within them. By accomplishing these, a land management program which balanced production and conservation values was achieved thus satisfying Section 4.2.3 of the EPP and the final goal.The lands at WCGS included in the 1991 program were primarily grasslands, croplands, and woodlands.

The improved properties around the power block area, switchyard and plant support buildings were not part of this program.The lands were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. Most were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

A strip around the WCCL shoreline was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community to satisfy Section 2.2(b) of the EPP. Others were unsuitable for agricultural production, left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, or reserved for their wildlife value.Grasslands at WCGS consist of areas leased for grazing and hay production and unleased areas maintained for regulatory compliance.

Grazing rates, durations, and rotations were controlled on the grazing leases. Mowing and bale removal dates were specified on hayland leases. Controlled burning, noxious weed control, and fence construction on these leases and on unleased lands provided for optimum native prairie areas capable of supplying long term rent income, reducing soil erosion, and providing high quality wildlife habitat.Cropland areas at WCGS are fields within the property boundary unflooded by WCCL. Most are upland areas along the sides of the lake with some bottomland along Wolf Creek upstream from the lake. Program objectives for 3)II Attachment to 1991 o Annual Env. Operating Report Page 3 of 13 0 the croplands were to reduce soil erosion, maintain rent income, and 0 W increase wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming specifications in the leases, terracing, and wildlife food/cover strip management were used to D achieve these objectives.

0 Implementation in 1991 of the land management program achieved the goals of preserving agricultural and natural resources, maximizing rent income, satisfying regulatory commitments, and maintaining good relations with agricultural and natural resource communities.

A larger area than the EPP required 500 acre buffer strip was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community.

Continued high interest in renting WCGS lands from local farmers other than existing tenants indicated that WCGS has a good reputation in how it manages its lands. Soil conservation efforts progressed in 1991, reducing silt inputs to the lake and improving long term productivity of the cropland.

The 1991 program obtained desired results and WCGS benefited from its implementation.

H M Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 4 of 13 0 2. 1991 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 W\ Surface water quality monitoring during 1991 was completed to gather data to 4:assess operational impacts from the WCGS on the Neosho River andWCCL. it also contributed to the baseline data collected during past years. Long 0 term monitoring has documented concentrations of general water quality parameters, aquatic nutrients, organically-derived materials, certain trace metals, and phytoplankton productivity.

Neosho River Surface water quality studies in the Neosho River near WCCL have been conducted at locations above and below the Wolf Creek confluence since 1973. Seasonal mean concentrations of most water quality parameters during 1991 were within previously established ranges for the study area and no between-location differences.were seen for any of the parameters monitored.

During 1991 the annual mean concentration of four parameters indicated a continued decreasing trend. These were total suspended solids (TSS), total dissolved solids (TDS), nitrates, and orthophosphates.

These decreases were attributed to the drought conditions prevalent during late 1990 and through most of 1991. The lack of stormwater influence reduced annual averages of TSS and TDS in the water which also reduced turbidity, which was the lowest observed since monitoring began. Low levels of these parameters are generally considered indicators of good water quality. Nitrate and orthophosphate are important aquatic nutrients and are necessary for high productivity in a water-body, although harmful if. in excess. They are commonly added to an aquatic system Via storm runoff. The levels monitored during 1991 were detectably lower, but apparently not lacking enough to become a limiting factor to the Neosho-River's productivity.

Consistent chlorophyll a levels support this observation.

Overall in 1991, the water quality data suggest that the quality of water in the river has improved.

Since filling of WCCL began in 1981, flows from H G14 m " Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 5 of 13 Wolf Creek into the Neosho River have been limited to seepage, releases for 0 Ltesting of blowdown procedures, and runoff events. No discharges from WCCL of sufficient volume to reach the river occurred during 1991. There have 0 Pbeen no apparent deleterious effects to water quality in the Neosho River A due to operation of WCGS based on available water quality monitoring data.0 Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Surface water quality studies of WCCL began when the lake was initially filled during 1981. Water quality was greatly influenced by makeup water being pumped from the Neosho River during that year. Between 1982 and 1986, makeup water was generally added only during routine use of the auxiliary raw water pumps and quarterly testing of the makeup water pumps. Since 1987, use of makeup water increased to a high of 6.8 billion gallons in 1991. Despite this increase, WCCL water quality has been generally independent from influence of the Neosho River makeup water. Concentrations of water quality parameters were similar among locations in the cooling lake, with only slight differences at the shallower upstream sampling site than near the main dam and the station intake. Many parameters' concentrations were within the ranges monitored during past years with no apparent trends developing.

Two, total iron and turbidity, exhibited declining trends. Iron was very low and continues its downward trend toward its detection limit. Reduced turbidity is likely a result of reductions of sediment inputs and turbulence from the lack of storm runoff events during 1991. Given the presence of sufficient and consistent aquatic nutrient levels, the lower turbidity should increase photosynthetic activity.

This was evident from rising chlorophyll a measurements.

These trends were not considered to be caused by station operation and were generally considered indicators of good water quality.There were changes to the concentrations of some parameters in 1991 that may have been caused by WCGS operations.

Increasing trends have developed for calcium, magnesium, sodium, chlorides, and sulfate levels. These 6 M Attachment to 1991 O Annual Env. Operating Report Page 6 of 13 0 contributed to the concurrent upward trend evident for alkalinity, W conductivity, and TDS. Sodium, chlorides, sulfate, and magnesium are by-products of WCGS water treatment processes discharged to WCCL via a lime sludge pond but, the pond's discharge volume is minute compared to the lake. Consequently, these inputs were not considered the primary factor'for 0 the increasing trends observed.

The reduction in storm water runoff events during the past few years coupled with the continuous high evaporation rates resulting from heated circulating water discharge during station operation were considered responsible.

Concentration of these parameters in the lake due to the aforementioned reasons was expected in licensing evaluations.

However, present levels are from 50 to 90 percent lower than levels predicted during a prolonged drought. Also, 1991 levels of chlorides, sulfates, and TDS were not high enough to limit discharges from WCCL based on NPDES water quality criteria.Surface water temperatures in the cooling lake while the station was operating have been, as expected, warmer than during preoperational years.This was especially evident during 1991 at the upstream monitoring location.

This area received heated effluent during the spring and summer when southerly winds prevailed.

Bimonthly temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles at this four meter deep location showed mixed, well oxygenated water except during this warm weather period. Surface to bottom profiles yielded 31 0 C to 27.5 0 C and 34.5 0 C to 29 0 C for June and August, 1991 respectively.

The declines were gradual with no apparent thermocline developing.

Conversely, dissolved oxygen (DO) profiles at the same location for the same months did show stratification at three meters at which DO declined from approximately 7 ppm to around 4 ppm.At the deeper locations by the station intake and in the main body of the lake, temperature..profiles showed thermal stratification developing in June and August with no apparent thermocline during October. The DO profiles at these locations also showed oxygen levels from 10 m to 18 m starting to decrease in April, becoming anoxic in June and August and increasing during H M Attachment to 1991 0Annual Env. Operating Report Page 7 of 13 o October. Well oxygenated waters were present during the rest of the year.0 During past monitored years, formation of an anoxic hypolimnion either was formed strongly in August and dispersed by October (1988 and 1989), or 0 Cformed in June and dispersed by August (1986 and 1987). Anoxic layer formation in 1991 was most similar to 1988 and. 1989 conditions.

Considering C data prior to and including 1991, stratification patterns in WCCL appear to be independent of the generating station's intake, warming, and discharge of circulating water, with the exception of the shallower upstream monitoring site. No changes to the expected thermal impacts to WCCL due to operation of WCGS has occurred.

3)M Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 8 of 13 0 3. ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 L(Corbicula fluminea)0 The Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) has been reported to cause biofouling problems in power plant cooling systems. The first report of Corbicula near 0_ WCGS occurred in August 1986 when immature clams were collected at long-term monitoring sites located on the Neosho River upstream and downstream of the Wolf Creek confluence.

To compliment the on-going ecological monitoring program, a discrete survey has been conducted annually to identify the distribution of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS. During June 1991 their presence was discovered in WCCL. This prompted monitoring to determine the concentration and peak occurrence of Corbicula juveniles in the WCGS intake waters. This report presents the findings of the sampling efforts conducted during:1991.

The distribution of Corbicula fluminea in the Neosho River expanded since previous monitoring.

Upstream colonization into the spillway area of JRR was observed and likely occurred during 1990. In 1991 individuals became large enough and numerous enough to be easily detected.

Expansion in the river above JRR was not apparent during 1991.The densities of Corbicula in the Neosho River continued to decline gradually at most established sampling sites. This is a common post-colonization reaction of many Corbicula populations in the United States.None were found in the Makeup Water Screenhouse (MUSH) forebays where high concentrations were expected to develop. Establishment in the MUSH will more directly release juveniles into the makeup water pumped to WCCL.Corbicula was observed in WCCL for the first time on June 27, 1991. Size distribution of those found indicated that colonization likely occurred during 1990. This would have been simultaneous with the establishment of the JRR spillway population.

Makeup water pumping most likely transported the clams as planktonic juveniles to WCCL from the Neosho River. Monitoring H 3 M ah 0 0 4: 3 0 I-\Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 9 of 13 revealed that the 1991 distribution in WCCL was patchy and confined to the west shoreline.

The densities of known patches were typical of young expanding populations.

These patches consisted of a wide range of substrate types including clay, silt, gravel and combinations thereof. Protected slack water to moderately wave-swept shorelines were inhabited.

No Corbicula specimens were found in the sediments from WCGS intake forebays nor from lake areas in close proximity to these intake structures.

No evidence of the clam was found in plant cooling systems. In addition, no planktonic juvenile clams were found in the cooling lake immediately in front of the circulating water intake.The WCCL population was discovered early providing early warning of potential current distribution is not in or close expected that the clams will spread to they moved within the river and to WCCL, almost certainly within two years.compliance with department procedures to of Corbicula in the vicinity of WCGS.in its colonization of the lake plant infestation.

Although the to cooling water intakes, it's these areas. Based on how quickly this could be within the next year, Annual surveys were completed in monitor distribution and abundance H IAttachment to 1991 0 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 10 of 13 0 4. 1991 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL from April through 0 October 1991. These resulted in the collection of 2,613 individual fish representing 11 families and 30 species. Collection methods used were fyke 0 netting, seining, electrofishing and gill netting. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Catch data calculated as percent relative abundance for all gears combined showed gizzard shad highest (28.2Z) and white bass next (14.4Z). This shad percentage represents an increase of 2.5Z from 1990; and was the highest to date. Next were bluegill (11.2t), smallmouth bass (7.1%) and walleye (5.0Z). When total biomass of all species in the standardized effort was considered, wiper were highest at 17.32 followed by white bass (14.62), walleye (10.8z), bigmouth buffalo (10.72), smallmouth bass (6.11), smallmouth buffalo (6.0Z), gizzard shad (5.9Z), and common carp (5.9Z).Largemouth bass biomass fell in 1991 from comprising in the past a high percentage of the biomass statistic to only 4.7 percent. Considering a life expectancy of five to seven years and that the age of the older wiper year class was ten in 1991, it was surprising that natural mortality didn't reduce their number further. Wipers from the 1988 and 1989 stocking supported the 1991 biomass statistic, but the older 1981 year was still present in large numbers. Gizzard shad biomass from 1990 to 1991 rose from 3.9Z to 5.9Z, which was the highest measured to date. Shad biomass has varied slightly since lake fill but has rarely exceeded 51.Growth and body condition data using Proportional and Relative Stock Density (PSD, RSD), relative weight (Wr) and condition factor (K ) continued to TL show large average sizes, slowing growth of early predator year classes and low to moderate condition for Wolf Creek predators.

Wiper growth continued but at rates which were more modest and variable than in its earliest years. Growth of crappie, white bass, and walleye continued at moderate rates. Largemouth bass growth continued to decline but was still within H P1 Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 11 of 13 0 acceptable limits. For all Wolf Creek predators, average sizes were large 0 and the proportion of mature fish (quality size and larger) versus smaller, minmature fish (stock size) was also large, leading to very high PSD's. At 0 the same time, condition of these predators was generally lower than the averages from other Kansas impoundments.

In contrast, both gizzard shad PSD 0 and Wr values were close to the top of reservoirs surveyed in Kansas. While these qualities in shad have been shown to be optimal for production of a good prey base, few young-of-the year gizzard shad in WCCL remain through their first winter. Little or no survival of the last four year classes of gizzard shad indicates that the combination of predation pressure and winterkill was adequate to control expansion of the WCCL shad population.

Thus, no impingement problems have been experienced so far. The sportfish/roughfish ratio in Wolf Creek was very high when compared with other reservoirs in the midsection of the United States. The unusually low number of gizzard shad and equally unusually high number of predators in WCCL meant predator condition was low but more importantly, so were impingement rates.

H 3 fiI Attachment to 1991 Annual Env. Operating Report Page 12 of 13 0 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 The wildlife monitoring activities targeted possible impacts from station operation to migratory and wintering water birds in the vicinity of WCGS.The results presented here cover the 1990(1991 winter monitoring season and-- the first half of the 1991/1992 season. The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or impacts to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species that may be caused by station operation.

Use of WCCL may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using WCCL was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used WCCL during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1990/1991 season thirty-four species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with Franklin's gull and mallard being most abundant.

Mallard usage has normally been comparatively high. During the fall of 1991, similar usage was observed.

During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCCL. This, in combination with seclusion and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons.Significant (p10.05) preferences for areas of WCCL providing these factors were found during most operational seasons, although not the case during 1991. No disease or crop depredation problems were observed.

No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using WCCL. Its usage on WCCL declined during the first two years after plant operation began while remaining constant on 4.3 P1 Attachment to 1991 0Annual Env. Operating Report Page 13 of 13 a JRR. A large increase was observed during the next two winters. A marked N decline on both reservoirs was observed during 1989/1990 with only a very o slight recovery observed during the 1990/1991 winter. During the fall of$1991, eagle numbers reflected usage experienced during the same time periods of earlier monitoring.

Initial operational usage on WCCL declined primarily because of the two mild winters which caused gizzard shad, a vulnerable and preferred food resource, to be more available on JRR than WCCL. The winters of 1987/1988 and 1988/1989 were colder and station operation enhanced usage. This provided winter killed gizzard shad not usually abundant on WCCL. During the 1990/1991 season and the first half of the 1991/1992 monitoring season, bald eagle usage of WCCL reflected patterns identified for mild winters. With regression analysis it was shown that since the addition of heated effluents, the colder the air temperatures were, the greater the percentages were of area birds using WCCL. No incidence of bald eagle collisions with WCGS transmission lines have been found as a result of the usage patterns observed.

"d.4 11 W*..LF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATINGCOPRTN Robert C. Hagan Vice PrsideWnt Nuclear Auurance NA 93-0098 NJ 0 4-ul U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station Pl-137 Washington, D. C. 20555 April 9, 1993

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Report Annual Environmental Operating Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operating of WCGS for the period of January 1, 1992 to December 31, 1992.Ver truly yours,/7 obert C. Hagan Vice President Nuclear Assurance RCH/jan Enclosure cc: W.J.G.W.D.L.A.D.Johnson (NRC), w/a Milhoan (NRC), w/a Pick (NRC), w/a Reckley (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity EmlIoyer M/FIHCNVET I-7 Enclosure to WCNOC Letter NA 93-0098 Dated April 9, 1993 I a Ln WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1992 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KS 66839 APRIL 1993 WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 1992 ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

1 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.......................................

1 2.1 AQUATIC..................................................

1 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ... 1 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ... 1 2.1.3 Cold Shock ....................

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

2 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

3 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ...................................

3 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

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

3 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ....... 3 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ........................................

3 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures

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

4 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring 4 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program ............................

5 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program .......................

5 2.2.7 Land Management Program ............................

5 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

....... 6 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES..........................

6 3.2 NONROUTINEENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .........................

8 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ........................

8 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

8 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

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

8

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1992 ....................................

ATTACHMENT Z 1992 Annual Environmental 10 Operating Report IPage 1 of 8 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to I' minimizing the impact of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) operation o on the environment.

The 1992 Annual Environmental Operating Report is bbeing submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan. (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License o NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant Foperated during 1992 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1992, 0.484 billion gallons or 5 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped similar to past years at a rate of approximately

1.2 million

gallons per day and comprised nearly all of the total pumped. The makeup pumps were not operated except during routine maintenance tests on September 10, 1992.The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cfs (average annual predicted makeup requirements) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations, now federally listed as a threatened species. This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows -did not occur during 1992. No impacts due to makeup pumping in 1992 were observed.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4.2.6.1 of the FES/OLS to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

1992 Annual Environmental E Operating Report m Page 2 of 8 Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/i in the circulating water effluent.rl Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has kept TRC well below the NPDES allowable limits. During 1992, actual chlorine dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 87 pounds per day. Monitoring during 1992 detected a daily average TRC concentration of 0.1 mg/l. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRC and dose duration was 100 percent.In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL.Because the actual monitored values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1992 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1992, a continuous diversion of approximately 16,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. In 1989 the KDHE established a 1.0 mg/i TRC limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Measurements of TRC averaged 0.4 mg/i and, compliance with the NPDES limit in 1992 was 100 percent.No fish mortalities or water quality changes attributable to ESWS chlorine discharges were observed during 1992.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to "cold shock', a quick reduction in body temperature.

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, 'Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake'. There were no cold shock mortality events observed during 1992.

1992 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 8 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be O significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for 0 entrained organisms was expected to approach 100Z. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented 0 at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at 4 the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1992, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Volf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River were regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges were sporadic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and infrequent blowdowns, water was sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges of these parameters were regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho -River. In 1992, no NPDES-violations at the WCCL discharge were observed and at no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River.Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality or productivity due to WCCL discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an 3)1992 Annual Efivironmental Operating Report rn Page 4 of 8 0 approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake'shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native O tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously W cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grass stands were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an 0 annual land management plan included controlled burning and native tallgrass seeding to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Haintenance of- Wolf Creek Generating Station Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the Protected Area Boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water.Application rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre.These herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

Selected areas of problem trees and brush were cut or sprayed along the Wolf Creek/Benton 345 KV transmission lines. The cut trees were stump treated to control resprouting with Pathway (EPA Reg. No. 464-510 and 62719-31).

The spray was a brush herbicide mixture which included Tordon 101 (EPA Reg. No. 464-306) and Garlon 3A (EPA Reg. No. 464-546) mixed in equal amounts to make a one percent solution in water. A wetting agent and drift inhibitor were also used. All chemicals were registered for use in Kansas. The transmission line right-of-ways were treated by a contractor commercially licensed by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

All label instructions were followed.

No environmental problems were observed from herbicide treatment of these right-of-ways in the vicinity of WCGS.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency D 1992 Annual Environmental 6Operating Report Page 5 of 8 contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting O period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease Q pathogens was identified.

b 2.2.5 Fog Monitorlng Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1)Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon nconclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program has been conducted since 1987. Through casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any incidents of man-made fog along U.S. 75 during 1992. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 199111992 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL.Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1992/1993 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 199111992 season. An abstract of the wildlife monitoring results is presented in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3)Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1992 land management activity report appears in the attachment to this report.

I1992 Annual Environmental Operating Report iPage 6 of 8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1)Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each 0 modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1992 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1992.M Evaluation 92-1: New Use Applications for Betz C-74, Betz C-94, and Betz WCN04 Biocide and Scale Control Treatments This evaluation addressed the potential impacts from expanding the use of biocide and scale control chemicals at WCGS. Scale control product Betz WCN04 had been used in the SWS and use in the CWS was to be initiated.

Likewise, use of Betz C-94 as a biocide in the SWS was to be used in the CWS. Finally, use of Betz C-74 for semiannual 24 hour2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> treatments for Corbicula control was projected.

Discharge concentrations of these chemicals were expected to be similar to the previous rates which were evaluated to have no detrimental impacts. Authorization from the KDHE was requested and received prior to the use change.Evaluation 92-2: Rip-rap Shoreline Protection North of ESWS This evaluation covered the placement of rip-rap along the shoreline of the cooling lake north of the ESWS. This shoreline was approximately 400 feet long and protection was intended to prevent wave erosion from depositing material in the ESWS channels.

Rip-rap was placed above the waterline and the total area covered much less than one acre. No environmental or permitting impacts occurred.Evaluation 92-3: Pipe Lining of the Lime Sludge Pond Discharge An environmental evaluation was completed on the process for lining the Lime Sludge Pond discharge pipe with a synthetic epoxy-type adhesive.

Heat and styrene was to be generated and water used in the process was to be returned to the Lime Sludge Pond.This would allow the water to cool and styrene concentration to decrease.

Approval was requested and received from the KDHE to handle the process by-products in this manner. No adverse environmental impacts were expected nor were any observed.

H 3 1992 Annual Euivironmental dOperating Report 11 Page 7 of 8 0 Evaluation 92-4: Grating Change on Makeup Diversion Pipe This evaluation addressed the design change to the downstream grating on the diversion pipe through the John Redmond Reservoir dam. The grating prevented unauthorized entry by the public, but W also impinged fish during use. This reduced the volume of water bJ to the makeup pumps which divert water to the cooling lake.Grating modifications were designed to maintain flows through the O pipe and prevent the makeup pumps from taking other water P discharged from the dam intended to maintain Neosho River flows.An overall reduction of potential makeup water diversion impacts to the Neosho River was expected.Evaluation 92-5: Steam Generator Ammonium Hydroxide Substitution This evaluation involved substituting a less-pure grade of ammonium hydroxide for that previously used in the steam generators.

The environmental impact of ammonium hydroxide discharges from the steam generators had been mitigated by neutralization and dilution prior to release through a monitored NPDES outfall. Substituting a less-pure grade would not change previous assessments, thus no adverse environmental impacts would occur.Evaluation 92-6: Land Application of Domestic Sewage Sludge This evaluation addressed the potential impacts of applying treated domestic sewage sludge from the plant's sewage treatment facility to adjacent utility owned lands. Routine disposal of the sludge in a municipal lagoon was discontinued in favor of beneficial application on primarily agricultural land. The process was proceduralized to insure compliance with regulatory requirements and commitments made to the KDHE. The application criteria were expected to prevent heavy metal and toxic organic buildup on the land. Consequently, no adverse environmentalwere expected.Evaluation 92-7. Wolf Creek Generating Station 4.5 Percent Power Uprate This evaluation focused on the potential impacts from increasing the cooling water discharge temperature 2oF as a result of raising the plant's power rating by 4.52. Emphasis was placed on potential impacts greater than evaluated in licensing environmental impact assessment which expected significant, but acceptable thermal impacts to the cooling lake biota. Thermal and aquatic monitoring studies completed since operations began showed that actual impacts have been less than the original impact expectations.

The power uprate was not expected to alter the character of the lake appreciably from current operational conditions.

Therefore, a significant increase from evaluated and accepted impacts in licensing documents would not occur.

3 3 1992 Annual Environmental Operating Report jr Page 8 of 8 Evaluation 92-8 Relocation and Upgrading of Fire Training Area This was an environmental evaluation of an engineering design to relocate and improve the existing fire training facility at WCGS.The upgrade would include an oil/water separator and operational procedures to improve the quality of discharge waters.Containment and lining materials was expected to prevent soil and groundwater contamination.

The facility was expected at the time 0 of the evaluation to comply with NPDES permit discharge considerations.

A net decrease of potential adverse environmental impacts was expected from this proposed modification.

Evaluation 92-9: Wintertime Throttling of Circulating Water Pumps to Limit Flow This evaluation addressed the operational change of throttling the circulating water flows when ambient intake water temperature cooled below 55 0 F. This change would reduce the volume of water which would increase the plant's efficiency during times when cooling water was cold. A conservatively estimated rise in discharge water temperature of 13 0 F caused by the flow reduction was evaluated.

Since this operational change would take place during winter, cold shock impacts to the cooling lake's fishery were considered.

The flow reduction was not expected to increase thermal impacts significantly because the fish avoidance period was expected to increase.

Also, the cool-down time following a plant shutdown would be less because of lower flows.Consequently, the temperature rise was not expected to increase cold shock impacts significantly greater than licensing evaluation expectations.

3.2 NONROUTINE

ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1992.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1992.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]At WCGS in 1992, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were recorded along with the details surrounding them. These included such things as equipment calibration variations, a missed inspection, monitoring plan deviations, and a minor fish kill. These events were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

3)0 W~tui ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1992 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas CONTENTS Land Management Activities

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

Water Quality Monitoring Activities

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

Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

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

Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

Wildlife Monitoring Activities

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

2.3.4.5.2 3 4 5 6 7e o~4~t Attachm~ent to 1992 Annual Env. Operating Report iii Page 2 of 7 1. 1992 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Q This document presents the 1992 activities for Wolf Creek Generating r Station's (WCGS) land management program. It satisfies requirements specified in Environmental Management Procedure KP-LE2206.

The goals that o the program was designed to and did achieve were;a. to maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b. to preserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. to foster, good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, and d. to satisfy licensing requirements.

This report focuses on how the first two goals were accomplished.

The latter two were integrated into the first two and were achieved to a large degree, as by-products of them. This program satisfied sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License.The lands at WCGS included in this program are primarily grasslands, croplands, and woodlands which are used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. The improved properties around the power block area, switchyard and plant support buildings were not included.

Most are leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

A strip around the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) shoreline was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community to satisfy the EPP. Others were unsuitable for agricultural production, left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, or reserved for their wildlife value.Resource management activities on WCGS associated grasslands included regulation of grazing pressure, seeding of native tallgrass species, fence construction, and range evaluations were accomplished.

Associated management of croplands included implementation of soil conservation practices including terrace construction and farming practice requirements in respective lease contracts.

Edge crops were also left for wildlife use.Control of noxious weeds was accomplished on all WCGS lands.

3>6 Attachment to 1992 Ill Annual Env. Operating Report 0Page 3 of 7 2. 1992 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES P 0 W Water quality monitoring of the Neosho River and WCCL was conducted o bimonthly during 1992 similar to past years. The program was designed to-maintain comparability with baseline studies to detect potential impacts due to WCGS. No such impacts were evident in the Neosho River. As expected, Ln changes attributed to the power plant were detected in the lake. Increased forced evaporation likely caused higher levels of dissolved salts, solids, and parameters affected by them. Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles revealed similar results as past years excepting influence of storm-water runoff. Weak stratification occurred but at no time was it considered detrimental to the lake's fishery. The primary productivity of the lake remained consistent with levels found since lake filling, with the exception of higher productivity in the thermally influenced area. None of the operational impacts observed were considered detrimental nor were any greater than expected in initial environmental impact evaluations.

• Attachment to 1992 1Annual Env. Operating Report C, Page 4 of 7 03. ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES (Corbicula fluminea)Distribution and densities of the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) were-P monitored on the Neosho River and WCCL. Flooding conditions in the river during late fall of 1992 prevented sampling at two of the five locations monitored since 1986. Upstream expansion could not be determined due to this. Densities and size distribution in the river were typical of invading populations in marginal habitat. For the first time, specimens were found in the makeup water screenhouse.

The pump bays of this structure appears to provide good habitat for these clams.Monitoring in WCCL revealed that the clams have occupied two new areas along the east shoreline likely via wave transport of juveniles.

Densities were typical of young, expanding populations.

Live specimens were collected from a wide range of substrate types including clay, silt, gravel, and combinations of these all of which can be found in the cooling water intake area. However,, colonization into the intake area was not found. Neither were planktonic juveniles found in the lake water upstream of the circulating water screenhouse.

Based on the monitoring results, in-plant systems do not appear to be immediately threatened with Corbicula encroachment.

Expansion into more areas, including the intake area, of the lake is expected to occur likely through wave action within the next year or two.

3)Attachment to 1992 Annual Env. Operating Report O Page 5 of 7 4. 1992 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL from April through o October 1992. Collection methods used to target species of concern were fyke netting, seining, electrofishing, and gill netting. Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Monitoring of WCCL in 1992 revealed that the annual gizzard shad production continued to be cropped, preventing impingement problems at the plant's cooling water intake structure.

The predator populations showed signs of being prey limited, which included low recruitment, below normal body condition, and slow growth. However, not all species demonstrated these characteristics simultaneously and most have appeared to develop stable populations capable of long term sustainability.

The wiper hybrid, a nonreproducing predator, continued to age and may require a support stocking in 1994 to maintain them. In sunmary, the fishery in WCCL has consumed the annual gizzard shad production greatly reducing impingement potential and should continue to do so in the future.

3)bAttachment to 1992 m Annual Env. Operating Report Page 6 of 7 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 0 W The wildlife monitoring activities targeted possible impacts from station o operation to migratory and wintering water birds in the vicinity of WCGS.-9 The results presented here cover the 1991/1992 winter monitoring season and the first half of the 1992/1993 season. The general objectives of the tn program were to document and assess any trends or impacts to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species that may be caused by station operation.

Use of WCCL may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using WCCL was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used WCCL during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1991/1992 season thirty-four species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with Franklin's gull and snow goose being most abundant.Mallard usage was down from previous years' totals. During the fall of 1992, similar usage was observed.

During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCCL. This, in combination with seclusion and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons.Significant (p<0.05) preferences for areas of WCCL providing these factors were found during most operational seasons, although this was not the case during the 1991/1992 season. No disease or crop depredation problems were observed.

No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using WCCL. Its usage on WCCL declined during the first two years after plant operation began while remaining constant on John P1-. I'I 0Attachment to 1992 n, Annual Env. Operating Report Page 7 of 7 Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A large increase was-observed during the next two 0 winters. A marked decline on both reservoirs was observed during 1989/1990 W with only a very slight recovery observed during the 1990/1991 winter.During the fall of 1991, eagle numbers reflected usage experienced during 1 the same time periods of earlier monitoring.

Eagle usage during the 1991/1992 winter was lower than any previous operational winter. Eagle usage continued to decrease during the fall of 1992. Initial operational usage on WCCL declined primarily because of the two mild winters which caused gizzard shad, a vulnerable and preferred food resource, to be more available on JRR than WCCL. The winters of 1987/1988 and 1988(1989 were colder and station operation enhanced usage. This provided winter killed gizzard shad not usually abundant on WCCL. During the 1990/1991 and 199111992 monitoring seasons, bald eagle usage of WCCL reflected patterns identified for mild winters. With regression analysis it was shown that since the addition of heated effluents, the colder the air temperatures were, the greater the percentages were of area birds using WCCL. No incidence of bald eagle collisions with WCGS transmission lines have been found as a result of the usage patterns observed.

WO.LFCREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Robert C. Hagan Vice PresIdent Nuclear Assurance April 20, 1994" NA 94-0069 U. S. NuclearRegulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 1993 to December 31, 1993.Very truly yours, R~obert C. Hagan RCH/j ad Enclosure cc: L. J. Callan (NRC), w/a G. A. Pick (NRC), w/a W. D. Reckley (NRC), w/a L. A. Yandell (NRC), w/a WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1993 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 APRIL 1994 6 S~ ~ ..*.***'C -' C2~ .. --

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 2 of 15 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 A QUATIC [EPP Section2.1J

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

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .............

3. ..3 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ...................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock .......................

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

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River. 4 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2] ... ..............................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..................................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ..........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

..... 5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

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

..... 5 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ....1.......................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2) ......................

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] 6...........................

6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

...... 6 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]...............

6 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ....................

7 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports .....................................................

7 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

7 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 ...............................

8 A TTA CH M EN T ....................................

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

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

.. 9 b-. .- , -.c...-, -

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 15

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact of Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) operation on the environment.

The 1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1993 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORIN 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP SECTION 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1993, 0.487 billion gallons or 5 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. This water was for auxiliary raw water pumped similar to past years at approximately

1.2 million

gallons per day. The larger makeup pumps were not operated during 1993.The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cfs (average annual predicted makeup requirements) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations, now federally listed as a threatened species. This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows -did not occur during 1993.2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

Total residual chlorine (TRC) was postulated in Section 4.2.6.1 of the FES/OLS to range between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/l at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day at 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These chlorine doses were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality among aquatic organisms in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit allows TRC to be a maximum of 0.2 mg/l in the circulating water effluent.

Chlorine dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has kept TRC well below the NPDES allowable limits. During 1993, actual chlorine dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 65 pounds per day. Monitoring detected a daily average TRC concentration of 0.1 mg/l. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRC and dose duration was 100 percent.?..!7 1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 4 of 15 In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed chlorination treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual values during CWS chlorination were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to chlorination were observed, permitted chlorine discharges during 1993 were not considered to have had appreciable effects onthe cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1993, a continuous diversion of approximately 16,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRC limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS.Measurements of TRC averaged 0.4 mg/I and, compliance with the NPDES limit in 1993 was 100 percent. No fish mortalities or water quality changes attributable to ESWS chlorine discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attrcted to thi WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake". There were no cold shock mortality events observed during 1993.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1993, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River were regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges were sporadic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and short infrequent blowdowns, water was sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Effluent parameters measured include a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride concentration.

Discharges of these parameters were regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, 1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 5 of 15 depending upon water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. In 1993, no NPDES violations at the WCCL discharge were observed and at no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River. Based on monitoring studies completed, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality or productivity due to WCCL discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP SECTION 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges fromn approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grasses were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the protected area boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 pounds of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 100 gallons of water. Application rates ranged from 20-50 gallons per acre. These herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

The transmission line right-of-ways associated with the power plant were not sprayed during 1993.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the* ' ' " .: / ': .: "".":'- > " ' ' i,.' -".; " ., ... .'. * ' '.. .*". ." .. .".

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 6 of 15 event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

C.2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U.S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by these data, no formal fog monitoring program has been conducted since 1987. Through casual observations, Environmental Management personnel did not observe any incidents of man-made fog along U.S. 75 during 1993. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife lopulation".

or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1992/1993 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL. Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1993/1994 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1992/1993 season. An abstract of the wildlife monitoring results is presented in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, terraces, waterways, and permanent vegetative covers. A summary of the 1993 land management activity report appears in the attachment to this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP SECTION 3.11 Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1993 is.. ..... ... ..--.C ~ ~ CC ~ ~ ****~C-'--C-'.f.* .C CC.. ...

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 7 of 15 presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1993.Evaluation:

Reroute of Sodium Hydroxide Discharge from Hydrazine Analyzer This evaluation addressed the potential environmental impact of changing the discharge path of 10% sodium hydroxide from the hydrazine analyzer to the steam generator blowdown sample recovery tank. The chemical was to be ultimately discharged to the lime sludge pond or oil water separator (NPDES outfalls 005 or 002, respectively).

The sodium hydroxide reagent was diluted and neutralized within NPDES permit limits before being discharged.

No adverse environmental impacts were expected to occur.Evaluation:

Construction of New Office Building This evaluation covered the construction of a new office building on site property.

The building was to be located within an area previously disturbed by plant construction within the protected area boundary.

All applicable KDHE potable water and sanitary sewer design requirements were met. No adverse environmental impacts would result from constructing the building.Evaluation:

Sump Pump Change in the Warming Line Valve Pit This evaluation addressed replacement of a sump pump in the warming line valve pit with another pump of a different make. The difference in volume pumped would not greatly increase plant effluents.

No unreviewed environmental question existed. No adverse environmental impacts would result.Evaluation:

Lime Sludge Pond Discharge Valve Throttling This evaluation addressed procedural revisions which would allow the discharge valve at the lime sludge pond (NPDES outfall 005) to be throttled.

This would allow greater flexibility to control the discharge rate making flow measurements easier and controlling erosion. The character of the regulated discharge would not change. No environmental impacts would result.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1993.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1993.-'- -a:,:

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 8 of 15 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP SUBSECTION 5.4.1" At WCGS in 1993, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were recorded along with the details surrounding them. The vehicle for documenting and assessing these events was WCNOC's Performance Improvement Request program. Events evaluated included such things as high treatment chemical concentrations, and monitoring plan deviations.

All events were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria..,..:'£2;':.: .......

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 9 of 15 ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1993 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas Contents 1. 1993 Land Management Activities

2. 1993 Water Quality Monitoring Activities

3. 1993 Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

4. 1993 Fishery Monitoring Activities

5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities

.....-.--~S"b.'~, .:

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 10 of 15 1. 1993 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 1993 activities for Wolf Creek Generating Station's (WCGS) land management program. It satisfies requirements specified in Environmental Management Procedure KP-LE2206.

The goals that the program was designed to and did achieve were: a. to maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b. to preserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. to foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, and d. to satisfy licensing requirements.

This report focuses on how the first two goals were accomplished.

The latter two were integrated into the first two and were achieved to a large degree, as by-products of them. This program satisfied sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License.The lands at WCGS included in this program were primarily grasslands, croplands, and woodlands which were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. The improved properties around the power block area, switchyard and plant support buildings were not included.

Most were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

A strip around the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) shoreline was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community to satisfy the EPP. Others were unsuitable for agricultural production, left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, or reserved for their wildlife value.Resource management activities on WCGS grasslands included regulation of grazing pressure, seeding of native tallgrass species, fence construction, and range evaluations.

Associated management of croplands included implementation of soil conservation practices including terrace construction and farming practice requirements in respective lease contracts.

Edge crops were also left for wildlife use and control of noxious weeds was accomplished on all WCGS lands.

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 11 of 15 2. 1993 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Water quality monitoring of the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was conducted bimonthly during 1993 similar to past years. The program was designed to maintain comparability with baseline studies to detect potential impacts due to WCGS. No such impacts were evident in the Neosho River.As expected, however, changes attributable to the power plant were detected in the lake. Increased forced evaporation likely caused higher levels of dissolved salts, solids, and parameters affected by them.Temperature and dissolved oxygen profiles revealed similar results as past years. Stratification occurred but at no time was it considered detrimental to the lake's fishery. The primary productivity of the lake remained consistent with levels found since lake filling, with the exception of slightly higher productivity in the thermally influenced area. None of the operational impacts observed were considered detrimental nor were any greater than expected in initial environmental impact evaluations.

Because the data gathered to date have demonstrated the lack of plant impacts to the Neosho River and have characterized the plants influence on the cooling lake, water quality monitoring will be reduced in the future.

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 12 of 15 3. 1993 ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES (Corbicula fluminea)Distribution and densities of the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) were monitored in the Neosho River and WCCL. The densities and sizes in the river were typical of invading populations in marginal habitat.Corbicula were still present in the makeup water screenhouse which appeared to provide good habitat supporting more and larger individuals than the river itself. Upstream expansion above John Redmond Reservoir was not evident, but Corbicula occupied all other monitoring sites. Due to the presence in the makeup water screenhouse and the expansion in WCCL, future Corbicula monitoring in the Neosho River is no longer necessary and will be discontinued.

Monitoring in WCCL revealed that the clams continued to occupy new areas. They were found in the cooling water discharge area, spillway area, but most importantly in the cooling water intake. Two specimens were also found in the circulating water intake bays. Due to this, treatment of in-plant systems was investigated and planned in the future. Juvenile clam monitoring could not determine spawning characteristics which would help in timing in-plant chemical treatments.

Changes to the 1994 juvenile monitoring will more effectively determine the spawning characteristics.

4..

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 13 of 15 4. 1993 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Fishery monitoring surveys were conducted on WCCL from April through October 1993. Collection methods used to target species of concern were fyke netting, seining, electrofishing, and gill netting.Data collected were used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement Monitoring of WCCL in 1993 revealed that the annual gizzard shad production continued to be cropped, preventing impingement problems at the plant's cooling water intake structure.

The predator populations showed signs of being prey limited, which included low recruitment, below normal body condition, and slow growth. However, some predator species improved and have appeared to develop stable populations capable of long term sustainability.

The wiper hybrid, a nonreproducing predator, continued to age and may require a support stocking in 1995 to maintain them. In summary, the fishery in WCCL has consumed the annual gizzard shad production, greatly reducing impingement potential and should continue to do so in the future.b-. ,i.+! : .z. -,y

ii.; ~iii. ..'i .!.~?I..,

1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 14 of 15 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES The wildlife monitoring activities targeted possible impacts from station operation to migratory and wintering waterbirds in the vicinity of WCGS. The results presented here cover the 1992/1993 winter monitoring season and the first half of the 1993/1994 season. The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or impacts to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species that may be caused by station operation.

Use of WCCL may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using WCCL was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used WCCL during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1992/1993 season thirty species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with inow goos.and Franklin's gull being most abundant.

Mallard usage continued to decline. During the fall of 1993, this decline in usage continued.

During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCCL. This, in combination with a lack of hunting pressure and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Mallard and Canada goose usage has indicated preferences for areas of WCCL providing these factors, although these preferences are not usually significant (p_50.05).

No disease or crop depredation problems were observed during the 1992/1993 season or the first half of the 1993/1994 season. No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using WCCL. Its usage on WCCL declined during the first two years after plant operation began while remaining constant on John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A large increase in usage was observed during the next two winters (1987/1988 and 1988/1989).

Since then, eagle usage of WCCL has been very low.Initial operational usage on WCCL declined primarily because of the two mild winters which caused gizzard shad, a vulnerable and preferred food resource, to be more readily available on JRR than WCCL.Colder winters in 1987/1988 and 1988/1989 and station operation resulted in WCCL having some of the only available open water for much of the winter. This made WCCL more attractive to bald eagles during those times. One other factor affecting eagle usage of WCCL was availability of dead gizzard shad or other fish. Plant trips (shutdowns) during the winter can cause fish kills by cold-shock when the.. ...... ....

'0 1993 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 15 of 15 plant effluent is suddenly no longer heated. This readily available food source may be a more important factor than simply available open water when it comes to eagle usage of WCCL. No incidence of bald eagle collisions with WCGS transmission lines have been found as a result of the usage patterns observed..

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

a; ifl/.5-. I WLFCREEK NUCLEAR OPERAliNG CORPORATION Otto L. Maynard Vice President Plant Operations April 20, 1995 WO 95-0068 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Report Annual Environmental Operating Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station .(WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operating of WCGS for the period of January 1, 1994 to December 31, 1994.If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (316) 364-8831, extension 4450, or Mr. Richard D. Flannigan at extension 4500.very truly yours, Otto L. Maynard OLM/J ad Attachment cc: L. J. Callan (NRC), w/a D. F. Kirsch (NRC), w/a J.. F. Ringwald (NRC), w/a J. C. Stone (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opponrunity Employer M/F/HCNET th, WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1994 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report 01 Page 2 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

32.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

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

I ........ 3 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1] .............................................................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ........................

3 di 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ..................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock........................................................................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River. 5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]....................................................................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake ...........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

.. .. .....6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] .....................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]............

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] .............

6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

.........

7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1] ................

7 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .....................

9 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports .........................................................

9 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

9 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1] .......................................

9 ATTACH M EN T ..........................................................................................................................

10 1994 Annual Environmental

• Operating Report r Page 3 of 16

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact of Wolf Creek Generating Sýtation (WCGS) operation on the environment.

The 1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1994 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRMQENTALT MONITORlNG

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP SECTION 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL). During 1994, 2.639 billion gallons or 27 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped at a rate of approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day which comprises about 17 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from October 2 through October 30, 1994. Measurements taken during 1994 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that downstream flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were unaffected by makeup pumping activities.

The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second (cfs) (average annual predicted makeup requirements) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations, now federally listed as a threatened species. This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows -did not occur during 1994.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

During 1994, Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide, a halogenated oxidizing biocide, was used rather than gaseous chlorine, which was used exclusively in the past. An evaluation completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the Bio-Trol 88P impacts to the cooling lake environment would not be greater than that expected from chlorine use. The expected impact from biocide use was derived from a postulated level (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1)of between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These concentrations were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2), Administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE), the WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit, was changed to allow the use of

• .1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report V 1 Page 4 of 16 oxidizing biocides, other than chlorine exclusively, and limits the concentration of total residual oxidant (TRO) to be 0.2 mg/I in the circulating water effluent.

Biocide dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has kept TRO well below the NPDES allowable limits. During 1994, actual oxidizing biocide dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 43 pounds per day. Monitoring detected a daily average TRO concentration of 0.1 mg/I. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRO and dose duration was 100 percent.In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed biocide treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCCL. Because the actual values during CWS biocide treatments were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortalities attributable to oxidizing biocides were observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1994 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1994, a continuous diversion of approximately 16,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS.Measurements of TRO averaged.

0.3 mg/l and, compliance with the NPDES limit in 1994 was 100 percent. No fish mortalities or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fish attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." In 1994, two cold shock mortality events were observed and judged not to be greater than impacts anticipated in licensing documents.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCCL circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1994, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 5 of 16 O 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Cooling Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Cooling lake discharges into the Neosho River are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

Since discharges were sporadic, chiefly from stormwater runoff and short, infrequent blowdowns, water was sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Until September, 1994, effluent parameters measured included a flow rate estimate, temperature, pH, total dissolved solids, sulfate, and chloride concentration, Discharges of these parameters were regulated to maintain a zone of passage in the Neosho River for aquatic organisms at the Wolf Creek confluence.

Consequently, the flows allowed from WCCL may range from zero to unrestricted, depending upon water quality and temperature similarities with the Neosho River. In September, 1994, a new NPDES permit set discharge limits from the lake for sulfates, chlorides, and pH with no flow restrictions based on the water quality in the Neosho River. In 1994, no NPDES violations at the WCCL discharge were observed and at no time did water quality criteria restrict WCCL discharge to the Neosho River. Based on completed monitoring studies, there have been no apparent deleterious effects to Neosho River water quality or productivity due to WCCL discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP SECTION 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition .and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectares (ha) (1120 acre)exclusion zone was selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Cooling Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grasses were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These include the protected area boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of 8 pounds of Karmex (EPA keg. No. 352-247) and 4 to 6 ounces of Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) per 1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 6 of 16 ep 100 gallons of water. Application rates ranged from 20 to 50 gallons per acre. These ii herbicides are registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.,Q The- transmission line right-of-ways associated with the power plant were not sprayed during 1994.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

Routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities during this reporting period identified, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Because no problems were identified by this data, no formal fog monitoring program has been conducted since 1987. Casual observations by Environmental Management personnel did not identify any incidents of WCCL fog along US 75 during 1994. In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigating actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1993/1994 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCCL. Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1994/1995 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1993/1994 season.An abstract of the wildlife monitoring results is presented in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan was formulated to address needs and propose accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil-------- ----------------

---

-----------------

---

....... -

• fl-1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report 7, Page 7 of 16 0 conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or 9I. establishment of fences, terraces, waterways, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was developed and opened in 1994. A Ii sumrmary of the 1994 land management activity report appears in the attachment to this.6 report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMEENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP SECTION 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1994 is presented below. There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1994.Evaluation:

Development of Wolf Creek Environmental Education Area (Completed)

This evaluation addressed the potential environmental concerns with developing an environmental education area with interpretive trails, viewing blind, footbridge crossings, and wetland, all in an area not previously disturbed by WCGS construction.

Only the wetland was considered to have the potential for adverse impact by increasing chances for waterfowl/transmission line collision.

The wetland was constructed adjacent to the cooling lake and a 345 KV transmission line and was designed for educational purposes.

It was concluded that the wetland would not significantly increase collision mortality around the cooling lake for two reasons. First, the results of the collision research previously completed around the cooling lake demonstrated that the existing collision rate was below normal nonhunting mortality rates and expectations were that the new wetland's collision rate would be similar to that of the adjacent lake. Second, the total surface area of the wetlands (5 acres) comprises only about 0.1 percent of the total waterfowl habitat provided by the lake and is not expected to attract a measurable increase of waterfowl to the lake.Evaluation:

Fish Kill Due to Cold Shock Following Plant Trips (Completed)

This evaluation assessed the impact of cold shock fish kills in the cooling lake following two plant trips, one on 1/14/94, and the second on 1126/94. It was estimated that approximately 4200 fish, mostly gizzard shad and common carp, were killed after the first plant trip. Only four additional mortalities were observed from the second trip. These events were not considered significant because they were limited to the cooling lake, no threatened or endangered species were involved, and appreciable mortality was expected as a result of cold shock in licensing documents.

The numbers involved in these instances were small compared to the total fishery.No adverse impacts to the cooling lake's fishery occurred.Evaluation:

Monoethanolamine Use in the Feedwater Heater Drain System (Completed)

This evaluation addressed the use of monoethanolamine (ETA) instead of ammonia as a pH control agent in the Feedwater Heater Drain System. The ETA is discharged from the Lime Sludge Pond or Circulating Water System at concentrations below the toxicological no-effect

• N L Annual Environmental F. Operating Report Page 8 of 16 level and does not significantly change the chemical composition of the discharge.

Discharge of in] the ETA was approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment prior to its use.k No adverse environmental impacts will result from ETA use.Evaluation:

Removal of the Injection Nozzle Cooling Water Line from Emergency Diesel Generators (Completed)

This evaluation addressed the potential effluent change from removing the cooling water lines to the emergency diesel fuel injector nozzles. Fuel oil from the diesel generator fuel oil line occasionally contaminates the cooling water lines which overflows to the site oily waste system.This system discharges through a NPDES monitored outfall. Removing the cooling water lines eliminated a potential source of oil contamination in the oily waste discharge.

Consequently, this modification decreased existing potential environmental impacts.Evaluation:

Use of SIDTEC Plastic Cleaners to Remove Silt from the Condenser (Completed)

This evaluation assessed potential impacts from the use of SIDTEC plastic cleaners to remove silt from the condenser tubes. The tube cleaners were injected in a manhole by the Circulating Water Screen House. The cleaners and silt were discharged at the Circulating Water Dischaige Structure, a NPDES monitored outfall. The silt was diluted to insignificant levels, and plastic cleaner retrieval was approximately 99.75 percent. Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts resulted.Evaluation:

Use of Betz 860 to Clean Main Condenser (Completed)

This evaluation covered- the use- of Betz 860 to- clean- scale from the main condenser.

The chemical was discharged at a level less than 1000 mg/l, at which available toxicity data indicated that the chemical was not harmful. Corrosivity was partially neutralized by scale in the condenser and discharge flow was diluted before discharge.

The chemical was discharged at the Circulating Water Discharge Structure, a NPDES monitored outfall. Approval from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment was obtained prior to use. No adverse environmental impacts are expected.Evaluation:

Rerouting of Feedwater Heater Relief Valves to the Vent Stack (Not Completed)

This evaluation covered the rerouting of the outlets from the feedwater heater relief valves to the vent stack for the steam generator blowdown flash tank. The feedwater heater relief valves operate infrequently and would not release a significant volume of stream. Air emissions from the blowdown tank vent stack would not significantly increase.

Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts are expected.

0 !p-~ t1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report r] Page 9 of 16 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1994.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable under specifications in the EPP were identified during 1994.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP SUBSECTION 5A.1]At WCGS in 1994, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Performance Improvement Request program. Events evaluated included monitoring plan deviations, a missed hazardous waste inspection, a hazardous waste storage deviation, and a discrepancy in the renewal application transmittal for the NPDES permit. All events were evaluated and determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.M

• Annual Environmental Operating Report n--Page 10 of 16 I[) ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGA1TIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1994 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management Burlington, Kansas Contents 1. 1994 Land Management Activities

2. 1994 Water Quality Monitoring Activities

3. 1994 Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

4. 1994 Fishery Monitoring Activities

5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities 1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Q Page 11 of 16 O1. 1994 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document prpsents the 1994 activities for Wolf Creek Generating Station's (WCGS) land-k management program. It satisfies requirements specified in Environmental Management Procedure-) KP-LE2206.

The program goals were designed to: a. maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b. preserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. -foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities; and d. satisfy licensing requirements.

The program goals noted above were achieved.

The latter two goals were integrated into the first two and were achieved to a large degree, as by-products of them. This program satisfied sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License.The lands at WCGS included in this program were primarily grasslands, croplands, and woodlands which were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. The improved properties around the power block area, switchyard and plant support buildings were not included.

Most areas were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

A strip around the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) shoreline was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community to satisfy the EPP. Other areas were unsuitable for agricultural production, left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, or reserved for their wildlife value.Resource management activities on WCGS grasslands included regulation of grazing pressure, seeding of native tallgrass species, fence construction, and controlled burning. Associated management of croplands included implementation of soil conservation practices including terrace construction and farming practice requirements in respective lease contracts.

Edge crops were also left for wildlife use and control of noxious weeds was accomplished on all WCGS lands.

1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 12 of 16 C3 2. 1994 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Water quality in the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Cooling Lake was not monitored in 1994. The monitoring program's objectives since plant construction were to satisfy licensing requirements and assess plant impacts. With the objectives being met in 1993, monitoring frequency and scope was reduced. Frequency was changed to a biennial schedule with the program scope focusing on long term trends associated with plant operation.

Monitoring is scheduled to resume in 1995.

• 1994 Annual Environmental

• Operating Report Page 13 of 16 3. 1994 ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES Distribution and densities of the Asiatic clanm (Corbicl[wn mi=~) were monitored in the Wolf Creek II Cooling Lake. Clam monitoring in the Neosho River was discontinued in 1994 because the distribution in the river h ad been characterized and widespread colonization in the cooling lake made river monitoring unnecessary.

Monitoring in the cooling lake revealed that the clam's distribution continued to expand in 1994 until all the lake's shoreline had evidence of them except the most upstream reaches of the intake cove, discharge cove, and main lake. Specimens were found in the Essential Service Water pump bays and within the plant's Service Water System. Monitoring of planktonic juveniles identified a June spawning peak. No fall spawn was observed.

As a result of the expansion, sediment was removed from the Essential Service Water and Circulating Water System pump bays. Chemical treatment in the Service Water System was also completed.

Chemical treatment during July, 1995, is recommended based on the 1994 juvenile monitoring results.

1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 14 of 16 4. 1994 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES O Fishery monitoring.

surveys were conducted on the Wolf Creek Cooling Lake (WCCL) from April through October, 1994. Collection methods used to target species of concern were tyke netting, seining, 4. electrofishing, and gill netting. Data collected was used to describe the fishery which was subsequently evaluated based on the goal of increased plant reliability through reduced gizzard shad impingement.

Monitoring of WCCL in 1994 revealed that the annual gizzard shad production continued to be cropped, preventing impingement problems at the plant's cooling water intake structure.

Some indications of increased shad recruitment was apparent in 1994. The predator populations showed signs of being prey limited, which usually includes low recruitment, below normal body condition, and slow growth.However, some predators such as smallmonth bass, white bass, and walleye had sufficient growth and recruitment to develop stable populations capable of long term sustainability.

The wiper hybrid, a nonreproducing predator, continued to age and will require a support stocking in 1995 to maintain them.In summary, the fishery in the cooling lake has consumed the annual gizzard shad production, greatly reducing impingement potential and should continue to do so in the future.

1994 Annual EnvironmentalOperating Report 1711 Page 15 of 16 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES The wildlife monitpring activities targeted possible impacts from station operation to migratory and wintering waterbirds in the vicinity of WCGS. The results presented here cover the 1993/1994 winter monitoring season and the first half of the 1994/1995 season. The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or impacts to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species, that may be caused by station operation.

Use of the cooling lake may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using the lake was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used the lake during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1993/1994 season thirty species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with snow goose, mallard, and Canada goose being most abundant During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCCL. This, in combination with a lack of hunting pressure and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Mallard and Canada goose lake usage has indicated preferences for areas of the cooling lake providing these factors, although these preferences are not usually significant (p.0.05). No disease or crop depredation problems were observed during the 1993/1994 season or the first half of the 1994/1995 season. No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using the cooling lake. During operational winters, the cooling lake does not normally attract a disproportionate number of area bald eagles. The seasons of highest usage are associated with plant trips or power reductions causing cold shock fish kills resulting in a food resource not typically available in such quantity at WCCL. Even then, the eagles utilized John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) nearly as much or more than they did WCCL. Recent trends seem to indicate that area bald eagles prefer'JRR over WCCL even when IRR is ice-covered and WCCL is largely ice-free.

Thus, WCCL does not appear to be affecting the area bald eagle population so as to attract such high numbers that transmission line mortality could be a problem.

1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 16 of 16 During the 1992/1993 winter, a pair of bald eagles constructed a nest structure on WCCL. No attempt at nesting was observed during the spring of 1993. However, during the winter of 1993/1994, construction of the nest continued, and in March, 1994 a pair of adult bald eagles were observed exhibiting incubating behavior.

This pair of eagles succeeded in hatching and fledging two eaglets. The eaglets were banded, J) by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, before they left the nest. This nest was one of five successful bald th eagle nests in the state of Kansas during 1994.____m Ci.:67'CREEK OPERATING CORPORATION April 17, 1996 Otto L. Maynard Vice President Plant Operations WO 96-0059 U..S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Report Annual Environmental Operating Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operating of WCGS for the period of January 1, 1995 to December 31, 1995.If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (316) 364-8831, extension 4450, or Mr. W. M. Lindsay at extension 8760.Very truly yours, Otto L. Maynard OLM/jad Attachment cc: L. J. Callan (NRC), w/a W. D. Johnson (NRC), w/a J. F. Ringwald (NRc), w/a J. C. Stone (NRC), w/a PO. Box 411 /Bulington.

KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 364-831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCVET ci WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1995 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 APRIL 1996 1995.5 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 2 of 15)AL F CON-TENTS N ~

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.................................................................................3

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

MONITORING

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

3 V2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1] ..................

e........................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River.......................

3 2.1.2 Chlorine Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake ..................................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock....................................................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts. of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ...........

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2].....................................................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..............................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ..................

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

........5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring....................

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ........ *....---.-...

6 2.2.*6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] ....................

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ......................

6 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

...........

7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1] ...............

7 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ...................................

8 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutifie Reports ............

6.....................8 3.2.2 Unusual. or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

.8 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4. 1] ............................

9 ATTACHMENT

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

10 H 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 15 1.0 1NTRODUCTION Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1995 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP SECTION 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL). During 1995, 3.824 billion gallons or 39 percent of the contracted allotment were pumped. Auxiliary raw water was pumped at a rate of approximately

1.3 million

gallons per day which comprises about 12 percent of the total pumped. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated on April 14 and from October 20 through December 3, 1995. Measurements taken during 1995 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that downstream flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were maintained at rates similar to past makeup pumping activities.

Adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to 1995 pumping activities were not observed.The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cfs during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations, now federally listed as a threatened species. This combination of circumstances

-makeup water withdrawal during very low river flows -did not occur during 1995.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

During 1995, Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide was used rather than gaseous chlorine, which was used exclusively in the past. The Betz product is a halogenated oxidizing biocide. An evaluation completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the Bio-Trol 88P impacts to the cooling lake environment would not be greater than that expected from chlorine use. The expected impact from biocide use was derived from a postulated level (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1) of between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These concentrations were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was changed 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 4 of 15 to allow the use of oxidizing biocides, other than exclusively chlorine, and limits the concentration of total residual oxidant (TRO) to be 0.2 mg/I in the circulating water effluent.

Biocide dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has J$ kept TRO well below the NPDES allowable limits. -During 1995, actual oxidizing biocide dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 25 pounds per day. Monitoring detected a daily average TRO concentration of <0.1 mg/I. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRO and dose duration was 100 percent.In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed biocide treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCL. Because the actual values during CWS biocide treatments were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortality attributable to oxidizing biocides was observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1995 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1995, a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Measurements of TRO averaged<0.2 mg/I and compliance with the NPDES limit in 1995 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." In 1995, no cold shock mortality events were identified.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCL circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1995, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

i-i 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report C1 Page 5 of 15 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River* Cooling lake discharges were regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

NPDES permit sampling was completed on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Lake discharges were from periodic testing of the blowdown spillway and from stormwater runoff at the service spillway.

Discharge.

limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH. In 1995, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge were observed.

Based on completed monitoring studies, there have been no detrimental effects to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges.

2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP SECTION 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grasses were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These included the protected area boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of a Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) mix. Application rates followed label instructions.

These herbicides were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

The transmission line right-of-ways associated with the power plant were not sprayed during 1995.

71!1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report ri Page 6 of 15 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station.biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the* event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation which started in September 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

Operation of WCGS did not increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

In addition, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1994/1995 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1995/1996 monitoring program. The objectives of this program were the same as for the 1994/1995 season.An abstract of the wildlife monitoring results is presented in the attachment to this report.2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, terraces, waterways, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was developed and opened in 1994. A summary of the 1995 land management activity report appears in the attachment to this report.

1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 7 of 15 Vi 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGES [EPP SECTION 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1995 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1995.Evaluation:

Separating Condensate Demineralizing System and Makeup Water Treatment System Effluents This evaluation addressed the separation of condensate demineralizing system (AK) and makeup water treatment effluents that previously had been routed to the lime sludge pond.Monoethanolamine (ETA) from the AK System was redirected to the wastewater treatment facility and then discharged at the circulating water outfall. Makeup water treatment effluents with high levels of suspended solids were to be discharged directly to the lime sludge pond.Discharging ETA at the circulating water outfall was to result in lower concentrations of ETA going to the cooling lake than when previously discharged from the lime sludge pond. This project implemented a regulatory commitment made to the KDHE. The Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) defers these types of issues to the KDHE. No adverse environmental impacts were expected.

This separation was completed during 1995.Evaluation:

Construction of a New Waste Stabilization Pond This evaluation addressed potential environmental issues with constructing a new waste stabilization pond. This pond would replace the existing domestic sewage plant. The new stabilization pond was to be non-discharging thus eliminating existing sewage effluents from WCGS to the lake. All permits and design approvals were obtained from the KDHE. This project was considered to be an environmental benefit because waste discharges from the plant would be reduced. The project was completed in 1995.Evaluation:

Installation of a New Potable Water Line.This evaluation addressed the impacts from installing a six-inch potable water line from a new rural water meter to the existing water pump house (approximately two miles across company lands). The pipeline would enable the rural water district to provide all drinking water for the plant. Producing drinking water on site would no longer be necessary.

Trenching for the waterline would be primarily next to the existing utility right-of-way previously disturbed by plant construction.

The initial disturbance would be minimal and eventually would be covered by regrowth of vegetation.

No adverse impacts were expected.

This project was completed in 1995.Evaluation:

Diverting Service Water and Groundwater to Circulating Water Discharge This evaluation addressed environmental issues with diverting SWS and groundwater collected in the basement of the turbine building from the site oily waste discharge to the CWS discharge.

1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report rpi Page 8 of 15 Diverting the collected SWS and groundwater would eliminate an industrial wastewater system 0 bypass as required by the KDHE. This modification would remain in place until theunderground SWS system leak near the west side of the turbine building was repaired.

This was N: an NPDES issue arid the EPP defers such items to the KDHE. No adverse impacts were1expected.

The diversion was completed in 1995.Evaluation:

Changing Makeup Water Treatment Conductivity Alarm.i-This evaluation covered potential effluent impacts by setting the high conductivity alarm for the makeup water treatment system mixed bed resins in accordance with an INPO finding. The alarm would be set to 0.08 umho/cm. Previously, the mixed bed was rinsed to a conductivity of less than 0.10 umho/cm. The mixed beds would require longer rinse times to achieve the lower conductivity level. It was estimated that meeting the lower. conductivity limit would discharge an additional 3,000 gallons of ultra-pure rinse water from the demineralized water storage tank.This would occur approximately seven times each year. This would result in an additional 20,000 to 25,000 gallons of rinse water per year being discharged through the waste water treatment facility.

Discharge of the additional pure rinse water would not increase the chemical composition of the effluents.

No adverse impacts would result. This project was completed in 1995.Evaluation:

Use of New Condenser Tube Cleaning System This evaluation addressed potential environmental issues with the use of recirculating sponge balls to clean mud and scale from the condenser tubes. A similar cleaning process was previously evaluated in 1994 and no impacts were expected and none were observed to have occurred.

The older method discharged all cleaning "rockets" to the lake where they were collected.

The new system addressed in-this evaluation would collect the cleaning sponges and recirculate them within the system. They would not be routinely discharged to the lake. The already small chances of ingestion by fish and wildlife in the lake of the cleaning devices would be further reduced. Using the sponge ball system was expected to also reduce condenser tube corrosion by preventing under-deposit corrosion.

This would reduce normal corrosion by-product build-up in the lake, primarily nickel, iron and chromium.

Consequently, this modification was expected to further reduce already small environmental influences.

This modification was completed during the 1996 refueling outage..3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1995.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 1995.

1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 9 of 15 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP SUBSECTION 5.4. ]4' At WCGS in 1995, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Performance Improvement Request (PIR) program. The PIR program is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action.Events evaluated included monitoring plan deviations, hazardous waste management issues, biocide chemical feed control problems, acceptable refrigerant leak rates, NPDES issues, fish scale tolerance exceedances, and land expense accounting issues. All the documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report P'. Page 10 of 15-"" ATTACHMENT I..V -i

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1995 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management P. 0. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Contents 1. 1995 Land Management Activities

2. 1995 Water Quality Monitoring Activities

3. 1995 Asiatic Clam Monitoring Activities

4. 1995 Fishery Monitoring Activities

5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities

-1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 11 of 15 c 11. 1995 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 1995 activities for Wolf Creek Generating Station's (WCGS) land management program. This program satisfied sections 2.2(b) and 4.2.3 of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License. It also goes beyond regulatory compliance and demonstrates wise stewardship of the natural resources.

The goals that the program was designed to and did achieve were to: a. maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, d. satisfy licensing requirements and, e. enhance foreducation purposes the natural resources on the Environmental Education Area (EEA).The lands at WCGS included in this program were primarily grasslands, croplands, and woodlands which were used for various purposes depending on the location and capability of each area. The improved properties around the power block area, switchyard and plant support buildings were not included.

Most were leased for grazing, haying, and crop production.

A strip around the shoreline was maintained in a naturally occurring biotic community to satisfy the EPP. Others were unsuitable for agricultural production, left unused to preserve lake shoreline stability, or reserved for their wildlife value.The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and lends itself very well for educational purposes.Improvement of wildlife habitat to the area was completed to enhance educational opportunities.

Tree and shrub planting, native prairie grass planting, wildlife food plots, and controlled burning were a few of the techniques employed.

i-i 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report P1 Page 12 of 15 2. 1995 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Neosho River water quality data for 1995 were within the ranges measured in previous years for all parameters.

Most of the 1995 water quality results decreased slightly from 1993 levels but the Neosho river was significantly influenced by stormwater runoff in both years. Local precipitation rates decreased from July to December 1995 but stormwater stored behind John Redmond Dam increased downstream flows in the Neosho River through October. Monitoring results for the location upstream of the confluence with Wolf Creek are similar to the monitoring results for the downstream location.

No plant operational impacts were detected.Wolf Creek Lake water quality monitoring results for 1995 indicated that parameter levels continued to increase due to forced evaporation by plant thermal input. All parameters increased from 1993 levels but were still below 1992 levels. Above-normal rainfall in 1993 decreased water quality parameter levels from those measured in previous years. The 1995 data indicated that levels of total dissolved solids, chloride, sulfate, magnesium and calcium will continue to increase under conditions of normal precipitation as noted in the 1993. water quality monitoring report. These parameters have not increased above levels forecasted in the licensing evaluations.

The increase from 1993 levels was not considered detrimental to Wolf Creek Lake. A weak thermal stratification was detected at the deep-water location in August 1995 but did not adversely affect the lake fishery and was not detected during October.

1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 13 of 15 3. 1995 ASIATIC CLAM MONITORING ACTIVITIES-s!(Cobi flumine)hi Asiatic clams were found north of the access road causeway for the first time in 1995 and distribution of the Asiatic clam also expanded to the northernmost sections of the intake cove. Evidence of Asiatic clams was again found along most of the cooling lake shoreline.

However, substrate sampling results indicated that the population of adult Asiatic clams in the cooling lake continued to be generally sparse.Sediment and accumulated clams were removed from the Circulating Water Screenhouse intake bays in January 1995.Planktonic juveniles were detected at the Make-up Discharge Structure in May and October 1995. The Service Water System and internal Essential Service Water System piping and equipment were treated with a nonoxidizing biocide in October 1995 and chemical treatments are scheduled for June and September of 1996.

..P .1995 Annual Environmental f- i Operating Report Page 14 of15 4. 1995 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES This report summarized the results obtained from fishery monitoring of the Wolf Creek Lake during Ki 1995. The fishery was monitored to assess gizzard shad densities and the status of the predator species that have kept shad numbers low. Operational problems that are routinely experienced at some power.plants due to excessive shad impingement and clogging of cooling water intake screens have been-0 avoided at Wolf Creek. The dynamics of the fishery in the lake has kept shad numbers low enough to prevent this, but monitoring has revealed subtle increases in shad numbers. With angler harvest beginning in 1996, the data also provided valuable information used to determine size and creel limits that would be compatible with shad control efforts.Monitoring revealed that more shad were beginning to survive to reproductive age than in the past. The majority of each year's production of young, however, was still being consumed.

Shad density was low enough so that no impingement problems occurred.Most predator species responded to the slight shad increases by improving their average body conditions.

The wiper stocking in June, 1995, was successful and should support the existing wiper population which were approaching the end of their expected life span. Predator densities were good for all species except largemouth.

Data showed that predator fish responsible for keeping shad numbers down generally had good densities, were large on average, and had improved body conditions.

Shad control should not be sacrificed in lieu of angler harvest, but with the catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at Wolf Creek, limited harvest and continued shad control should be compatible.

Size limits were set high so that only the oldest fish will be harvested.

Low creel limits should spread available harvest among more people. Both should promote catch-and-release.

In summary, gizzard shad showed signs of increasing, but the predator populations were able to maintain control of shad numbers. Wipers were stocked in 1995 to help maintain the predator numbers. Angler harvest length and creel limits were designed to protect high numbers of larger predator fish capable of maintaining shad control benefits.

J t 1995 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 15 ofi5 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES The wildlife monitoring activities targeted possible impacts from station operation to migratory and* .wintering waterbirds in the vicinity of WCGS. The results presented here cover the 1994/1995 winter PUR monitoring season and the first half of the 1995/1996 season. The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or impacts to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species that may be caused by station operation.

Use of the cooling lake may expose birds to transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using the lake was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used the lake during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1994/1995 season thirty-two species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with snow goose, mallard, and Franklin's gull being most abundant.

During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCL. This, in combination with a lack of bunting pressure and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Mallard and Canada goose usage has indicated preferences for areas of the cooling lake providing these factors, although these preferences were not usually significant (p<0.05). No disease or crop depredation problems Were observed during the 1994/1995 season or the first half of the 1995/1996 season. No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using the cooling lake. During operational winters, the cooling lake does not normally attract a disproportionate number of area bald eagles. The seasons of highest usage were associated with plant trips or power reductions causing cold shock fish kills resulting in a food resource not typically available in such quantity at WCL. Even then, the eagles utilized John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) nearly as much or more than they did WCL. Recent trends seem to indicate that area bald eagles prefer JRR over WCL even when JRR is ice-covered and WCL is largely ice-free.

Thus, WCL does not appear to be affecting the area bald eagle population so as to attract such high numbers that transmission line mortality could be a problem.A pair of bald eagles nested at WCL during the spring of 1994. This pair succeeded in hatching and fledging two eaglets that spring. During the spring of 1995, the same pair of bald eagles raised one eaglet, in a different nest at WCL. This pair of adult bald eagles has remained in the WCL area year-round since the initial successful nesting, and it is expected that they will continue to nest at WCL each spring in the future. All three eaglets have been banded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to fledging.

H m 171 0 If I 1o tN\D XI.A j~Soi-ov~1 IcflL, W*LF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING COPORA IO Clay C. Warren Chief Operating Officer April 18, 1997 wO 97-0044 0LqO'U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for:the period of January 1, 1996 to December 31, 1996.If you have any questions concerning the above issues, please contact me at (316) 364-8831, extension 4485, or Mr. Richard D. Flannigan at extension 4500.Very truly yours, Clay C. Warren CCWlj ad Attachment cc: E.W.J.J.W.D.F.C.Merschoff (NRC), w/a Johnson (NRC), w/a Ringwald (NRC), w/a Stone (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 411 / Burlington.

KS 66839 1 Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F!HC;VET H m I-fl WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1996 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 APRIL 1997 H 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report M Page 2 of 19 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3 K1j 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.11 ..................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River..........................

3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake ..............

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock....................................................................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River...........

5 2.1.6 Other Non-EPP Aquatic Issues ........................................................

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL IEPP Section 2.21 ..............................................

5 .........

-" .........

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ................

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

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ..............

....... 5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

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

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 ..............................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] ............

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ........................

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.......

7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 ...........

7 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ................. 10 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ...........................................................

10 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

11 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances (EPP Subsection 5.4.1 ................................

I I A TTA C H M EN T .....................................................................

I ...................................................

12 H 1996 Annual Environmental 11 Operating Report rr Page 3 of 19

1.0 INTRODUCTION

IWolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by. Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1996 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL). A total of 5.030 billion gallons or 52 percent of the contracted allotment was pumped during 1996. Of the total, 0.380 billion gallons or eight percent of the total pumped were used for auxiliary raw water. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from April 27 through May 10 and from August 22 through October 23, 1996. Measurements taken during 1996 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that downstream flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were maintained at rates similar to past makeup pumping activities.

Adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to 1996 pumping activities were not observed.The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that make-up water withdrawal of 41 cfs during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect Neosho madtom populations, federally listed as a threatened species. The combination of make-up water withdrawal during very low river flows did not occur during 1996.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

During 1996, Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems. The Betz product is a halogenated oxidizing biocide which replaced gaseous chlorine at WCGS. An evaluation completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the Bio-Trol 88P impacts to the cooling lake environment would not be greater than that expected from chlorine use. The expected impact from biocide use was derived from a postulated level (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1) of between 0.68 and 1.08 mg/! of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge.

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

These concentrations were expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area of WCL (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

H 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report M Page 4 of 19 0 The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was Ill changed to allow the use of oxidizing biocides, other than exclusively chlorine.

This K) NPDES change was transmitted to the NRC per EPP Section 3.2 on August 8, 1994.This permit is administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). The permit limits the concentration of total residual oxidant (TRO) to be 0.2 mg/I in the circulating water effluent.

Biocide dose duration is limited to two hours per day. In practice, WCGS has kept TRO well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual oxidizing biocide dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 22 pounds per day during 1996. The daily average TRO concentration was <0.1 mg/I. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRO and dose duration was 100 percent.In Section 5.5.2.2 of the FES/OLS, the proposed biocide treatments were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of WCL. Because the actual values during CWS biocide treatments were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortality attributable to oxidizing biocides was observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1996 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1996, a continuous, diversion of approximately 17,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS.Measurements of TRO averaged <0.1 mg/i and compliance with the NPDES limit in 1996 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." One cold-shock mortality event occurred following a plant trip on January 30, 1996. The fish kill event was not considered detrimental.

Section 3.0 below summarizes this fish kill event.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCL circulating water intake was considered H 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report rn Page 5 of 19 minimal during 1996, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have 0 been initiated.

Is1 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River Kj Discharges from WCL were regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

NPDES permit sampling was completed on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the-0 end of each respective discharge.

Lake discharges typically come from periodic testing of the blowdown spillway and from stormwater runoff at the service spillway.

Discharge limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH. In 1996, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge were observed.

Considering past monitoring studies, there have been no detrimental effects to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges.

2.1.6 Other

Non-EPP Aquatic Issues An aquatic issue not specified in the EPP involved Asiatic clam (Corbicula) distribution monitoring in the Neosho River and WCL. Monitoring commitments were specified in WCNOC's response to NRC Generic Letter 89-13. Asiatic clam monitoring has been completed as committed and the results are summarized in the attachment to this report.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent.to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages or native grasses were reestablished.

Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

There were no management changes to this zone in 1996.

V 1996 Annual Environmental 6)J Operating Report M Page 6 of 19 Q 0 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures rl A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These included the Nprotected area boundary, various lay-down.

storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of a Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) mix. Application rates followed label instructions.

These herbicides were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

The transmission line right-of-ways associated with the power plant were not sprayed during 1996, except for the 69 Kv line. Trees in this right-of-way were clipped and stump treated with Garlon 4 (EPA Reg. No. 464-554).2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

In 1996, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess wildlife populations or parameters most likely to be impacted by the operation of WCGS. As outlined in the 1995/1996 annual wildlife study plan, specific objectives of the wildlife monitoring program were to assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Because these annual monitoring programs target each migration season (autumn through early spring), this EPP reporting period overlaps with part of the 1996/1997 monitoring period.

H-.7.1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report M Qv Page 7 of 19 The wildlife monitoring program was modified from the previous years' format during Sthe fall of 1996. An abstract of the wildlife monitoring program and results is presented in the attachment to this report. Program changes are also presented in the attachment.

2.2.7 Land Management Program IEPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha NI (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, terraces, waterways, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained.

A summary of the 1996 land management activities appears in the attachment to this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1996 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1996. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

Ice Prevention Activities in the Essential Service Water Screenhouse Bay This evaluation investigated potential environmental impacts from the temporary injection of heated water and bubbling of compressed air into the ESWS pump bays to prevent ice formation in the bay, on the trash racks, and/or the traveling screens. The water and air was pumped through existing warming lines and through temporary piping. Heated water was produced with boiler trucks and the air from air compressors.

This project was initiated due to the icing event that caused the January 30, 1996 plant trip.The evaluation concluded that no adverse environmental impacts would occur. The supplemental water flows and/or air addition were confined to the pump bay area. The thermally altered area was not expected to be larger than during normal warming line operation.

It was estimated that flow would be 300 gpm. A maximum of 200 degrees F water from the boiler trucks was not expected to raise the pump bay water temperatures more than a maximum of about 40-50 degrees F. The bubbling air was to be used to circulate existing water. Increased attraction of fish to the warmer water was not expected because of the small area affected.

This decreased the potential for an isolated cold-shock induced fish kill if the warm water was abruptly stopped. No adverse impacts were observed.

H 1996 Annual Environmental ifl Operating Report M Page 8 of 19 o3 Evaluation:

Lake Access Park Construction and Angling Impacts This evaluation addressed potential environmental impacts due to access park construction and public fishing on WCL. The park was constructed during the summer of 1996 and public angling on the lake started on October. i, 1996..Environmental impacts related to the cooling lake and associated structures were previously evaluated in licensing documents and considered acceptable.

A portion of the proposed access site had been previously disturbed by lake construction and thus was exempt from EPP concerns.The EPP allows additional construction activities on areas not previously disturbed as long as potential impacts are evaluated and do not significantly affect the environment (EPP Section 3.1).This evaluation fulfilled this requirement and demonstrated that no significant impacts over those previously evaluated should be expected.This evaluation covered four main areas of potential impact. These were water quality concerns, impact of construction outside previously disturbed areas, angler harvest impact to the fishery, and human disturbance impacts to the bald eagle. In Section 2.1 of the EPP, the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for permit needs related to aquatic issues. These issues were addressed in the U.S. Corps of Engineers (USCOE) review of the lake access park project, which determined that dredge and fill activities were authorized under nationwide permit (NWP) No. 26. Conditions of NWP No. 26 require state water quality certification and responses from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) address compliance with on-site waste water disposal and stormwater pollution control requirements.

To comply with these conditions, WCNOC constructed a sewage disposal system for the restroom facilities in accordance with the Coffey County Sanitary Code. In addition, a stormwater pollution prevention plan was implemented to ensure water quality was not affected.It was expected that any impacts due to the park's construction activities outside areas previously disturbed by plant construction would be insignificant or nonexistent.

This expectation was based on similar conclusions in an Environmental Assessment for the Development of Public Fishing at WCGS completed by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP).Public recreation access was assessed in the Section 2.8.2 of the Environmental Report -Operating License Stage (ER-OLS) and no adverse environmental impacts to the fishery were identified.

No significant adverse impacts were expected from the current proposal, either. In the original ER-OLS review, the greatest economic benefit would be from joint fishery development by WCGS and KDWP (then Kansas Fish and Game Commission).

It was expected that this relationship would promote a trophy fishery, the biology of which would reduce roughfish numbers. The expected fishery was also credited with reducing the plant's adverse fish impingement impacts to the fishery simply by keeping gizzard shad numbers lower in the lake.Gizzard shad typically are vulnerable to impingement at power plant intakes.WCGS funded and developed the fishery with technical assistance from the KDWP. It was desirable to enhance a fishery high in predator numbers and diversity to keep shad numbers down to prevent the operational problems that could be caused by excessive impingement and clogging of the intake screens. Consequently, angler harvest impacts to the existing fishery were analyzed H 3) 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report Ill Page 9 of 19 extensively when creel and length limits were set for the lake. In general, the limits were to 0 prevent adverse impacts by allowing only harvest of the largest and oldest fish.Adverse disturbance of bald eagles by increased human activity was a potential impact. This issue was also addressed in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service response to the USCOE dredge and fill permit application.

However, operation of lake access was expected to minimize this potential impact. First, only 50 boats per day will initially be allowed on the lake thus reducing eagle disturbance, especially in the winter. Second, the heated discharge area of the lake will remain closed for fishing. Wintering eagles tend to congregate in the heated area. Third, shoreline anglers will be limited to 50 per day and will be restricted to the access park shoreline only, which is about 3/4 mile. This shoreline is greater than 500 yards from the nearest established eagle nest. Finally, plans were to follow U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommendation and exclude, via buoys, boat access to within approximately 300 yards from active eagle nests. In addition, monitoring and reporting of angler disturbance of the bald eagle will be completed and any necessary mitigative actions to reduce disturbance will be taken.These are conditions of the NWP No. 26 authorization.

Evaluation:

Refuel VIII Steam Generator Chemical Cleaning Process This evaluation covered potential environmental issues associated with chemical cleaning of the steam generators.

This process was completed during Refuel VIII in February, 1996. No process wastes were released to the lake. In addition, potential water quality and hazardous waste issues involved are regulated by the KDHE. As such, the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for monitoring or permit limitations (EPP Section 2.1). WCGS consulted with the KDHE and since the process was to be completed without waste discharge to the environment, no monitoring or permit limitations were required.

A hazardous waste exclusion was requested from and authorized by the KDHE. No adverse environmental impacts were expected nor did any occur.Evaluation:

Outlet Throttle Valve Post Maintenance Test This evaluation demonstrated that no adverse environmental impacts would occur due to post maintenance throttle valve testing. The testing procedure determined the proper throttle position for the B train valve. Make-up flow rates to the Auxiliary Feed Water System, the Spent Fuel Pool, and the Component Cooling Water System were simulated using lake water via the ESWS.Most of the flow was to be returned to the lake via the permitted ESWS discharge (NPDES Outfall 006). Approximately 1220 gpm was to be by-passed to the storm drain system (NPDES Outfall 002). This by-pass represented a change in effluent flow path and potential environmental impact.In EPP Section 2.1 the NRC relies on the State of Kansas to regulate such issues. The KDHE and WCNOC addressed the water quality issues involved.

Since no biocide or chemical treatments were to take place during the bypass, no permit or monitoring limitations were required.

No adverse impacts resulted from the valve testing.

H 1996 Annual Environmental 0Operating Report Page 10 of 19 Evaluation:

Fish Mortality Due to Plant Trip U.This evaluation addressed the impact of the cold-shock fish kill event following the January 30, 1996 plant trip due to ice formation on the CWS traveling screens. Quantification of this event revealed that less than two percent of the total fish killed (19,763) were game fish, rough fish killed represented less than one fish per acre, and the majority of shad killed (80% of total fish)were young-of-year fish. Shad of this age usually succumb to winter temperatures or are consumed by the high predator numbers in the lake.The evaluation concluded that the plant trip did not adversely impact the WCL fishery. This conclusion was reached because the event was confined to the cooling lake and there were no threatened or endangered species involved.

Additionally, similar events in the past resulted in no measurable impact to the WCL fishery.Evaluation:

Siren Placement for Public Access of Wolf Creek Lake This evaluation demonstrated that there would not be adverse environmental impacts associated with placement and operation of two emergency sirens close to WCL. These sirens were required to fulfill emergency evacuation needs due to public access to the lake. Two potential issues were addressed.

First, the sirens were to be placed in areas not previously disturbed by plant construction.

The Environmental Assessment for the Development of Public Fishing at WCGS (by KDWP) concluded that these activities, including installation of a warning system, would not adversely impact areas not previously disturbed.

The area involved was also small (<1/4 acre). Because of these reasons, impact due to site disturbance was not considered adverse.Disturbance of bald eagles using the lake was the second impact assessed.

Little impact was expected due to most siren tests being "growl" tests where little sound is produced and full siren sound tests are of short duration.

Discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service came to similar conclusions.

Preliminary observation in 1997 indicate that the nesting eagles are not adversely affected by siren testing.Evaluation:

Development of the Wolf Creek Employees Association Park This evaluation concluded that no adverse impacts would occur from developing the Wolf Creek Employee's Association park. Improvements included a shelter house, parking lot, picnic tables, utilities, and a sewage lagoon. The primary park area was previously disturbed by plant construction and the total area was small (<0.1% of total site area). No adverse impacts were observed.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no nonroutine environmental reports involving significant impacts submitted to the NRC during 1996.

H 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 11 of19 0 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations tn No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 1996.-D 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 At WCGS in 1996, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Performance Improvement Request (PIR) program. The PIR program is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action.Events evaluated included monitoring plan deviations, refrigerant leak regulation review discrepancies, discovery of fuel oil contaminated soil, qualified procedure reviewer discrepancies, and state laboratory certification omissions.

All the documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

H 3) 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report M Page 12 of 19 Cl 0 ATTACIMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1996 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management P. 0. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Contents 1. 1996 Land Management Activities

2. 1996 Water Quality Monitoring Activities

3. 1996 Asiatic Clam and Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

4. 1996 Fishery Monitoring Activities

5. Wildlife Monitoring Activities

'4 H 7 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report rri Page 13 of 19 1. 1996 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 1996 activities for the WCGS land management program. The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Procedure Al 07D-001,"Resource Management Program," implements this requirement via a land management report and plan.The program objectives are: a. to maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b. to conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. to foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, d. to satisfy licensing requirements, e. to improve the appearance of the company's lands, f. to enhance the natural resources on the Environmental Education Area (EEA).Grasslands at WCGS consist of areas leased for grazing and hay production and unleased areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Grass areas adjacent to WCL shorelines exceed the 500 acre buffer zone of "naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,238 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing in 1996. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 336 acres were leased for hay production in 1996. Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. Compliance with these specifications was good in 1996. No late cutting was observed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and controlled burning was used on Wolf Creek land to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

It is a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method of obtaining these objectives.

Management of Wolf Creek cropland has strived to reduce soil erosion, maintain rent income, and increase wildlife benefits.

A total of 1,349 acres of cropland was leased in 1996. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, producing two crops on the same acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because this practice usually increases soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances.

These generally include tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Existing weed and grass strips as well as the practice of leaving edge grain, all of which provide wildlife benefits, were continued.

A two acre food plot was established in a predominately brome grass area.This area was not used for agricultural production and was Jacking in habitat diversity.

Land management activities on the EEA were designed with natural resource education in mind.Improvement of wildlife habitat in the area to increase the public's chances of viewing a greater variety wildlife was an objective.

Tree and shrub planting, native prairie grass planting, wildlife food plots, and H..:D .1996 Annual EnvironmentalOperating Report m Page 14 of 19 controlled burning were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and lends itself very well for educational purposes.

Continued modifications and habitat W improvements are ongoing which will constantly change the area keeping it attractive for wildlife and interesting for visitors.-Di H* 1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report mPage 15 of 19 2. 1996 WATER QUALITY MONITORING ACTIVITIES U.'Water quality in the Neosho River and WCL was not monitored in 1996, except for NPDES requirements.

The' original monitoring program's objectives since plant construction were to satisfy*f licensing requirements and assess plant impacts. This monitoring began in the Neosho River during 1973 M and was initiated in WCL after impoundment to fulfill regulatory commitments (KG&E 1981, NRC 1982). The monitoring was to continue through at least two years of plant operation, which was satisfied in 1987. No adverse impacts greater than evaluated in licensing documents were identified.

Since 1987, the scope was greatly reduced to target key water quality indicators chosen to either add to baseline data or to reflect long-term operational impacts beyond monitoring commitments.

With these objectives being met in 1993, monitoring frequency and scope were further reduced. Frequency was changed to a biennial schedule beginning in 1995 with the program scope focusing on long term trends associated with plant operation.

After analyses of 1995 data, it was determined that further water quality monitoring was not necessary and discontinued.

Past results have demonstrated that no impacts to the Neosho River have resulted from plant operation.

Past monitoring in the WCL has shown general increases in parameters associated with plant operation, but the trends were also influenced by rainfall dilutions.

No parameters were measured above levels forecasted in licensing evaluations (KG&E 1981, NRC 1982).Literature Cited Kansas Gas and Electric Company. 1981. Wolf Creek Generating Station Environmental Report (Operating License Stage). Wichita, Kansas. 2 Vols.Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

1982. Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit No. 1, NUREG-0989.

H 1996 Annual Environmental FJ) Operating Report MP Page 16 of 19 3. 1996 ASIATIC CLAM AND ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 L~ri ASIATIC CLAMS Monitoring for Asiatic clams (Corbicula) in the Neosho River and WCL was discontinued in 1996. The 1995 monitoring determined that the clams had dispersed throughout most of the lake. In addition,juvenile clam monitoring in 1995 detected a fall spawning period in the lake. Consequently, all commitments and needs for monitoring Asiatic clams were satisfied, thus no monitoring was necessary in 1996 and no further environmental monitoring for Corbicula is planned.Asiatic Clam Commitments:

Prior to any monitoring commitments, Corbicula expanded in 1986 in the vicinity of WCGS and monitoring effort for adults and sub-adults was increased at WCGS. Since makeup water for WCL would be pumped from the Neosho River via the Makeup Screenhouse (MUSH), Corbicula movement into the lake was considered inevitable.

However, immediate transport to the lake in this manner was not likely given that no Corbicula were present at the MUSH or upstream.

Nevertheless, an extensive annual effort was initiated during the fall of 1986 to determine the densities and track the upstream expansion of the river's Corbicula population.

At the same time, efforts in WCL were stepped up to identify early colonization and assess potential impacts to the operation of WCGS.Industry incidences of bivalve macro-fouling prompted the NRC in 1989 to issue Generic Letter 89-13 (NRC 1989). This letter required power plants without an established Corbicula population in their cooling water source to monitor for initial presence.

The scope of the required monitoring included visual inspections of intake structures for Corbicula each refueling cycle, and annual surveys of water and substrate.

At the time of Generic Letter 89-13, WCL did not have an established Corbicula population, but the company was already monitoring for possible Corbicula establishment.

This monitoring included intake structure inspections and substrate sampling, two of the three requirements specified in 89-13. WCNOC responded to 89-13 by formalizing Corbicula inspections at the Circulating Water Screenhouse (CWSH), ESWS, and MUSH intake structures.

Annual substrate sampling in the lake was continued.

Monitoring of the water column for juvenile Corbicula, the last of the 89-13 requirements, was not being performed at the time. Juvenile monitoring was not considered efficient for detecting initial colonization in WCL due to low anticipated densities, but it was considered valuable in determining spawning cycles once presence was known. Consequently, in its response to 89-13, WCNOC justified not initiating juvenile sampling until after Corbicula was known to exist in the lake. In lieu of this, WCNOC continued distribution monitoring in the Neosho River and WCL. After Corbicula was found in WCL during June 1991, juvenile monitoring was initiated.

Documentation of spring and fall juvenile release periods in 1995 fulfilled all commitments related to distribution monitoring of Asiatic clams. Further Corbicula monitoring in WCL is no longer necessary and has been discontinued.

ZEBRA MUSSELS Zebra mussel monitoring was increased in 1996 in an attempt to ensure early detection of their presence in the WCGS area. No zebra mussels were detected in 1996 at the five sampling locations in the Neosho River and WCL. Each sampler was checked every two months between June and October for attached adult zebra mussels and the immediate river bank or lake shore at each location was searched for zebra 1996 Annual Environmental GOperating Report M Page 17 of 19 n mussel shells. Zebra mussels have not been reported in Kansas and have not been reported closer to 0 Kansas than navigation locks in the Verdigris River in northeastern Oklahoma (Benson, 1997). Because tri, zebra mussels can be dispersed by overland transport of recreational boats, monitoring for the presence of N zebra mussels near WCGS will likely continue in 1997.t~j Literature Cited Benson, Amy J., Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. "An Overview of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Organisms," Presentation at Seventh International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference (January 28-31, 1997, New Orleans, Louisiana).

Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Generic Letter 89-13, "Service Water System Problems Affecting Safety-Related Equipment," to all holders of operating licenses or construction permits for nuclear power plants (July 18, 1989).

1996 Annual Environmental Operating Report Mri Page 18 of 19 4. 1996 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 Fishery monitoring of the WCL during 1996 was completed to assess gizzard shad densities and the status of the predator species that have kept shad numbers low. Operational problems that are routinely ij experienced at some power plants due to excessive shad impingement and clogging of cooling water hi intake screens have been avoided at WCGS. The dynamics of the fishery in the lake have kept shad numbers low enough to prevent this, but monitoring has revealed subtle increases.

in shad numbers. With-d angler harvest beginning in 1996, the data also provided valuable information used to determine size and creel limits that would be compatible with shad control efforts.Most predator species responded to the slight shad increases by improving their average body conditions.

The success of wiper stockings in 1995 and 1996 was limited, based on 1996 sampling.

These stockings should support the existing wiper population which have approached the end of their expected life span.Predator densities were good for all species except largemouth.

Data showed that predator fish responsible for keeping shad numbers down generally had good densities, were large on average, and had improved body conditions.

Shad control should not be sacrificed in lieu of angler harvest, but with the catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCGS, limited harvest and continued shad control should be compatible.

Size limits were set high so that only the oldest fish would be harvested.

Low creel limits should spread available harvest among more people. Both should promote catch-and-release.

Creel census results were unavailable, but preliminary review indicates that angler success and harvest were moderate in 1996. The lake was only open for public access a short while in 1'996, starting on October 1, 1996.In summary, gizzard shad showed signs of increasing, but the predator populations were able to maintain control of shad numbers. Wipers were stocked in 1996 to help maintain the predator numbers. Angler harvest length and creel limits were designed to protect high numbers of predator fish capable of maintaining shad control benefits.

Moderate harvest occurred in 1996., I H.37 1996 Annual Environmental M Operating Report Page 19 of 19 0 5. WILDLIFE MONITORING ACTIVITIES U.l The wildlife monitoring activities targeted possible impacts from station operation to migratory and NJ wintering waterbirds in the vicinity of WCGS. The results presented here cover the 1995/1996 winter monitoring season. The general objectives of the program were to document and assess any trends or\i impacts that may be caused by station operation to migrating or wintering populations of waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened or endangered species. Use of the cooling lake may expose birds to NJ transmission line collision mortality or to disease outbreaks.

Damage to local agricultural crops by large waterfowl concentrations using the lake was also a concern. To document and assess such occurrences or increased potential for such, specific objectives of the program were to monitor how many and where waterbirds, waterfowl, and threatened and endangered species used the lake during the winter migration season and compare these to the norm observed since station operation began.During the 1995/1996 season, thirty-four species of waterbirds and waterfowl were observed with mallard, snow goose, and Canada goose being most abundant.

During operational winters, the heated effluent provided previously unavailable open water habitat on WCL. This, in combination with a lack of hunting pressure and close, abundant food supplies, has usually kept wintering birds on WCL longer than during preoperational seasons. Mallard and Canada goose usage has indicated preferences for areas of the cooling lake providing these conditions, although these preferences were not usually significant (p5 0.05). No disease or crop depredation problems were observed during the 1994/1995 season or the first half of the 1995/1996 season. No significant transmission line collision events nor the increased potential for such were observed.The bald eagle was the only threatened or endangered species that was consistently observed using the cooling lake. During operational winters, the cooling lake does not normally attract a disproportionate number of area bald eagles. The seasons of highest usage were associated with plant trips or power reductions causing cold-shock fish kills resulting in a food resource not typically available in such quantity at WCL. Even then, the eagles utilized JRR nearly as much or more than they did WCL. Recent trends seem to indicate that area bald eagles prefer JRR over WCL even when JRR is ice-covered and WCL is largely ice-free.

Thus, WCL does not appear to be affecting the area bald eagle population so as to attract such high numbers that transmission line mortality could be a problem.A pair of bald eagles has nested at WCL each spring since 1994. A total of five eaglets have been fledged at WCL during the first three nesting seasons. All five eaglets have been banded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to fledging.

The pair of adults has remained in the WCL area year-round since the initial successful nesting. This pair began incubating eggs at WCL again in March of 1997, and it is expected that they will continue to nest at WCL in the future.Beginning with the winter of 1996/1997, the wildlife monitoring program was modified from the previous years' format. WCGS staff are no longer conducting routine waterfowl/bald eagle surveys.Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP) staff will conduct two surveys/month from September through March, consistent with KDWP monitoring of other reservoirs.

Results of these surveys will be forwarded to WCGS staff. Atypically high concentrations of waterfowl or bald eagles identified from the KDWP surveys or by other means such as casual observations by WCGS staff may initiate supplemental monitoring to determine if any new concerns may exist in regard to transmission line collisions, disease outbreaks, or crop depredation.

-.4%UJ.1 W*FoCREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Clay C. Warren Chief Operating Officer April 23, 1998 WO 98-0033 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

1Irl'01-01'!Attached is the Annual Environmental Operating submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station.License NPR-42, Appendix B. This report covers the period of January 1, 1997, to December 31, 1997.Report, which is being (WCGS) Facility Operating operation of WCGS for the If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (316) 364-8831, extension 4485, or Mr. Michael J. Angus at extension 4077.Very truly yours, Clay C. Warren CCW/rlr Attachment cc: W. D. Johnson (NRC), w/a E. W. Mershcoff (NRC), w/a J. F. Ringwald (NRC), w/a K. M. Thomas (NRC), w/a P.O. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCNET 4-WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1997 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 APRIL 1998 H.* -1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report 1. Page 2 of 16 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRO DUCTION .......................................................................................................

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.11 ........,.... .......................

j.....................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ..........................

3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lakes .........................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ........................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

..4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ..........

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2] ..................

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

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

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake..................

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

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

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ...................................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 ............

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]...............................

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

....... 7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES JEPP Section 3.11 ....... 7 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 1...................

3.2.1 Submitted

Nonroutine Reports ..................................

11 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations..................

1 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 ...................................

11 ATTA CH M ENT ...................................................................................................................

12 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 16

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.1s Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) as required by Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1997 in an environmentally acceptable manner.in 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 4.019 billion gallons, or 42 percent of the contracted allotment, was pumped during 1997. Of that total, 0.349 billion gallons (nine percent) were used for auxiliary raw water. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from September 13 through December 8, 1997. Measurements taken during 1997 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that downstream flows in the Neosho River at Burlington were maintained at rates independent of makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to 1997 WCGS pumping activities.

The Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS) postulated that make-up water withdrawal of 41 cfs during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect the Neosho Madtom, which is federally listed as a threatened species. No make-up water withdrawal during very low river flows occurred during 1997.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was expected to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL; however these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 and 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-P002) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than considered acceptable in the FES/OLS. This permit is administered by the Kansas Department of Health and

, 1, i997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 4 of 16 01 Environment (KDHE). The biocide levels are limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/L, total residual oxidant (TRO). Biocide dose duration is limited to two hours per day. Gaseous chlorine was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems before 1995. Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide has been used since that date. The Betz product is a halogenated oxidizing biocide with similar biocide benefits as gaseous chlorine.

An*evaluation completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the Bio-Trol 88P impact to the cooling lake environment would not be greater than that expected from the level of chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. The NPDES permit was changed to allow for* Bio-Trol 88P use, and this change was transmitted to the NRC per EPP Section 3.2 on August 8, 1994.In practice, WCGS has kept TRO well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual oxidizing biocide dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 22 pounds per day during 1997. The daily average TRO concentration was <0.1 mg/l. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRO and dose duration was 100 percent. Because the actual values during CWS biocide treatments were well below the evaluated levels and no fish mortality attributable to oxidizing biocides was observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1997 were not considered to have had appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

During 1997, a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gpm of Service Water System (SWS) flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS.Measurements of TRO averaged <0.2 mg/l, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 1997 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." There were no cold shock fish kill events during 1997.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP. Additionally, condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCL circulating water intake was 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 5 of 16 considered minimal during 1997, thus no sampling efforts to monitor impingement impacts have been initiated.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho RiverThere were no. adverse impacts to the Neosho River from WCL discharges identified during 1997. Discharges from WCL are regulated by NPDES permit limitations.

NPDES permit sampling was completed on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Lake discharges typically come from periodic testing of the blowdown spillway and from stormwater runoff at the service spillway.

Discharge limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH (NPDES Outfall 004). In 1997, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge were observed.There have been no detrimental effects identified to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges since construction of WCL.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 ha (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

Limited mowing was also completed to enhance native vegetation diversity.

There were no changes in the area of this zone in 1997.2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures A soil sterilant was applied on selected gravel areas of WCGS. These included the protected area boundary, various lay-down storage yards, meteorological tower, support building borders, storage tank berms, switchyard, hazardous waste and waste oil storage areas, and on-site railroad beds. The herbicides applied consisted of a Karmex (EPA Reg. No. 352-247) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) mix. Application rates followed label instructions.

These herbicides were registered by the Kansas Department of H 1997 Annual Environmental T Operating Report--i Page 6 of 16 Agriculture.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

Tree control with herbicides was completed during 1997 within the right-of-way for the-1 345 Kv transmission line from Wolf Creek substation to the LaCygne Generating Station.The herbicide mix, in 100 gallons of water, consisted of 1.5 gallons of Crenite (EPA Reg.No. 352-395) and either 1/4 gallon of Tordon K (EPA Reg. No. 464-421), or eight ounces of Arsenal (EPA Reg. No 241-273).

In sensitive areas, such as water crossings, a herbicide mix, of 1.5 gallons of Crenite and two ounces of Escort (EPA Reg. No. 352-439) in 100 gallons of water, was used. Wetting and drift control agents were also added. All herbicides were foliar applied. No adverse impacts were identified with these applications.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 198S. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, it was determined that sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging and that all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

In 1997, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the wildlife monitoring program was reduced. The program changes were transmitted to the NRC on April 29, 1997 (Letter No. WO 97-0048).

The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 7 of 16 0 eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If the KDWP data indicate usage has changed from that previously documented, then X. additional monitoring will be initiated, if warranted.

This may include collision mortality monitoring.

Waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that no usage changes occurred during 1997. Survey data indicate similar usage typically observed during mild winter conditions when the larger concentrations of waterfowl and bald eagles used JRR, rather than WCL. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL occurred in 1997. Further transmission line collision monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 ha (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife.management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the 1997 land management activities appears in the attachment to this report.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1997 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1997. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

New Steam Vent Line Installation (97-01)This evaluation identified that no adverse environmental impacts would occur as a result of installing a new steam vent line from the turbine-driven auxiliary feedwater pump to the south wall of the auxiliary boiler room. The volume and chemical composition of the steam emitted from the auxiliary feedwater pump turbine were not to be changed by this modification.

The change only diverted a small portion of the steam to a different emission point.

1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report M, Page 8 of 16 Evaluation:

Temporary Procedure for Unit Vent Fan Reduction (97-02)This evaluation demonstrated that no adverse environmental impacts would occur from the temporary reduction in volume of, and change in venting point for building air during\ X replacement of the unit vent boot. Air that normally would be vented through the unit vent was to be. vented through the Radwaste Building vent, which is a filtered and monitored vent. Air from the Auxiliary Building, Fuel Building, Aux Area 5, part of the Control Building, and Hot Machine Shop was to be included.

Supplemental monitoring of any air released from the unit vent while the boot replacement work was ongoing was to be provided, per the controlling procedure.

Because of vent filtering, monitoring,, and no change. in vented air volume, nonradiological environmental impacts would not result from this change.Evaluation:

Dredging Sediment from Ultimate Heat Sink (URS) (97-03)This evaluation covered potential environmental concerns with dredging sediment from the UHS and redepositing the sediment in another portion of the lake. The potential impacts from this dredging were benchmarked against similar dredging completed in 1991. No adverse impacts from the 1991 dredging were observed.

Similarly, none were expected from the 1997 dredging because the silt volume would be less, pumping rates would be similar, and the sediment deposition area was the same. Disruption of fish spawning activities was not expected to be significant due to the effected substrate areas being sediment and clay, which are not preferred spawning sites for most WCL species. Initiation of dredging activities during mid-summer of 1997 would also be after most species had spawned. Necessary regulatory permits from the U.S.Corp of Engineers, Kansas Division of Water Resources, and the KDHE were obtained.

No----adverse environmental impacts from UHS dredging were observed.Evaluation:

Auxiliary Boiler Modification (97-04)This evaluation identified that no adverse environmental impacts would result from installing components that increased the maximum steam flow rate and reliability of the Auxiliary Boiler.The modifications would allow the Auxiliary Boiler to operate more effectively, thus decreasing the maximum design fuel consumption rate from 16 gallons/minute to 12 gallons/minute.

Maximum potential air emissions, originally evaluated by the KDHE, were decreased.

Consequently, this modification resulted in a net environmental benefit.Evaluation:

Use of Alternate Oxygen Scavenger in Plant Systems.(97-05)

This evaluation addressed the use of carbohydrazide, in place of hydrazine, as an oxygen scavenger in the feedwater and steam generators and concluded that no adverse environmental impacts would result. Increased adverse impacts were not expected because the carbohydrazide decomposition and breakdown by-products were not significantly.

different from the hydrazine previously used. Discharge concentrations were also to be below the 48-hour, toxicological, no-effect level. In addition, oxygen scavenger use and subsequent discharge was reviewed and approved by the KDHE prior to use.

H 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report:11 Page 9 of 16.1 Evaluation:

Use of Betz CT-2 in Fire Protection System (97-06)This evaluation covered the operational and design changes necessary to use the Betz CT-2 product to control macrofouling in the Fire Protection System. Periodic use of the Fire Protection System would result in discharge of the chemical to the environment.

Operational controls were established in an attempt to keep discharge of Betz CT-2 on land areas where it would readily* degrade. The operational controls would also keep Betz CT-2 below harmful levels before any product runoff would reach the lake. Betz CT-2 use and discharge was reviewed and approved by the KDHE. No adverse environmental impacts were expected.Evaluation:

Change to Auxiliary Boiler Excess Steam Release Point (97-07)This evaluation demonstrated that no environmental concerns would be created by temporarily diverting excess steam from the Auxiliary Boiler to the Radiological Waste Building.

This temporary diversion was to occur during Auxiliary Boiler maintenance and upgrading.

The volume and concentration of steam was not going to change, just the discharge point.Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts would result from this change.Evaluation:

Outlet Throttle Valve Post Maintenance Test (97-08)This evaluation demonstrated that no adverse environmental impacts would occur due to post maintenance throttle valve testing. The testing procedure determined proper throttle position for ESWS flow. Similar testing was completed in 1996 with no impacts. Most of the flow was to be returned to the lake via the ESWS discharge (NPDES Outfall 006). The remainder, approximately 1200 gallons per minute, was to be directed to the storm drain system (NPDES Outfall 002). This by-pass represented a change in an effluent flow path, which the EPP (Section 2.1), defers to the state of Kansas to regulate such issues. The KDHE and WCNOC addressed the water quality issues involved.

Since no biocide or chemical treatments were to take place during the by-pass, the evaluation concluded that no adverse impacts would result from the valve testing.Evaluation:

Deoxygenation Process Startup Discharges (97-09)This evaluation concluded that no adverse environmental impacts would result from start-up procedures for a vendor-supplied, water production/deoxygenation trailer. The procedure required the discharge of approximately 5000 gallons of rinse water containing

<2 mg/I of hydrazine.

The water was to be discharged to the Turbine Building drains, which discharge to the Waste Water Treatment (WWT) facility.

In EPP Section 2.1, the NRC relies on the State of Kansas to regulate such issues. Discharges of hydrazine solutions through the WWT facility (NPDES Outfall 003b) were previously reviewed and approved by the KDHE. The temporary start-up procedure would not cause adverse environmental impacts.Evaluation:

Use of Temporary Diesel Pump and Generator (97-10)This evaluation addressed potential impacts from temporary use of a diesel powered pump and generator at the Circulating Water Screen House. Use of the temporary equipment would slightly increase the sources for air emissions at WCGS. Air emissions were evaluated in the FES/OLS 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report mPage 10 of 16 and determined to result in minor environmental impacts. The pump and generator were small U and emissions from them was not expected to increase air pollutants over those previously evaluated.

Approval to operate these air emission sources were obtained from the KDHE.Evaluation:

Betz CT-2 Discharge Change.(97-1 1)X3 This evaluation addressed environmental impacts associated with changing the KDHE approved discharge of Betz CT-2 in the Fire Protection System from land areas to the WWT facility.Environmental evaluation of applying to land areas was previously summarized in this report section. The change in discharge was to further ensure that harmful biocide concentrations would. not reach the lake. The Betz CT-2 would be degraded in the WWT and further diluted when discharged to the Circulating Water System discharge (NPDES Outfall 003). This operational change was reviewed and approved by the KDHE. No adverse impacts would result.Evaluation:

Wolf Creek Wetland Construction (97-12)This review covered the construction of the proposed Wolf Creek Wetland. No adverse environmental impacts were identified during this review. The primary purpose of the project was to enhance wildlife habitat diversity.

This was in keeping with EPP Section 4.2.3, which states that a balance between land production and conservation values shall attempt to be achieved through the implementation of conservation and wildlife management techniques.

Secondary benefits included soil conservation, water quality improvement, and environmental education enhancement.

All necessary permits were applied for and obtained from the U.S.Corp. of Engineers, Kansas Division of Water Resources, and KDHE. Compliance with the permits will ensure that the actual construction of the wetland dikes will not cause significant impacts, primarily in relation to sediment runoff.Evaluation:

Procedure for Fire Protection System Maintenance (97-13)This evaluation addressed potential impacts from draining water that was treated with Betz CT-2 biocide during maintenance of the Fire Protection System. The Betz CT-2 chemical biodegrades in four to seven days. Procedural controls were established to prevent draining the water to the environment, if Beta CT-2 treatment was completed within seven days prior to the maintenance activities.

Water discharge from Fire Protection System maintenance within seven days of Beta CT-2 treatment was routed through the WWT. The procedural controls prevent adverse environmental impacts from occurring.

Evaluation:

Securing Foam from Fuel Oil Storage Tank Fire Protection System (97-14)This evaluation covered the potential impacts from emergency use of foam at the Fuel Oil Storage Tank. During emergencies, the foam is not regulated, but is regulated when such an emergency is over. Procedural controls require that after the emergency, foam from rinsing hoses, etc., be contained, along with any waste diesel fuel, water and foam mixtures.

Proper waste disposal methods are then completed.

The procedural controls prevent environmental impacts from occurring.

1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report E- Page II of 16 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant nonroutine impacts submitted to the NRC during 1997.ILI 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 1997.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 At WCGS in 1997, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Performance Improvement Request (PIR) program. The PIR program is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action.Events evaluated included monitoring plan deviations, refrigerant leak regulation review discrepancies, discovery of fuel oil contaminated soil, qualified procedure reviewer discrepancies, and state laboratory certification omissions.

The documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report i_ Page 12 of 16 ATTACHMENT.J'i

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS.

AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1997 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management P. 0. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Contents!. 1997 Land Management Activities

2. 1997 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

3. 1997 Fishery Monitoring Activities 1997 Annual Environmental ED Operating Report Page 13 ofl16 1. 1997 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 1997 activities for the WCGS land management program. The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Procedure Al 07D-001,"Resource Management Program," implements this requirement via a land management report and plan.The program objectives are: a. to maximize rent income from agricultural lands, b

• to conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. to foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, d. to satisfy licensing requirements,.

e. to improve the appearance of the company's lands, f. to enhance the natural resources on the Environmental Education Area (EEA).Grasslands at WCGS consist of areas leased for grazing and hay production and unleased areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Grass areas adjacent to WCL shorelines exceed the 500 acre buffer zone of "naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,238 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing in 1997. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 392 acres were leased for hay production in 1997. Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. Compliance with these specifications was good in 1997. No late cutting was observed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and controlled burning was used on Wolf Creek land to control woody brush invasion and less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

It is a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method of achieving these objectives.

Management of Wolf Creek cropland has strived to reduce soil erosion, maintain rent income, and increase wildlife benefits.

A total of 1,355 acres of cropland was leased in 1997. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, producing two crops on the same acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because this practice usually increases, soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances..

These instances include tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Existing weed and grass strips, as well as the practice of leaving edge grain, all of which provide wildlife benefits, were continued.

A two acre food plot was maintained in a predominately brome grass area.This area was not used for agricultural production and was lacking in habitat diversity.

Land management activities on the EEA were designed wvith natural resource education in mind.Improvement of wildlife habitat in the area to increase the public's chances of viewing a greater variety wildlife was an objective.

Tree and shrub planting, native prairie grass planting, wildlife food plots, and 1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report'1 Page 14 of 16 controlled burning were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and lends itself well to educational purposes.

Continued modifications and habitat 4,-improvements are ongoing which will constantly change the area, keeping it attractive for wildlife and interesting for visitors.D\

1997 Annual Environmental ZOperating Report'T ..Page 15 of 16 2. 1997 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES

.j No zebra mussels were detected in 1997 at three search locations on the Neosho River and IS search locations in WCL. Searches were conducted in the Neosho River on October 3 and 30 and in WCL on June 25, July 10 and October 17. The immediate river bankor lake shore at each location was searched_X, for zebra mussel shells and natural substrates were searched for the presence of attached adults. Zebra.2 mussels have not been reported in Kansas or any closer to Kansas than navigation locks in the Verdigris River in northeastern Oklahoma (Benson, 1997). Because zebra mussels can be dispersed by overland transport of recreational boats, monitoring for the presence of zebra mussels near WCGS will continue in 1998.Literature Cited Benson, Amy J., Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. "An overview of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Organisms," Presentation at Seventh International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference (January 28-31, 1997 New Orleans, Louisiana).

fi * :1997 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 16 of 16 3. 1997 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES This report summarized theresults obtained from fishery monitoring of WCL during 1997. The fishery was monitored to assess gizzard shad densities and the status of the predator species that have kept shad numbers low. Operational problems that are routinely experienced at some power plants due to excessive shad impingement and clogging of cooling water intake screens have been avoided at WCGS. The dynamics of the fishery in the lake has kept shad numbers low enough to prevent this.Fishery surveys in 1997 revealed that more shad produced during 1994 and 1995 survived than usual.This indicates a greater potential for increased shad reproduction in the next few years. The majority of 1996 and 1997 production of young shad appeared to have been consumed as during most years. Shad density was low enough so that no impingement problems occurred.Most predator species had lower body conditions in 1997, likely due to lower young-of-the-year shad numbers. Sampling revealed that 1995 and 1996 year classes of wipers have been established, but not as numerically abundant as the previous 1989 and 1990 year classes. Fish from the 1997 wiper stocking were represented in the gill net catches. Another stocking to establish a 1998 wiper year class is planned due to the lower wiper numbers sampled, and the higher potential for shad production in the next few years.Shad control should not be sacrificed in lieu of angler harvest, but with the catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL, limited harvest has been compatible with continued shad control. Angler use and/or harvest during 1997 had no observable impact to the fishery. Catch rates and health statistics of the game fish remained similar to past years.In summary, a potential exists for increased gizzard shad production in the next few years. Predator populations continued to maintain control of shad numbers. Wiper stocking was completed in 1997, and planned for 1998, to help maintain the predator numbers. Public fishing access during 1997 did not adversely impact the fishery.

H -WF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION

/1)a/'7-o 0 Clay C. Warren Vice President

& Chief Operating Officer APR 1 0 1999 WO 99-0026 I-U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPR-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 1998, to December 31 1998.If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (316) 364-4048, or Mr. Michael J. AngUs at (316) 364-4077.Very truly yours, C C. Warren 4U1--CCW/rlr Enclosure cc: W. D. Johnson (NRC), w/e E. W. Mershcoff (NRC), w/e K. M. Thomas (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e RO. Box 411 Burlington, KS 66839/ Phone: (316) 364-8831 An Equal Opportuniy Employer MIFIHC/VET 3 Fin.4)WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1998 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 March 1999 1998 Annual Environmental 1-, Operating Report mPage 2 of 14 TABLE OF CONTENTS.a.*

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL M ONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.11 ...... ...................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ...... .......3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake .....................

3 ........ 3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ..........................

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

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ..........

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 ..........................................................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ....................................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake....................

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring......................

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1 ] ..............................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] .......................

7 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] .............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

....... 8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATING CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 ................

8 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .......................

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

9 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ...........................

9 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

9 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 ....................

9 ATTACH M ENT .........................................................................................................................

10 H,1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report Page 3 of 14

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 1998 Annual Environmental

'. Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental ProtectionPlan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to.9 demonstrate that the plant operated during 1998 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 1.448 billion gallons, or 15 percent of the contracted allotment, was pumped during 1998. Of that total. 0.447 billion gallons, 31 percent of the total pumped, were used for auxiliary raw water. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from December 2 through December 23, 1998. Measurements taken during 1998 by the United States Geological Survey indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River, measured at Burlington, Kansas, were not affected by makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to 1998 WCGS pumping activities.

The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that make-up water withdrawal of 41 cfs during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR.This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species. No make-up water withdrawal during very low river flows occurred during 1998. Therefore, there was no impact to this habitat from WCGS water withdrawal during 1998.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

H 1998 Annual Environmental,Operating Report PPage 4 of 14 0 Gaseous chlorine was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems until 1995, when replaced by Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide.

Use of the Bio-trol 88P was discontinued on December 21, 1998, when WCNOC began using a sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation (Betz Spectrus OX-1201).

Evaluations

• completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation, as with the Bio-Trol 88P, would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake 4 environment than those expected from the level of chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. A summary of the biocide evaluation is presented in Section 3.1 of this report.All changes were reviewed and approved by the KDHE prior to implementation.

The WCGS National.Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-P002) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in the FES/OLS.This permit was administered by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE). The biocide levels were limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/l, total residual oxidant (TRO). Biocide dose duration was limited to two hours per day. During 1998, WCGS has kept TRO well below the NPDES allowable limits. Actual oxidizing biocide dosages to the CWS averaged approximately 17.9 pounds per day during 1998. The daily average TRO concentration was <0.1 mg/I. Compliance with the permit for daily maximum TRO and dose duration during 1998 was 100 percent. Because the actual values during CWS biocide treatments were well below the evaluated levels, and no fish mortality attributable to oxidizing biocides was observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1998 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

The WCGS Service Water System (SWS) was discharged with the CWS, and treated with identical biocides as the CWS. During 1998, a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gpm of SWS flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS)was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Measurements of TRO averaged <0.13 mg/l, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 1998 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." There were no reactor shutdowns or rapid power level reductions experienced at WCGS during 1998.Therefore, there could not have been any cold shock fish kill events during 1998.

H 1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report iii 0 Page 5 of 14 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement were projected to be significant in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). Additionally, condenser mortality for entrained organisms was expected to approach 100 percent. Because of this, sampling efforts to monitor entrainment impacts were not required by the NRC and have not been implemented at.WCGS. Through casual observations, fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was considered minimal during 1998; thus, no sampling efforts to monitor-impingement impacts have been initiated.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Lake discharges in 1998 were from stormwater runoff at the service spillway.

Discharge from the lake's blowdown spillway did not occur during 1998. Discharge limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH (NPDES Outfall 004). In 1998, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred.

There have been no detrimental effects identified to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges since construction of WCL.Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River from WCL discharges identified during 1998.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre) exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.

There were no changes in the management of the exclusion zone during 1998.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre buffer zone around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' MSL, eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities specified in an annual land management plan included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

There were no changes in the area of this zone in 1998.

H 1998 Annual Environmental 51Operating Report Page 6 of 14 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

.0.D Herbicides were used at WCGS on gravel areas, railroad easements, various land areas,-. 1and transmission-line corridors.

Application rates followed label instructions.

All\k herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of application is provided below.In areas where bareground control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA.4C Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No. 62719-6), Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31)

Remedy (EPA Reg. No. 62719-70), Weed Pro 2,4-D (EPA Reg. No. 10107-31), and Roundup Ultra. Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake..Four weeds listed as noxious weeds by the. Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with Remedy and Weed Pro 2, 4-D.Musk thistle was controlled using Tordon 22K. Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while field bindweed was controlled through normal farming practices by the tenants of the agricultural leases.Tree control was completed during 1998 within the right-of-ways for the Wolf Creek -Benton and Wolf Creek -Rose Hill 345 Kv transmission-lines.

Herbicides used consisted of Crenite (EPA Reg. No. 352-395), Tordon K (EPA Reg. No. 464-421), Garlon 4 (EPA Reg. No. 464-554), and Arsenal (EPA Reg. No. 241-273).

In sensitive areas, such as water way crossings, Crenite and Escort (EPA Reg. No 352-439) were used.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine wildlife monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December 1983 and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon 1998 Annual Environmental fi) Operating Report Page 7 of 14 conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

In 1998, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety.O Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs.This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the wildlife monitoring program scope was reduced. The program changes were transmitted to the NRC on April 29, 1997 (Letter No. WO 97-0048).

The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring will be initiated, if warranted.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality monitoring.

Review of waterfowl and bald eagle.monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that no usage changes occurred during 1998.'Survey data indicate usage in 1998 was similar to that typically observed during mild winter conditions when the larger concentrations of waterfowl and bald eagles use JRR, rather than WCL. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL occurred in 1998. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare.(1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the 1998 land management activities appears in the attachment to this report. The land management program continued in 1998 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.

H 1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report Ir Page 8 of 14 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

-1o 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATIONAL CHANGES (EPP Section 3.11\Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1998 is presented.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1998. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

Changing Number of Anglers Allowed Per Day on Wolf Creek Lake (98-01)This evaluation demonstrated that no significant adverse impacts should be expected from removing the current 250 anglers/day limit. This conclusion was based on the assumptions that current creel limits would be enforced, and that current angler exclusion from areas frequented by bald eagles be maintained.

The fishery serves to control gizzard shad numbers to prevent operational problems that could be caused by excessive impingement and clogging of the intake screens. For this reason, length limits were established for important fish species in the lake. These length limits would protect most of the predator base from angler harvest by allowing only the largest and oldest fish to be kept. The 250 anglers/day restriction was not relied upon to prevent angler impacts to the fishery. Consequently, removing the 250 anglers/day limit would not increase impacts.Potential adverse impacts from human disturbance to bald eagles was considered in lake access construction assessments, but removing the 250 anglers/day limit was not expected to increase the impact potential.

Anglers were excluded from a zone with a 300 yard radius and marked with buoys around the active bald eagle nest. Past monitoring also identified the heated discharge area to be an important feeding area for wintering eagles, and anglers were excluded from this area.Evaluation:

Procedure Change to Accommodate Use of Triton X-100 Resin Cleaner (98-02)This evaluation addressed a procedure change providing for one time use of Triton X-100 to clean the condensate polisher system resins, and subsequent discharge.

The use of Triton X-100, a surfactant, was to improve the rinse characteristics of the resin by removing a foulant that was causing the resin to clump. The discharge concentration was to be below the no-effect level of 3.2 mg/I for fathead minnows. Approval was obtained from the KDHE for discharge through NPDES Outfall 003 to the lake. Actual discharge concentrations were non-detectable.

No adverse environmental impacts resulted from use of the Triton X-100.Evaluation:

Land Management Plan Changes for 1998 (98-03)This evaluation addressed minor changes to the land management activities planned f6r 1998.The changes were consistent with the objectives of the EPP, which requires that agricultural and conservation values be balanced (EPP Section 4.2.3). Controlled burning of the native grass 1998 Annual Environmental)Operating Report Fr Page 9 of 14 0 areas was an accepted conservation and wildlife management technique, as were brush clipping, X fence construction and pond repair. Slight grazing rate changes was not considered detrimental.

X0 No grazing was allowed with the 500 acre minimum buffer strip around the lake. The land.i management plan changes represented ongoing activities required to balance agricultural production and conservation values, and as such , no detrimental environmental impacts resulted.Evaluation:

Change of Biocide Treatment Chemicals (98-04)This evaluation demonstrated that no increase to previously evaluated impacts would result from replacement of Betz Bio-Trol 88P with sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide (Betz Spectrus OX-1201).

These chemicals would be used for biocide treatment of the circulating and service water systems. These two chemicals, both oxidants, when used in conjunction with each other were similar in nature to the Bio-Trol 88P. Operational control through plant procedures would ensure all discharges to NPDES Outfalls 003 and 006 would be at or below the applicable discharge limit for the two chemicals.

Approval for the biocide chemical change was obtained from the KDHE. No adverse impacts were expected.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant nonroutine impacts submitted to the NRC during 1998.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 1998.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 At WCGS in 1998, nonradiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Events evaluated included monitoring plan deviations, commitment tracking form routing discrepancy, waste construction and demolition debris disposal issues, hazardous waste plan regulatory screening issues, NPDES procedure improvements, review of industry concerns with nonradiological waste disposal without monitoring, oil sheen at NPDES outfall, solvent rag disposal discrepancy, and health concerns with a cliff swallow nesting colony. All the documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.L.

H.1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report rr! Page 10 of 14.0.0 ATTACHMENT

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS 4=AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION, 1998 Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management P. O. Box 411 Burlington, Kansas 66839 Contents 1. 1998 Land Management Activities

2. 1998 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

3. 1998 Fishery Monitoring Activities 1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report in Page I11 of 14 1. 1998 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 1998 activities for the WCGS land management program. The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management, techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Procedure Al 070-001, C; "Resource Management Program." implements this requirement via a land management report and plan.The program objectives are: a. to maximize rent income from agricultural lands when practical, 4: b. to conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources.

c. to foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, d. to satisfy licensing requirements, e. to improve the appearance of the company's lands, f. to enhance the natural resources on the Environmental Education Area (EEA).Grasslands at WCGS consist of areas leased for grazing and hay production and unleased areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Grass areas adjacent to WCL shorelines exceed the. 500 acre buffer zone of "naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,238 acres of native range land were leased for grazing in 1998. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths. and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 392 acres were leased for hay production in 1998. Hay meadows were managed for hi gh quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 3 1. Compliance in 1998 with these specifications was good. No late cutting was observed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and controlled burning was used on Wolf Creek land to control woody brush invasion and less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

It is a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method of achieving these objectives.

Management of Wolf Creek cropland has strived to reduce soil erosion, maintain rent, income, and increase wildlife benefits.

A total of 1,355 acres of cropland was leased in 1998. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, producing two crops on the same acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because this practice usually increases soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances.

These instances include tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Utilization of existing weed and grass strips and the practice of leaving edge grain, both of which provide wildlife benefits, were continued.

A two acre food plot was maintained in a predominately brome grass area. This area was not used for agricultural production and was lacking in habitat diversity.

Land management activities on the EEA were designed with natural resource education in mind.Improvement of wildlife habitat in the area to increase the public's chances of viewing a greater variety of wildlife was an objective.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots. and controlled burning were a H 1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report IPage 12 of 14 few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and lends itself well to educational purposes.

Continued modifications and habitat improvements are ongoing which will constantly change the area, keeping it attractive for wildlife and interesting for visitors..u

-.A 1998 Annual Environmental 0Operating Report FS Page 13 of 14 2. 1998 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES

_D No zebra mussels were detected in 1998 at three search locations on the Neosho River and 15 search k locations in WCL. Searches were conducted in the Neosho River on September 2, and in WCL on July 31, September 28, and October 22. The immediate river bank or lake shore at each location was searched for zebra mussel shells and natural substrates were searched for the presence of attached adults. Zebra mussels have not been reported in Kansas or any closer to Kansas than navigation locks in the Verdigris River inrnortheastern Oklahoma (Benson, 1997). Because zebra mussels can be dispersed by overland transport of recreational boats, monitoring for the presence of zebra mussels near WCGS will continue in 1999.Literature Cited Benson, Amy J., Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey. "An overview of Non-Indigenous Aquatic Organisms," Presentation at Seventh International Zebra Mussel and Aquatic Nuisance Species Conference (January 28-31, 1997 New Orleans, Louisiana).

H 1998 Annual Environmental Operating Report J

• Page 14 of 14 0 3. 1998 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES The primary objective of WCL fishery monitoring program was to measure fish population dynamics to determine shad impingement potential.

The fishery assessments targeted gizzard shad, the predator species that feed on them, and the predator-prey interactions.

The results obtained from fishery monitoring of WCL during 1998 indicate that the potential for gizzard shad impingement at the cooling water intake screens has remained low.Gizzard shad density was again low enough during 1998, especially for young-of-year, that impingement problems did not develop. This was evidenced by declining catch rates during fall sampling.Recruitment of 1994 and 1995 shad to the larger, reproductive sized shad increased.

This increase indicated the potential for greater production of shad vulnerable to impingement, but this did not develop in 1998. Enough of each year's production of young shad continue to be consumed to keep impingement potential to a minimum.The population dynamics of the predator species supports the conclusion that gizzard shad density remained low in 1998. Predator populations, as a whole, showed signs of being pre-limited.

Growth rates and body conditions tended to be lower in 1998. Continuous declines in these areas would raise concerns, because it is important that the predator populations remain viable so that shad control continues.

The 1998 monitoring revealed that, although pressured, the predator populations showed signs favorable for continued shad control. Catch rates remained similar to past years, and recruitment was good for many predator species. Still, stocking a wiper year class during 1999 was not recommended due to the combination of lower shad density and lower predator body conditions.

Predator populations focused on were white bass, wiper hybrids, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and walleye.With the addition of recreational angling to the lake in 1996, impacts to the predator's shad control benefits were also assessed.

The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL has made the limited harvest compatible with continued shad control. Angler use and/or harvest has had no observable impact to the fishery. Increased harvest of white bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye were justified and new regulations allowing this were planned to take effect beginning in 1999.

H Cl KOI-/'7:CREEK OPERATING CORPORATION 0 0 0 19 C I~J Britt T. McKinney Vice Presioent Plant Operatlons

& Plant Manager APR 2 8 2000 Wo 60-0012 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station PI-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: Annual Environmental Operating Report-1999 Genclemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the period of January 1, 1999, to December 31, 1999.Report, which is being (WCGS) Facility Operating operation of WCGS for the if you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at (316) 364-4112, or Mr. Karl A. (Tony) Harris at (316) 364-4038.Very truly yours, Britt T. McKinney BTM/rlr Enclosure CC: J. N. Donohew (NRC), w/e W. D. Johnson (NRC), */e E. W. Mershcoff (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), Wie PO Box 411 'B urninaon.

KS 66839, Phone: 1316) 364-8831 An Eouai Ooportunitv Employer M.F,HC VET U'Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 Page I of 9 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 1999 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SECTION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2000 H.Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 Page 2 of 9 TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 1.0 IN TR O D U CTIO N ..............................................................................................................

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL M ONITORING

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

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC JEPP Section 2.11 .........................................................................

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .........................

32.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake...........................

3 2.1.3 C old Shock ........................................................................................

...4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River ...............

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 ....................................................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..................

2.2.2 Vegetation

Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake .....................

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

...........

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] .............................

7 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] .......................

7 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ....................

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

....... 8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 ...........

8 3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ...................

9 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports ...........................

9..................

I ...............

9 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

..........

9 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 ..........

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

9 ATTACHMENT I--Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 0Page 3 of 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION

.

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact 0 on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 1999 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42.Jll The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 1999 in an environmentally acceptable manner.0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

JEPP Section 2.11 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL)from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 3.434 billion gallons. or 36 percent of the contracted allotment, was pumped during 1999. Of that total, 0.388 billion gallons. II percent of the total pumped, were used for auxiliary raw water. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from September 22 through December 3, 1999. Measurements at Burlington.

Kansas, taken during 1999 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not affected by makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to 1999 WCGS pumping activities.

The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that make-up water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second (cfs) during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn. was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species. No make-up water withdrawal during very low river flows occurred during 1999. Therefore, there was no impact to this habitat from WCGS water withdrawal during 1999.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause penodic. appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the Circulating Water System (CWS) discharge (FES/OLS, Section 3 Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 Page 4 of 9 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were N-X projected to produce these concentrations.

0 o Gaseous chlorine was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems until 1995, when replaced by Betz Bio-Trol 88P Microbiocide.

Use of ,. the Bio-trol 88P was discontinued on December 21, 1998, when WCNOC began v using a sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation (Betz Spectrus OX-5, 1201). Evaluations completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation, as with the Bio-Trol 88P, would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for the Circulating Water System was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/l, total residual oxidant (TRO), for a maximum of two hours per day. Due to equipment malfunction, these limits were exceeded on March 17 and June 4, '1999; however, compliance for the year was still 99.9 percent. No adverse impacts to the lake were observed.

Including these two events, the oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 49.6 pounds per day and the daily average TRO was 0.1 mg/l. Because the average values were below evaluated levels, and no fish mortality attributable to oxidizing biocides was observed, permitted biocide discharges during 1999 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

Essential Service Water System Discharge:

The WCGS Service Water System (SWS) was discharged with the CWS, and treated with identical biocides as the CWS. During 1999, a continuous diversion of approximately 17.000 gpm of SWS flow to the Essential Service Water System (ESWS) was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/l TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Measurements of TRO averaged <0.13 mg/l. and compliance with the NPDES limit in 1999 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.

Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 1999 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish H'Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 0-) Page 5 of 9 ,f-j due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." There were no rapid shutdowns due to a reactor trip during o 1999. A gradual reactor shutdown for refueling purposes occurred on April 3, o 1999. Gradual power level reductions during winter conditions also occurred on 0 January 15. February 8 and 20, November 30, and December 31, 1999. No cold shock mortality was observed during the shutdown or the power reductions.

UTherefore, there were no impacts from cold shock fish kill events during 1999.D 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment E'-Impacts of entrainment and impingement due to the operation of WCGS, were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). In the EPP (Section 2.1), the State of Kansas was relied upon for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and/or impingement impacts. No such monitoring has been required; thus none has been completed.

Periodic observations during 1999 indicated that fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was considered minimal.2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Lake discharges in 1999 were from stormwater runoff at the service spillway.Discharge from the lake's blowdown spillway did not occur during 1999.Discharge limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH (NPDES Outfall 004). In 1999, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges.

Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River from WCL discharges identified during 1999.2.2 TERRESTRIAL IEPP Section 2.21 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in the management of the exclusion zone during 1999.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre minimum buffer zone around WCL. agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' Median Sea Level (MSL), eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). Actual area of this buffer has been approximately 1500 acres. This Enclosure I of WO 00-0012* Page 6 of 9 border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated k buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

There were no changes in the area of this zone in 1999.o 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures There were no herbicides used on transmission line corridors associated with WCGS during 1999. Herbicides were used at WCGS on gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of application is provided below.In areas where bareground control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.62719-6), Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy (EPA Reg. No.62719-70), Weed Pro 2,4-D (EPA Reg. No. 10107-31), and Roundup Ultra.Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake.Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with Remedy and Weed Pro 2, 4-D. Musk thistle was controlled using Tordon 22K. Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while field bindweed was controlled through normal fanning practices by the tenants of the agricultural leases.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

H.Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 Page 7 of 9 ffl 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 0 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat In dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that o started in September, 1985. Upon coniclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

In 1999, there were no reports of such incidents from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety.Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl.

waterbird.

and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the wildlife monitoring program scope was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring will be initiated, if warranted.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality monitoring.

Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the K.DWP indicate that no usage changes occurred during 1999. Survey data indicate usage in 1999 was similar to that typically observed during mild winter conditions when the larger concentrations of waterfowl and bald eagles use JRR, rather than WCL. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL occurred in 1999. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the construction or establishment of fences, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An 4 Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 M *Page 8 of 9 ci environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the 1999 land management activities appears in the attachment to this report. The land management program continued in 1999 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.0 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 1999 is presented below. There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an unreviewed environmental question during 1999. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

Impacts from Elevated Lake Temperatures This evaluation demonstrated that higher lake temperatures, primarily in the Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS). were not significantly greater than the environmental impacts previously evaluated.

Natural conditions existed during 1998 that were more severe, in regard to forcing higher surface water temperatures, than existed during the historical years used to predict the maximum temperatures used by the NRC to assess environmental impacts. The evaluation that was completed in 1999 addressed potential impacts from the actual temperatures that were experienced in 1998, and also addressed potential impacts due to operation during higher temperatures in the future.The 1998 maximum lake temperature in the UHS area peaked at 89. IF, which was 0.8°F greater than the 88.3°F maximum previously evaluated (FES-OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

Due to the lack of thermal stratification, and tolerance levels greater than 95'F for benthic invertebrates, phytoplanton, zooplankton, and fish, no adverse impacts were expected.Environmental impacts associated with potential plant operation with UHS temperatures peaking between 90 and 94'F will not increase thermal, impacts over those previously evaluated.

Most aquatic organisms common to the lake were expected in the FES-OLS to survive temperatures greater than 95 0 F. Factors decreasing the potential for impacts to be greater than previously evaluated in the FES-OLS included expected short duration of the temperature peaks. increased acclimation times for fish, and the presence of cooler refuge areas in the lake. Consequently, impacts greater than previously evaluated were not expected to occur.Evaluation:

Diesel Generator Installation at Switchyard This evaluation demonstrated that no adverse impacts would result due to permanent installation of a 150 kw diesel generator.

The generator was to be installed in the WCGS switchyard, which was previously disturbed during plant construction.

The KDHE H.Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 Page 9 of 9 m incorporated this generator within the WCGS air operating permit prior to installation.

No adverse impacts would result.0 Evaluation:

Temporary Diesel Generator Installation 0 o This evaluation addressed the installation of a temporary diesel generator to supply power trn during installation of the generator in the switchyard.

The KDHE approval of the installation of temporary air emission sources had been incorporated into the WCGS air o operating permit. All criteria were complied with, thus no adverse environmental impacts resulted.

The temporary diesel was subsequently removed.Evaluation:

Contingency Installation of a Temporary Diesel Generator This evaluation demonstrates that no adverse impacts would result due to the installation of a temporary diesel generator.

This generator was installed as a Y2K contingency to provide replacement power for the Technical Support Center. KDHE approval of temporary air emission sources had been incorporated in the WCGS air operating permit.All criteria were met and no adverse impact resulted.

The temporary diesel was subsequently removed.3.2 NONROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Nonroutine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant nonroutine impacts submitted to the NRC during 1999.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 1999.3.3 Environmental Noncompliances IEPP SUBSECTION 5.4.11 At WCGS in 1999, nonradiologicai environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR was WCNOC's administrative vehicle for Corrective action. Events evaluated included NPDES issues, wildlife caused electrical outages, hazardous/oily waste issues, commitment tracking issues, an air operating permit issue, equipment calibration discrepancy, and boating safety assurances during lake monitoring.

All the documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.

H Attachment to Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 OF Page I of 4 rn, ti ATTACHMENT 0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION. 1999 n Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation Environmental Management P. O. Box 411 Burlington.

Kansas 66839 Contents 1. 1999 Land Management Activities

2. 1999 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

3. 1999 Fishery Monitoring Activities H'Attachment to Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 L Page 2 of 4 1. 1999 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES NJ This document presents the 1999 activities for the WCGS land management program. The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Values beyond meeting EPP requirements were also realized..

The program objectives were to: a. maxirmze rent income from agricultural lands when practical, 0b. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, c. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities.

d. satisfy licensing requirements, e. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and:s f. enhance for educational purposes the natural resources on the Environmental Education Area (EEA).Grasslands at WCGS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL, approximately 1519 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of "naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,238 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing in 1999 with 12 separate lease agreements.

Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables.

range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildhfe value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 398 acres were leased to 10 local farmers for hay production in 1999. Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was observed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

It was a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method of meeting these objectives.

Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1280 acres of cropland was leased to 12 local farmers in 1999. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, i.e., producing two crops on the sarne acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because this practice usually increases soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances, such as tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and was well suited for educational purposes.

Attachment to Enclosure I of WO 00-0012' Page 3 of 4 2. 1999 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 Because zebra mussels can be dispersed by overland transport of recreational boats. WCGS personnel have been monitoring for the presence of zebra mussels near WCGS. No zebra mussels were detected in 1999 during three searches on WCL and one on the Neosho River between Hartford and John Redmond Reservoir.

Searches were Ci conducted in WCL on September 14, September 29 and October 27, 1999. Lake shorelines and river banks were Ult searched for zebra mussel shells, and natural substrates were searched for the presence of adult zebra mussels. The finding of one adult zebra mussel at a Mid-America Energy Company power plant on the Missouri River near Sioux o City, Iowa, was reported by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service in April. 1999 (L. Drees, USFWS, personal k" -communication).

This is the first reported finding of a zebra mussel in the Missouri River upstream of St. Louis, and it likely dislodged from one of the river barges which pass close to the power plant intake structure.

H--7 Attachment to Enclosure I of WO 00-0012 0Page 4 of 4 3. 1999 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 The results obtained from fishery monitonng of WCL during 1999 indicated that the potential for gizzard shadimpingement at the cooling water intake screens remained low. The primary objective of the monitoring was to):3 measure fish population dynamics to determine gizzard shad impingement potential.

The fishery assessments targeted shad, the predator species that feed on them, and the predator-prey interactions.

0 Lq Gizzard shad density was again low enough during 1999, especially for young-of-year.

that impingement problems did not develop. This was evidenced by low catch rates during fall sampling.

Increased impingement potential from O, greater production of shad in 1994 and 1995 did not develop. The proportion of large shad continued to be high, indicating low survival and recruitment of young shad.The 1999 monitoring revealed that, although pressured, the predator populations showed signs favorable for continued shad control. Predator populations, as a whole, were prey limited. Growth rates and body conditions tended to be low. Catch rates remained similar to past years, and recruitment was evident for many pre'dator species.Predator populations assessed were white bass. wiper hybrids, largemouth bass. srnallmouth bass. white crappie, and walleye.Angling impacts to the predators' shad control benefits were also assessed.

The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL has allowed limited harvest to be compatible with continued shad control. Angler use and/or harvest has had no observable impact to the fishery, with the possible exception of walleye. Fewer walleye over 18 inches were sampled in 1999 after the walleye size limit for angler harvest was reduced from 21 to 18 inches. No changes to existing creel or size limits, except for catfish, were recommended.

H~. 3:1~.fi'~9/-6 9/ 7 t"1 I WqLF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 1.11 Clay C. Warren Vice President Operations Support APR 2 6 2001 CO 01-0023 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station P1-137 Washington, D. C. 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2000 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2000.If you should have any questions regarding this submittal, please contact me at.(620) 364-4048, or Mr. Karl A. (Tony) Harris at (620) 364-4038.C. Warren CCW/rIr Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), wle W. D. Johnson (NRC), w/e E. W. Merschoff (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e PO. Box 411 'Buringlon.

KS 66839 1 Phone. 13161 364-8831 An Eoual Opporlunity Emplover MIFHC VET 7 C.0 rn C, C)C,J WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2000 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2001 I-fl t-! TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3 Lri*2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan.(EPP)

Section 2.11]........

3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ..............

3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ..........................................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment....................................

• 5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River....

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]1..........................................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ...................

..5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ..........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures.............

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring............

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1].................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]1..........

7 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS......8

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11].......

8 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ............................

10 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports....................................

10 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations.........

10 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1] ...........

...10 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ..............................

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

11 4.1 2000 Land Management Activities

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

11 4.2 2000 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities..................................

12 4.3 2000 Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

13 2 rl

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact 0, on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 2000 Annual 0 Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the (0 Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42.-The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 2000 in an environmentally acceptable manner.01 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING V 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump up to 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 3.942 billion gallons, or 41 % of the contracted allotment, was pumped during 2000. Of that total, 0.315 billion gallons, approximately 8 % of the total pumped, were used for auxiliary raw water. The remainder was transferred via the make-up pumps operated from May 29 through June 8, and from July 12 through September 27, 2000. Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2000 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not affected by makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to WCGS pumping activities during 2000.The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that make-up water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat which would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species. Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during make-up withdrawal activities; therefore, there was no impact to Neosho madtom habitats from WCGS water withdrawal during 2000.2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/i of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

Impacts from actual biocide use during 2000 was considered to be less than postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide 3 H Li-formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems during 2000. Evaluations completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of C!" chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for the CWS was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for a maximum of two hours per day. Compliance during 2000 was 100 percent.Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 32.1 pounds per day and the daily average TRO was 0.07 mg/l.As a NPDES permit requirement, whole effluent toxicity testing was completed at the CWS discharge during a biocide treatment Acute toxicity was not detected for the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and fathead minnow (Pimiphales promelas) exposed to the CWS effluent.

No mortality to the test organisms occurred.

Results from the whole effluent testing indicated that permitted biocide discharges during 2000 did not have adverse impacts on the cooling lake environment, and that actual biocide use has been less than the potential impacts evaluated in the FES/OLS.Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

The WCGS Service Water System (SWS) was discharged with the CWS and treated with identical biocides as the CWS. During 2000, a continuous diversion of approximately.

17,000 gallons per minute of SWS flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Measurements of TRO averaged <0.18 mg/I, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 2000 was 100 %. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 2000 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." Two power level reductions and two reactor shutdowns occurred during 2000.The first power reduction occurred January 1, 2000, to support year 2000 (Y2K)contingency plans. The second reduction occurred on July 29, 2000, during repair of an offsite transmission line. The first reactor shutdown was due to an animal caused outage of the Unit Auxiliary Transformer, which occurred on September 4, 2000. The second reactor shutd.own was a gradual power level 4 rr reduction for WCGS refueling purposes initiated on September 29, 2000. No cold shock effects were identified after these power level changes. Only the January 1, 2000, reduction occurred during winter conditions.

The remainder occurred when water temperatures in the heated discharge were sufficiently high U to cause fish to avoid the area, eliminating the potential for cold shock effects.Therefore, there were no impacts to fish from cold shock effects during 2000.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement due to the operation of WCGS were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. Although the State of Kansas has not required WCGS to monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during 2000 indicated that fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was negligible.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The WCGS NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Discharge limits were set for sulfates, chlorides, and pH (NPDES Outfall 004). Lake discharges in 2000 were from storm water runoff at the service spillway.

In 2000, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality due to lake discharges.

Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River from WCL discharges identified during 2000.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in the management of the exclusion zone during 2000.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a 500 acre minimum buffer zone around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 below an approximate elevation of 1095' Median Sea Level (MSL), eight feet above WCL normal operating surface water elevation (1087' MSL). Actual area of this buffer has been approximately 1500 acres. This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native tallgrass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural successional stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

A minimum of 500 acres of the zone was maintained during 2000.5 1-r-.T 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures 0; Herbicides were used on transmission line corridors, gravel areas, railroad\ easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from L,. herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide application is provided below. The 69 kilovolt (KV) transmission line corridor on property associated with WCGS was sprayed to control undesirable brush and tree growth. Herbicides included Tordon K (EPA Reg. No. 6271917), Escort (EPA Reg. No. 352-439), and Arsenal (EPA Reg. No. 241-346).In areas where bare ground control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.62719-6), Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy (EPA Reg. No.62719-70), Weed Pro 2,4-D (EPA Reg. No. 10107-31), and Roundup Ultra.Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake.Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with Remedy and Weed Pro 2, 4-D. Musk thistle was controlled using Tordon 22K.Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while field bindweed was controlled through normal farming practices by the tenants of the agricultural leases.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation 6 H rri that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring lij study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2000, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2000, IJI but was restricted to the plant site. Implementation of mitigative actions or further monitoring was not warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL Consequently, the wildlife monitoring program scope was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated, if warranted.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality monitoring.

Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that no significant usage changes occurred during 2000. Usage of WCL for the last quarter of 2000 increased when compared with recent years, but not when compared to past years with similar weather. The usage increase during the last quarter of 2000 can be attributed to cold weather and increased ice cover on nearby JRR. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL was observed in 2000. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the year 2000 land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report. The land management program continued in 2000 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.7,

[I,-C'*. 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]UL, Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or operating change which required an environmental evaluation in 2000 is presented below. There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an un-reviewed environmental question during 2000. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

Diversion of Water Seepage into Turbine Building This evaluation addressed proper routing that would prevent possible NPDES permit discrepancies or adverse environmental impacts due to ground water leaking into the turbine building basement through drain holes. The ground water source was suspected to be service water from a piping leak, and if so, potentially carried water treatment chemicals.

A route to return the water to the service water discharge was required to eliminate a potential industrial wastewater bypass.The collected water was routed to discharge to the normal SWS discharge to the CWS (NPDES Outfall 003). The SWS piping was repaired during the WCGS refueling outage in October, 2000. No adverse environmental impacts were expected or observed.Evaluation:

Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test Procedure Changes This evaluation demonstrated that no environmental permits would be violated, and that no adverse environmental impacts would result from allowing the use of temporary diesel air compressors during the Containment Integrated Leakage Rate Test. This test was completed during the refueling outage during October, 2000. The use of these diesel air compressors was acceptable under existing conditions of the WCGS Class II Air Operating Permit. Use of temporary air compressors had been evaluated and permitted by the KDHE. No permit discrepancies or adverse environmental impacts were identified.

Evaluation:

Blofouling Treatment Contingency Program This evaluation demonstrated that a biocide treatment program to control microfouling, asiatic clam, and potential zebra mussel fouling of WCGS systems and structures would not cause adverse environmental impacts. This control program was required by Supplemental Condition 6 of the WCGS NPDES permit. The EPP defers to the KDHE for regulating wastewater discharges, and this proposed program was provided to the KOHE for approval.

The chemicals and listed treatment regimens in the program had been previously evaluated and approved by the KDHE. No adverse environmental impacts resulted from implementing the program.8 H 7 C., rn Evaluation:

Changes of Water Treatment Chemicals.. This evaluation demonstrated that changing the water treatment chemical supplier (3 would not cause adverse environmental impacts. The EPP defers to the KDHE for regulating water quality discharges.

The new supplier would provide different chemical products, which included Thruguard 404, H-940, H-130M, CuproSTAT PF, and CL-50.These chemical products were evaluated, compared with previously approved chemical Mr, products, and found to be acceptable for use. The same discharge concentrations Were to be used for the new water treatment chemicals as for the previous chemical products.The KDHE was notified of the product changes, and no adverse environmental impacts have been observed.Evaluation:

Chemical Addition Tank Coordination with NPDES Requirements This evaluation documented that WCGS has been properly following conditions set forth in the NPDES permit, and that potential discharges of toxic chemical compounds would not adversely impact the environment.

The EPP defers to the KDHE for regulating water quality issues. Specific NPDES areas evaluated for potential discharges were Special Conditions 14a and 14b. These addressed activities associated with discharges of pollutants identified in the NPDES permit application, but had no limits established.

It was concluded that compliance with WCGS procedures would prevent violation of NPDES requirements.

Potential discharges of two toxic chemical compounds were also reviewed, and it was concluded that concentrations as used would not cause adverse environmental impacts.Worst case scenarios were identified and potential discharge paths were evaluated for sodium molybdate and Nalco 1355. These compounds were used as corrosion inhibitors.

Both chemicals were previously reviewed and approved for use at WCGS by the KDHE. In the scenarios, it was shown that the maximum concentrations of sodium molybdate that might be discharged to the environment would be below the no-observed-effect concentration, and the maximum concentration for Nalco 1355 would be below the 96 hour0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br /> LC5o toxicity check for fathead minnow (Pimiphales promelas) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus). (LCno is the lethal concentration whereby 50% of the population survives after 96 hours0.00111 days <br />0.0267 hours <br />1.587302e-4 weeks <br />3.6528e-5 months <br />.) Therefore, NPDES permit violations would not result from the scenarios evaluated, and no adverse environmental impacts would result.Evaluation:

Scale Conditioning Agent Discharges This evaluation demonstrated that the use and discharge of scale conditioning agents for the Steam Generators would not cause adverse environmental impacts and would not violate the NPDES permit. The scale conditioning agents included hydrazine, EDA, and bipyridyl.

These chemicals were previously evaluated and approved by the KDHE for use at WCGS. The discharge path for the process was to the waste water treatment facility, where dilution would cause the chemical concentrations to be below harmful levels. Subsequent discharge to the CWS discharge flow (NPDES Outfall 003) would further dilute the chemical to below detection limits. Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts were expected or observed.9 H rn Evaluation:

Repair and Replacement of Rip-rap on Dam 1, This evaluation documented that rip-rap repair and replacement on the main dam would C:, not cause adverse environmental impacts. The project was evaluated by the U. S.C. Corps of Engineers, which determined that the project was authorized by Nationwide Permit Number 3. The nationwide permit required compliance with a water quality protection plan. There were no threatened or endangered species in the vicinity of the project. All general conditions applicable to the nationwide permit were addressed.

No adverse environmental impacts were expected or observed.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2000.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 2000.3.3 EINVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]Non-radiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Events evaluated included NPDES issues, wildlife caused transformer outage, hazardous/oily waste issues, an open burning exemption issue, equipment calibration discrepancy, and boating safety assurances during lake monitoring.

All the documented events were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.10 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GE NERATING STATION 4.1 2000 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 2000 activities for the WOOS land management program.o The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation

• -values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Values beyond meeting EPP requirements, Were also realized.

The program objectives were to:!fla. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, b. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, 0c. satisfy licensing requirements, d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and e. enhance, for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WOOS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL, approximately 1500 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of.naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,328.acres of native range land were leased for grazing in 2000 with 11 separate lease agreements.

Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 462 acres were leased to 12 local farmers for hay production in 2000.Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was allowed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 1088 acres during 2000. It was a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method of meeting these objectives.

Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1278 acres of cropland was leased to 11 local farmers in 2000. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, i.e., producing two crops on the same acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because.this practice usually increases soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances, such as tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for educational purposes.11 "7.I'1 4.2. 2000 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES Zebra mussels were not found at shoreline monitoring sites in the Neosho River or WCL. In addition, the mussels were also not known to inhabit any Kansas waters during 0. .2000. One adult zebra mussel was found at a Mid-America Energy Company power plant on the Missouri River near Sioux City, Iowa in April, 1999. This is the first reported finding of a zebra mussel in the Missouri River upstream of St. Louis. Zebra mussels were also found on a recreational boat by a marina employee in February, 2000, before Q..the boat was launched at Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Zebra mussel introduction to WCL will most likely be caused by WCGS pumping activities from the Neosho River, from being transported on recreational boats, or from fish stocking activities.

Water quality parameters in the Neosho River and WCL indicated that conditions were conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth. Because of the ability of this mussel to quickly inhabit and foul plant water systems after infesting WCL, monitoring for the initial presence of zebra mussels in the vicinity of WCGS was recommended to continue.12 H rn 4.3 2000 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES The results obtained from fishery monitoring of WCL during 2000 indicate that the potential for gizzard shad impingement at the cooling water intake screens has 03 remained low. The primary objective of the monitoring was to measure fish population dynamics to determine shad impingement potential.

The fishery assessments targeted r gizzard shad, the predator species that feed on them, and impacts due to angling.Catch frequencies of young gizzard shad increased slightly, but remained low during 2000. Consequently, no impingement problems developed.

Increased impingement

...potential from greater production of shad in 1994 and 1995 did not develop. The 1994 and 1995 year-class adults were nearing the end of their expected life span, resulting in fewer of the larger shad being sampled.The 2000 monitoring revealed that the predator populations showed signs favorable for continued shad control. Predator populations, as a whole, showed signs of being prey limited, indicating that shad numbers were being controlled.

Growth rates and body conditions tended to be low. Catch rates increased from past years, and recruitment was evident for many predator species. Predator populations assessed were white bass, wiper hybrids, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and walleye.Angling impacts to the predators' shad control benefits were also assessed.

The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL has made the limited harvest compatible with continued shad control. Continued low body condition of smallmouth bass and walleye justified altering the length and creel limits for these species. No adverse impacts to the fishery resulting from angler harvest were observed.13

• ..A'i1/LO/7',LF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION BdttiT. McKlnney Vice President Operations APR 2 3 2002 WO 02-0023 IL1 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2001 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2001, through December 31, 2001.No commitments are identified in this correspondence.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4112, or Mr. Tony Harris at (620) 364-4038.Very truly yours, BTM/krp Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), wie D. N. Graves (NRC), wle E. W. Merschoff (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), wle P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (620) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/F/HCNET

-tit 0 L)WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2001 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURUNGTON, KANSAS 66830 April 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.1] ...... 3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River.......

..3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake ................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ....................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River....

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 ..... * ......................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..........................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake .........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring.........6.......

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ..................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] ............

7 2.2.7 Land Management Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.3] .............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS........

8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1] ..... 8.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .................................

8 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports .....................

.8 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

8 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1] ...............

9 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ...............................

1..0....................................................

10 4.1 2001 Land Management Activities....

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

10 4.2 2001 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities........................................

11 4.3 2001 Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

12 2

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corporation (WCNOC) has committed to minimizing the impact on the environment from operating Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS). The 2001 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42.The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the plant operated during 2001 in an environmentally acceptable manner.2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump up to 9,672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 4.807 billion gallons, or 50% of the contracted allotment, was used for WCGS purposes during 2001. The majority of the total, 4.596 billion gallons, was used for WCL makeup water, which was pumped from March 6 through March 26, April 1 through April 29, May 17 through May 25, June 4 through June 7, and September 28 through October 19, 2001. The remainder, 0.211 billion gallons, was water pumped for use as auxiliary raw water for WCGS. Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2001 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not affected by makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to WCGS pumping activities during 2001.The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species. Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during makeup withdrawal activities; therefore, there was no impact to Neosho madtom habitats from WCGS water withdrawal during 2001.2.1.2 Oxidizing Blocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

3 Impacts from actual biocide use during 2001 were considered to be less than 01 postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide 4-' formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems during 2001. Evaluations completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater*-Jimpacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of o chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and O approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-W NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for the CWS was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for a maximum of two hours per day. Compliance during 2001 was .100 percent Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 41.5 pounds per day and the daily average TRO was 0.08 mg/l.As a NPDES permit requirement, whole effluent toxicity testing was completed at the CWS discharge during a biocide treatment.

Acute toxicity was not detected for the water flea (Ceriodaphnia dubia) and fathead minnow (Pimiphales promelas) exposed to the CWS effluent.

No mortality to the test organisms occurred.

Results from the whole effluent testing indicated that permitted biocide discharges during 2001 did not have adverse impacts on the cooling lake environment, and that actual biocide use has been less than the potential impacts evaluated in the FES/OLS.Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

During 2001, a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gallons per minute of WCGS Service Water System (SWS) flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control.The SWS flows were diverted from SWS discharge with the CWS discharge.

The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Actual measurements of TRO averaged <0.16 mgli, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 2001 was 100%. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.

Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 2001 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, 'Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." Four power level reductions occurred during 2001. These reductions occurred to support plant maintenance on March 16, March 22, May 11, and May 29, 2001 and ranged from 4.5 to 28.3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> in duration.

Water temperatures in the heated discharge area of WCL were within the range that would attract some 4 Mfish during the March, 2001 power reductions, but high enough to cause fish to T!q avoid the area during the May, 2001 reductions.

All the power reductions were gradual and of short duration, and no cold shock effects were identified after the changes. Therefore, there were no impacts to fish from cold shock effects during 2001.2.1.4 Impingement and EntrainmentImpacts of entrainment and impingement due to the operation of WCGS were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Li Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts..

Although thu State of Kansas has not required WCGS to monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during 2001 indicated that fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was negligible.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The WCGS NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Discharge limits were set for chlorides and pH (NPDES Outfall 004).One short-term lake discharge occurred resulting from testing of the Blowdown Spillway.

In the past, lake discharges have typically occurred at the Service Spillway, but lake levels remained low enough so that no discharges occurred from that spillway in 2001. No NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality in 2001. Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River from the WCL discharge identified during 2001..2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 2.2.1 Control of Vegetationin the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in vegetation management of the exclusion zone during 2001.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create buffer zone of least 500 acres around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 within a border ranging from approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

This border ranges from approximately 200 to 400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

Actual area of this buffer was approximately 1440 5 3 G- acres, which exceeded the minimum of 500 acres referenced in the EPP, Section 2.2 (b).0 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures M Herbicides were used on transmission line corridors, gravel areas, railroad o easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates 0 followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas K) Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide D application is provided below.Irt The LaCygne to Benton 345 kilovolt (KV) transmission line corridor on property associated with WCGS was treated to control undesirable tree growth.u!, Treatment included mechanical removal and herbicide spraying.

Herbicides used were Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy (EPA Reg. No.62719-70), and Farmland Weedone 2,4-D (EPA Reg. No. 264-518).In areas where bare ground control was desired, an herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.62719-6), Tordon RTU, Remedy, Farmland Weedone 2,4-D, and Roundup Ultra.Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake.Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with Remedy and Farmland Weedone 2,4-D. Musk thistle was controlled by mechanical means. Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while the tenants of the agricultural leases controlled field bindweed through normal farming practices.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commerciaJ operation 6 that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient.

information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2001, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2001, but was restricted to the plant site. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and to determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring program was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality surveys.Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicates that no significant usage changes occurred during 2001. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL was observed in 2001. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the year 2001 land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report. The land management program continued in 2001 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.7

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS M3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]0 O Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the M envir-nment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of each modification or. operating change that required an environmental o evaluation in 2001 is presented below. There were no changes. in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an un-reviewed environmental question during 2001. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.Evaluation:

Dredging of Ultimate Heat Sink Channel This evaluation demonstrated that no adverse impacts to the environment would result from removing sediment from the Ultimate Heat Sink channel and placing it in another area of WCL. This conclusion was based on the activities being confined to areas previously disturbed during plant construction and compliance with requirements of the U. S. Corp of Engineers dredge perrihit issued for the project. A water quality protection plan was also put into place in accordance with KDHE requirements.

In addition, no adverse impacts were observed during similar dredging activities during 1991 and 1997.Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts were expected or observed.Evaluation:

Biocide Use in Closed Cooling Water Systems This-evaluation documented that no adverse environmental impacts would result from procedure changes to provide guidance for the use of glutaraldehyde and isothiazolone as biocides in WCGS closed cooling water systems. After the biocides would be added to a system, they would degrade and rapidly decompose under normal conditions present in WCGS closed cooling water systems. They would be broken down by various mechanisms to carbon dioxide, water, and hydrogen.

Any residual blocde would be deactivated and- diluted to below detectable concentrations in the Waste Water Treatment Facility.

No adverse impacts were expected or observed from biocide addition to closed cooling water systems.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2001.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 2001.8 H: 2D r,-i 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 0 Potential non-radiological environmental noncompliances and noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Mj Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is o WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Events evaluated o included refrigerant management improvements, solid waste management improvements, nuisance bird control resolution, minor chemical spill investigation, hazardous material transporting improvement, contract laboratory O accuracy issues, waste stabilization pond sample discrepancies, and chemical U, release reporting review. All the documented events were determined not to be.reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.L9 9 H ID 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOL.F CREEK GENERATING STATION rn 4.1 2001 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Li This document presents the 2001 activities for the WCGS land management program.The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and M wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Values beyond meeting EPP requirements were also o realized.

The program objectives were to: h) a. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, b. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, Ul c. satisfy licensing requirements.

d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and e. enhance, for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WCGS, consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL. approximately 1440 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of"naturally occurring biotic communitieso referenced in the EPP. Approximately I ,422 acres of native range-land were leased for grazing in 2001 with 11 separate lease agreements.

Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 517 acres were leased to 13 local farmers for hay production in 2001.Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was allowed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 619 acres during 2001. It was- a relatively inexpensive and environmentally compatible method-of meeting these objectives.

Mvanagement of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1256 acres of cropland was leased to 11 local farmers in 2001. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances, such as tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for.educational purposes.10 H 1 4.2. 2001 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES Zebra mussels were not found to occupy habitats in the Neosho River or WCL during 2001. Monitoring was completed to provide early detection so that zebra mussel prevention plans can be initiated at WCGS. Monitoring included substrate and shoreline searches of the Neosho River upstream of JRR and immediately downstream of JRR in o the vicinity of the.WCGS Makeup Water Pump House, where water is pumped from the O Neosho River to WCL.Zebra mussels were also not reported to inhabit most Kansas waters during 2001.o Zebra mussel shells were removed from strainers at a power plant in Kansas City, M1 Kansas, but no live specimens were found. One adult zebra mussel was found at a Mid-\ America Energy Company power plant on the Missouri River near Sioux City, Iowa in April, 1999., A marina employee also found them on a recreational boat in February, Au 2000, before the boat was launched at Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.The water quality conditions in the Neosho River and WCL would be conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth. Introduction to WCL will most likely be caused by WCGS pumping activities from the Neosho River, from being transported on recreational boats, or from fish stocking activities.

Because of the ability of this mussel to quickly inhabit and foul plant water systems after infesting WCL; monitoring for the initial presence of zebra mussels in the vicinity of WCGS was recommended to continue.11 H P" 4.3 2001 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES rq .Fishery monitoring activities during 2001 were limited due to the cancellation of the fall sampling efforts because of heightened security necessary after the September 11, 2001 events. Fall electro-shocking, trap netting, and gill netting were not completed in o 2001. The spring electro-shocking samples were collected which provides some O insights into the fishery. The primary objectives of the monitoring were to measure fish h *population dynamics to determine shad impingement potential and to detect impacts due to angling.The spring electro-shocking data indicate that few shad that were spawned during the summer of 2000 were present in 2001. This implies that predation by game fish was sufficient to keep the densities of small shad low and that few of the young shad Mq survived through the winter of 2000-2001.

Because fall sampling did not occur, shad production during the summer of 2001 could not be assessed.

Periodic observations of the WCGS circulating water intake revealed that nearly no young shad were being impinged during late 2001. This indicates that the fishery continued to function as intended.Angling impacts to the predators' shad control benefits was a goal of the fishery monitoring program. The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed in the past at WCL has made the limited harvest compatible with continued shad control. Angler access was prevented in response to heightened security needs after the September 11, 2001 events and this would tend to reduce any potential impacts to the fishery due to angling. No adverse impacts to the fishery resulting from angler harvest were observed during past years.12 ILI~LrREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Karl A (Tony) Harris W Manager Regulatory Affairs APR 2 9 2003 RA 03-0053 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2002 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2002, through December 31, 2002.No commitments are identified in this correspondence.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4038, or Ms. Jennifer Yunk at (620) 364-4272.Very truly yours, Karl A. (Tony) Harris KAH/rIg Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), w/e D. N. Graves (NRC), w/e E. W. Merschoff (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), wMe P.O. BOx 411 1 Burlington.

KS 66839 / Phone: (6201 364-8831 An Equal opportunity Employer MIF/HCVET H b rrl I,,\* l.J WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2002 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2003 A TABLE OF CONTENTS i'J

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

...... 3 0 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING.....................................

I ...........................

I .... 3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.1] ...... 3 0.3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ..............

.... 3 r.3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake .................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ...................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment.............................

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

5 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River .... 5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2] ....... ..................

v ........ 5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..........................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ...........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

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

6 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

....... 6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 ..................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.22 .....2.........

7 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.31 .............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

........ 8 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11 ..... 8 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ................

.8 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports .....................

.8 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

........ ..8 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 .........9.. .9 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION .........................................

10 4.1 2002 Land Management Activities

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

..........

10 4.2 2002 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

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

...... 11 4.3 2002 Fishery Monitoring Activities...................

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

12 2 S,

1.0 INTRODUCTION

r' rl The 2002 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Wolf Creek Generating Station was operated during 2002 in an environmentally acceptable manner.b b.3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump up to 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). A total of 4.728 billion gallons, or 49 percent of the contracted allotment, was used for WCGS purposes during 2002. The majority of the total, 4.553 billion gallons, was used for WCL makeup water, which was pumped from February 12 through March 7, March 16 through 20, March 30 through April 11, April 13 through May 24, November 12 through 29, and December 6 through 14, 2002. The remainder, 0.175 billion gallons, was water pumped for use as auxiliary raw water for WCGS. Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2002 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not reduced by makeup pumping activities.

Consequently, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River attributable to WCGS pumping activities during 2002.The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below JRR. This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species. Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during makeup withdrawal activities.

There was no impact to Neosho madtom habitats from WCGS water withdrawal during 2002.2.1.2 Oxidizing Blocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

Impacts from actual biocide use during 2002 were considered to be less than postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide 3 H formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water fn systems during 2002.. Evaluations completed by WCNOC demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to oimplementation.

t4 The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in (3:) the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for-i the CWS was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for a maximum of two hours per day. Compliance during 2002 was 100 percent.O Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 38.7 pounds per day and the daily average TRO was 0.08 mg/l.Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

During 2002 a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gallons per minute of WCGS Service Water System (SWS) flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control.The SWS flows were diverted from SWS discharge with the CWS discharge.

The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Actual measurements of TRO averaged <0.15mg/l, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 2002 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.

Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 2002 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock in the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." Four power level reductions occurred during 2002. The first power reduction to 80 percent lasted approximately 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> on February 1. 2002. This reduction was to support transmission line repair due to an ice storm. Water temperatures in the heated discharge area of WCL were within the range that would attract some fish during this power reduction, thus exposing them to cold shock effects.However, because the power reduction was of short duration and the plant continued to operate at 80 percent, water temperatures did not drop sufficiently to cause cold shock effects. No fish mortality was observed after this reduction.

The other three power level reductions during .2002 were to zero percent. power.The first began on March 21 to prepare for a refueling outage. The remaining reductions were on May 8 and 13, 2002 and occurred to support plant maintenance.

Water temperatures during these reductions were high enough to cause most fish to avoid the CWS discharge area, thus fish were not as vulnerable to cold shock effects. No fish mortalities were observed following 4 these power level reductions.

Therefore, there were no impacts to fish in the cooling lake due cold shock effects during 2002.2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement due to the operation of WCGS were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP ba Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination tw of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. Although the State of Kansas has not. required WCGS to. monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during 2002 indicated that fish VI impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was negligible.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The WCGS NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective discharge.

Discharge limits were set for chlorides and pH (NPDES Outfall 004).Lake discharges typically have occurred at the Blowdown Spillway and Service Spillway.

During 2002, no discharges occurred at the Blowdown Spillway.

In addition, lake levels remained low enough so that no discharges occurred from the Service Spillway during 2002. Consequently, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality in 2002.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation In the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in vegetation management of the exclusion zone during 2002.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a buffer zone of at least 500 acres around WCL, agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 within a border ranging from approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

Actual area of this buffer was approximately 1440 acres, which exceeded the minimum of 500 acres referenced in the EPP, Section 2.2 (b).5 fa 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures Herbicides were used on gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS ofacilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide application is provided below.1\ In areas where bare ground control was desired Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401)1) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem in weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, 0 railroad beds, and storage yards.I'J Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.62719-6), Tordon RTU, Remedy, Farmland Weedone 2,4-D, and Roundup Ultra.Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas aroUnd the cooling lake.Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with Remedy and Farmland Weedone 2,4-D. Musk thistle was controlled by mechanical means. Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while the tenants of the agricultural leases controlled field bindweed through normal farming practices.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2002, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2002, 6 V-4* but was restricted to the plant site. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

I'2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21*, A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess (.3 waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which o occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring program was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality surveys.Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that no significant usage changes occurred during 2002. No disease outbreaks or substantial crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL was observed in 2002. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural.

production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the year 2002 land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report. The land management program continued in 2002 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.7

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]b Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

A summary of two operational changes that required an environmental evaluation in 2002 ,I) is presented below. There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that involved an un-reviewed environmental question during 2002. There were no events identified that required changes to the EPP.0ra The first of the operational changes that required an environmental evaluation involved increasing the routine run times for testing the Emergency Diesel Generator A. The second was an identical procedural change for Emergency Diesel Generator B. Both changes were evaluated with respect to increased run time impacts on compliance with the WCGS Air Emission Source Class II Operating Permit. This permit limits internal combustion engine emissions of nitrous oxides (NOx) to 68 tons per four consecutive calendar quarters.

Notification of the KOHE is required when-58 tons of NOx is reached in any four consecutive calendar quarters.

Review of NOx emission data since 1997 indicated temporary peaks of approximately 45 tons NOx with an average of approximately 28 tons NOx per four consecutive calendar quarters.The procedural changes would require each of the Emergency Diesel Generators A and B to be operated an additional 8 to 10 hours1.157407e-4 days <br />0.00278 hours <br />1.653439e-5 weeks <br />3.805e-6 months <br /> per year (2 to 2.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> per quarter).

Using the equation provided in the Air Operating Permit, NOx emissions would be increased by 0.76 to 0.95 tons per year for each diesel, or 1.52 to 1.9 tons NOx annually for both.This would potentially increase past observed peak emissions to approximately 47 tons and the average to 30 tons NOx over four consecutive calendar quarters.

These increases would be below the 68 ton NOx maximum limits and the 58 tons NOx notification limit to the KOHE required in the Air Operating Permit, thus would not jeopardize permit compliance.

Consequently, no adverse environmental impacts would result.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2002.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 2002.8 H 3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]0 Potential non-radiological environmental noncompliances and noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is 0b WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Improvement items.(a evaluated included solid waste management, worker safety around bird W concentrations, hazardous material transporting, procedural L*J processing/guidance, chemical control, waste-water handling, agricultural tenant emergency notifications, ecological monitoring forecasting for relicensing, and prevention of zebra mussel establishment in the lake. In addition, discrepancies were resolved involving contract laboratory accuracy and a small oil sheen at a NPDES outfall. All the documented events were determined notto be reportable NJ pursuant to EPP criteria.9 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION Iii 4.1 2002 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES This document presents the 2002 activities for the WCGS land management program.The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and M wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation , :L values (EPP Section 4.2.3). Values beyond meeting EPP requirements were also 0 .realized.

The program objectives were to: a. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, b. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, c. satisfy licensing requirements, d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and 0 e. enhance, for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WCGS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL, approximately 1440 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of"naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,422 acres of native range-land were leased for grazing in 2002 with 13 separate lease agreements.

Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 492 acres were leased to 13 local farmers for hay production in 2002.Hay meadows. were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was allowed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 203 acres during 2002. Dry weather. conditions prompted local government bans on burning; consequently, many planned burns were not completed.

Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1272 acres of cropland was leased to 13 local farmers in 2002. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances, such as tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for educational purposes.10 4.2. 2002 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES.

Zebra mussels were not found to occupy habitats in the Neosho River or WCL during (3 2002. Monitoring was completed to provide early detection so that zebra mussel prevention plans can be initiated at WCGS. Monitoring included substrate and shoreline searches of the Neosho River upstream of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) and immediately downstream of JRR in the vicinity of the Makeup-water Screen House (MUSH), where water is pumped from the Neosho River to WCL. Settlement monitors were placed and substrate scrapes were conducted at plant structures on the Neosho% ,River and WCL. Inspections of fishing boats using WCL were also initiated in 2002.Zebra mussels were also not reported to inhabit most Kansas waters during 2002.Zebra mussel shells were removed from strainers at a power plant in Kansas City, Kansas, but no live specimens were found. One adult zebra mussel was found at a Mid-America Energy Company power plant on the Missouri River near Sioux City, Iowa in April, 1999. A marina employee also found them on a recreational boat in February, 2000, before the boat was launched at Lake of the Ozarks in Missouri.

Evidence of zebra mussels were found in a fishing tournament tank at Milford Lake in Kansas, but it could not be confirmed that the specimens came from the lake.The Neosho River and WCL would be conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth based on water quality conditions.

Introduction to WCL will most likely be caused by Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) pumping activities from the Neosho River, from being transported on recreational boats, or from fish stocking activities.

Based on the increased reports in northeast Kansas, and because of the ability of this mussel to quickly inhabit and foul plant water systems, continued monitoring for the initial presence of zebra mussels in the vicinity of WCGS was recommended.

In addition, continued inspections of boats at the Coffey County lake access park to prevent potential introduction into the lake was recommended.

11 4.3 2002 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES I'll The results obtained from fishery monitoring of WCL during 2002 indicate that the potential for gizzard shad impingement at the cooling water intake screens has remained low. The primary objective of the monitoring was to measure fish population iN) dynamics to determine shad impingement potential.

The fishery assessments targeted.gizzard shad, the predator species that feed on them, and the predator-prey

b. interactions.

14 N .Catch frequencies of young gizzard shad decreased slightly, and remained low during b3 2002. Consequently, no impingement problems developed.

A higher proportion of larger adults were likely from the increased production in 2000.0 The 2002 monitoring revealed that the predator populations showed signs favorable for continued shad control. Predator populations, as a whole, showed signs of being prey limited. Growth rates and body conditions tended to be low. Continuous declines in these areas would raise concerns, because it is important that the predator populations remain viable so that shad. control continues.

Catch rates were similar to past years', and recruitment was evident for many predator species. Predator populations assessed were white bass, wiper hybrids, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and walleye.Angling impacts to the predators' shad control benefits were also assessed.

The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL has made the limited harvest compatible with continued shad control. Continued low body condition of smallmouth bass and walleye justified altering the length and creel limits for these species. Innovative length limits were put in place for smallmouth bass and walleye in an attempt to promote larger individuals.

Monitoring data will be important to ensure no adverse impacts to the fishery results from angler harvest 12

"ý -W'*WLF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION S .N uc ea R eg *lt r ' o m i s Wahngo- DO 20555 lL.S aae eubjet:f AffaNoh042:20 nna nirnetl prtngRpr ,* * " RA 04-0037" '"* U. S. Nuclear RegulatoryCo;mmiss~ion

' .* " .. .* AfTN:Document Control Desk., -"*.'Washington; DC 20555 , .;* ,-. *

Subject:

D~ocket No. 50-482: 2003 Environmental Operating Repo0rt *Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which.is being submitted pdrsuant to'Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the.operation.of WCGS for the period of January,1, 2003, through December31, 2003. 4* No commitments are ideritified in this corre'spondencrc If-you have any questions, concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4126, 'or Mr' William Muilenburg at' (620) 364-8831.ext. 4511..-"'.~~ Sin 'ely, "*. ~Kev in J. MI KJM/rIg Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), wle D. N. Graves (NRC), w/e B. S. Mallett (NRC), wle Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e P.O. Box 411/ Burlington, KS 66839 Phone: (620) 364.8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer MIF/HCNET I~1 V V V 4: 4: I .WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2003 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2004 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

..........

3 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.1 ......3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .........

.3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Bidcide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake .....................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ................

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

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River....

5 2.2 TERREStRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2] ....... ...................

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

5 2:2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .........;..............

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone'Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ...... 5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

........5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and.Monitoring

.......:..;.. 6 2.2.5. Fog Monitoring Program,[EPP Subsection 4.2.1] .......................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] .... ' ............

6 2.2.7 Land' Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] ..... I..:..........

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS.

.7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11]......

7 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS .................................

8 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports ......................

8 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

8*3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1] ........ 8 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ......................................

9 4.1 2003 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

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

9 4.2 2003 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES..

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

10 4.3 2003 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES

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

11 2

'P

1.0 INTRODUCTION

• The 2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the ID objectives of the Environmental Protection -Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) was operated during 2003 in a manner protective of the enviro.nment

'P 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

2.1 AQUATIC

[EPP Section 2.1]ip 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal

'on the Neosho River-*.The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below John Redmond. Reservoir (JRR). This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species.Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during makeup withdrawal activities.

Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River or Neosho madtom habitats attributable to WCGS water withdrawal during 2003.The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board , to pump up to 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek.'Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the JRR. .A total of 4.801. billion gallons, or 50% of the contracted allotment, was used for WCGS purposes during 2003. The majority of the total, 4.707 billion gallons,.was used for WCL makeup water, which was pumped from March 18 through May 8, May 10 through June 10, August 7, and December 15 through 21, 2003. The remainder, 0.094 billion gallons, was water pumped for use as auxiliary raw water for .WCGS.Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2003 by the United States Corp of Engineers, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS .withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not reduced by makeup pumping activities.

2.1.2 Oxidizing

Blocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

Impacts from actual biocide use during 2003 were considered to be less than postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems during 2003. Evaluations completed at WCGS demonstrated that the 3 ZP sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of chlorine use identified in the FESIOLS. All changes were reviewed and* approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in 1P the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for the'CWS was'limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for a maximum of two hours per day. Compliance during 2003 was.100 percent.,* Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 36.5 pounds per day and the .daily average TRO was. 0.08 mg/I..1l.J Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:..

During 2003 a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gallons per minute of WCGS Service Water System (SWS) flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologicafly induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control., The SWS flows were diverted from SWS discharge with the CWS discharge.

The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/l TRO limit for the SWS .flow diversion through*the ESWS. Actual measurements of TRO averaged <0.18 mg/I, and.compliance with the NPDES limit in 2003 was 100 percent.'

No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.

Based on this information,, permitted biocide discharge' during 2003 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

.2.1.3 Cold Shock .,, .In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to .the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing, document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." No impacts due to cold shock mortality events occurred during 2003. There were three plant shutdowns during 2003. The first was on January 3, 2003, which was during a cold period when fish have generally been attracted to the warm water discharges, thus susceptible to cold shock events. This shutdown was of short duration, and no fish mortality was observed.The remaining two shutdowns occurred on August 8 and September 29, 2003.These were during warm periods when fish tend to avoid the heated discharges.

No fish mortality was observed after these plant shutdowns.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement of fish and aquatic organisms due to WCGS cooling water pumping were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. Although the State of Kansas has not required WCGS to 4 monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during 2003 indicated that fish* impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was negligible.

2.1.5 Impacts

of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River The WCGS NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the ,P first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective 4: discharge.

Discharge limits were set for chlorides and pH (NPDES Outfall 004).Lake discharges have typically have occurred at the Blowdown Spillway and ID Service Spillway.

During 2003, no discharges occurred at the Blowdown 4: Spillway.

In addition, lake levels remained low enough so that no discharges occurred from the Service Spillway during 2003. Consequently,, no NPDES violations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality in 2003.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation In the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawnr-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have, been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.*

• There were no changes in overall vegetation management of the exclusion zone during 2003.* 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a buffer zone of least 500 acres a'round WCL, as specified in EPP.Section 2.2 (b), agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 within a border ranging from approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

This area is approximately 1440 acres. Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession.

stages, or native- grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures Herbicides were used on gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide application is provided below.In areas where bare ground control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including, the switchyard, 5 protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.62719-6), Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy, Farmland Weedone l) .2,4-D, Arsenal (EPA Reg. No. 241-346), or Escort (EPA Reg. No. 352-439)., Areas treated included the 'dam, spillways, -railroad easements, selected ,p transmission line corridors, and selected grassland areas around the cooling lake.,p Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with.Remedy and Farmland Weedone 2,4-D. Musk thistle and Johnson' grass were.*-controlled by mechanical means, while, the -tenants of the agricultural leases controlled field bindweed through normal farming practices.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan-and Monitoring A wat~rfidwl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected

'or actual disease outbreaks.

The.contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During. routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking plage over this reporting period, no" waterfowl mortality attributable to disease' pathogens was identified." 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.11 Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued

'through 1987. The purpose of this stud, was to evaluate the impact of waste 'heat" dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2003, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused bythe cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2003, but was restricted to the plant site. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.21 A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-tine collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to contihue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES/OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald 6 eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring program was reduced. The current program consists.

of reviewing WCL waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of i,.; Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality surveys.Review of waterfowl and. bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that no significant usage changes occurred during 2003. No disease outbreaks or widespread crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL was observed in 2003. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 .Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was Improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report. The land S. .management program continued in 2003 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING.

REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

One change that required an environmental evaluation in 2003 is presented below.Conclusions were that this station design and operational change did not Involve an unreviewed environmental question per the EPP. There were. no events identified in 2003 that required changes to the EPP.The environmental evaluation completed was for the construction and operation of a new water treatment building and equipment.

The purpose of the new facility will be to support the water quality and continuous flow demands of the High pH Secondary Water Chemistry Program being implemented to reduce corrosion product transport to the steam generators.

Water will be supplied to the new facility from Service Water and Raw Water Systems. Wastewater from the facility will be routed to the existing Circulating Water System discharge (NPDES Outfall. 003b), and. as an alternate discharge path, through the Waste Water Treatment Plant. The KDHE has approved the waste discharges.

All construction activities were to be confined to areaspreviously disturbed during WCGS construction.

7.1 B 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2003...'P 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No' unusual or important environmental ,events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were Identified during 2003.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCESr[EPP Subsection 5.4.1].1 ... Potential non-radiological environmental noncompliances and noteworthy evehts were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action-Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Improvement items evaluated, included hazardous waste management and minimization efforts.hazardous waste stream analyses, lead. management at the weapons range, clean air permit administration, and nuisance 'bird management in security areas.Discrepancies were identified and addressed for hazardous waste documentation, minor drum spillage, and procedural reportability evaluatiohs.

All the documented events were determined not tQ be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria..

• " 8 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION 4.1 2003 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation values (EPP Section 4.2.3). The land management program at WCGS satisfied this p requirement.

Specific program objectives were to: 'p a. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, b. foster good relations with local agricultural and naturalresource communities, ,p c. satisfy licensing requirements, d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and e. enhance; for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental

-Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WCGS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL, approximately 1440 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of"naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,422 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing in 2003 with 8 local tenants. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels, which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.-Approximately 542 acres were leased to 13 local farmers for hay produbtion in 2003..Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring, hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was allowed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 779 acres during 2003.Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and Increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1272 acres of cropland was leased to 12 local farmers in 2003. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease requirements specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Fall tillage of crop residues was generally prohibited to reduce soil erosion.Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEAhas drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for educational purposes.9 4.2. 2003 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES

.Zebra mussels were not observed during 2003 monitoring of the Neosho.River and WCL. Monitoring was completed to provide early detection so that zebra mussel prevention plans could be initiated at WCGS. Monitoring included substrate and shoreline searches of the Neosho River upstream of JRR and immediately downstreamof JRR in the vicinity of the Makeup-water Screen House (MUSH), where water is pumped from the Neosho River to WCL. Settlement monitors 'were placed and substrate scrapes were conducted at plant. structures on the Neosho River and WCL.\ Inspections of fishing boats were also continued through 2003..As a result of zebra mussels being discovered at El Dorado Lake, Kansas, on August* 2003, boat inspection forms were updated and lake attendant training was.Icompleted to ensure awareness of the increased potential for zebra mussels. El Doraao.Lake; approximately 80 nriles southwest of WCGS, is in the Walnut River drainage, which is immediately west of the Cottonwood/Neosho drainage.

This places potential.

sources of zebra mussels for transport to the Neosho River and WCL much closer than previously, which was north central Oklahoma.

Zebra mussels were also found in 2003 at two new inland lakes by Tulsa, Oklahoma.The Neosho River and WCL would be conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth based on water quality conditions present. Introduction to WCL will most likely be caused by WCGS pumping activities from the Neosho River. Boatinspections will likely prevent mussel introduction via recreational boats. Contact with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment will continue to enhance monitoring and maintain awarenqss of mussel range extension in the area., These efforts will help ensure that zebra mussels are detected as early as"*" p~racqtical in the WCGS area. ' .10 4.3 2003 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES The results obtained from fishery monitoring of WCL during 2003 indicate that the potential for gizzard shad impingement at the cooling water intake screens has remained low. The primary objective of the monitoring was to measure fish population 9 "dynamics to determine shad impingement potential..

The fishery assessments targeted gizzard shad, the predator species that feed on them, and the predator-prey , .interactions.

Catch frequencies of young gizzard shad remained low during.2003.

Consequently, no ,*"impingement problems developed.

No signs of increasing densities of shad were observed.I9 The 2003 monitoring revealed that the predator populations showed favorable signs for-continued shad control. Predator populations, as a whole, showed signs of being prey.limited. Growth rates and body conditions improved for most species. Continuous declines in these areas would raise concerns, because it is important that the predator populations remain viable so that shad control continues.

Catch rates were similar to past years', and recruitment was evident for many predator species. Predator populations assessed were white bass, wiper hybrids, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, white crappie, and walleye.-Angling impacts to the predators' shad control benefits were also assessed.

The catch-and-release philosophy being stressed at WCL has made the limited harvest compatible with continued shad control. Innovative length limits were put in place for smallmouth bass and walleye in an attempt to promote larger individuals.

Significant improvements

"'that could be tied to the changes were not present, e'xcept possibly Increases in body conditions.

The potential for supporting larger individuals with the length limits used is encouraging.

Monitoring data will be important to ensure no adverse Impacts to the fishery results from angler harvest.11 a ,I M I'M rlu 17 W)LF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION 0 4*1 0 9/2 0 0 S Kevin J. Moles Manager Regulatory Affairs April 8, 2005 RA 05-0041 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555.

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2004, through December 31, 2004.No commitments are identified in this correspondence.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4126, or Ms. Diane Hooper (620) 364-4041.Sincerely, Kevin J. Moles KJM/rIg Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), w/e D. N. Graves (NRC), w/e B. S. Mallett (NRC), w/e Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e P.O. Box 411 / Burlington, KS 66839 / Phone: (620) 364.8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer M/FIHCNVET I Pt E 0 0 4/s0 9/2 0 0 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT 2004 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION.

P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2005 I EG TABLE OF CONTENTS 0 0 4/0 9

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

3/2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.11 ...... 3 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River ...............

3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake .................

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock .............................................................................

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River .... 5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2] ..........................

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone ..........................

5.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake ....... 5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures

........ 5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

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

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1] ..................

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] .............

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] .............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

.........

7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1] ..... 7 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ......................................

8 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports ...........................................

.8 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

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

8 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1] .........

8 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ..................................................................................

9 4.1 2004 Land Management Activities

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

9 4.2 2004 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

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

10 4.3 2004 Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

11 2 G E

1.0 INTRODUCTION

D The 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the o} objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating 4 License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Wolf Creek Generating

/ Station (WCGS) was operated during 2004 in a manner protective of the environment.

0 9 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

/2 o 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1]0 5 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FES/OLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species.Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during makeup withdrawal activities.

Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River or Neosho madtom habitats attributable to WCGS water withdrawal during 2004.The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump up to 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Wolf Creek Lake (WCL) from the tailwaters of the JRR. A total of 4.920 billion gallons, or 51 percent of the contracted allotment, was used for WCGS purposes during 2004.The makeup water for WCL was pumped from May 28 through May 31, June 3 through June 16, June 19 through July 1, and October 18 through December 5, 2004. Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2004 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the. WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not reduced by makeup pumping activities.

2.1.2 Oxidizing

Biocide Discharges to Wolf Creek Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to WCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

Impacts from actual biocide use during 2004 were considered to be less than postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems during 2004. Evaluations completed at WCGS demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater 3 I N G impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level of E chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and o approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

a 4 The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-,/ NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in o the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for 9 the CWS was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for/ a maximum of two hours per. day. Compliance during 2004 was 100 percent 2 Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 39.1 pounds per day o and the daily average TRO was < 0.07 mg/l.0 S Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

During 2004 a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gallons per minute of WCGS Service Water System (SWS) flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control.The SWS flows were diverted from SWS discharge with the CWS discharge.

The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Actual measurements of TRO averaged < 0.15. mg/I, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 2004 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 2004 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold-shock).

In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold-shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." No adverse impacts due to cold shock mortality events occurred during 2004.There were four plant shutdowns during 2004. The first was on February 13, 2004, which was during a cold period when fish have generally been attracted to the warm water discharges, thus susceptible to cold-shock events. Cold-shock effects were observed following this plant shutdown.

Evaluation of the event determined that effects to the fishery were considered minimal. Section 3.0 of this report provides more details of this event.The remaining three shutdowns occurred on July 30, August 22 and October 7, 2004. No fish mortality attributable to cold-shock effects were observed after these plant shutdowns.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement of fish and aquatic organisms due to WCGS cooling water pumping were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. Although the State of Kansas has not required WCGS to 4 I G monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during E 2004 indicated that fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was D negligible.2.1.5 Impacts of Wolf Creek Lake Discharges to the Neosho River 4/ The WCGS NPDES permit requires that WCL discharges be sampled on the O first day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective 9 discharge.

Discharge limits were set for chlorides and pH (NPDES Outfall 004)./ Lake discharges have typically have occurred at the Blowdown Spillway and 2 Service Spillway.

During 2004, no discharges occurred at the Blowdown O Spillway.

In addition, lake levels remained low enough so that no dischargesoccurred from the Service Spillway during 2004. Consequently, no NPDES Sviolations at the lake's discharge occurred, and no detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality in 2004.2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]2.2.1 Control of Vegetation In the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in overall vegetation management of the exclusion zone during 2004.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Wolf Creek Lake To create a buffer zone of least 500 acres around WCL, as specified in EPP, Section 2.2 (b), agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 within a border ranging from approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

This area is approximately 1440 acres. Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession stages, or native grasses were reestablished in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures Herbicides were used on gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide application is provided below.In areas where bare ground control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475) was also used for problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, including the switchyard, 5 A. protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage tank berms, railroad GE beds, and storage yards.Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K (EPA Reg. No.o 62719-6), Tordon RTU (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy, Farmland Weedone 4 2,4-D, Arsenal (EPA Reg. No. 241-346), or Escort (EPA Reg. No. 352-439)./ Areas treated included the dam, spillways, railroad easements, selected o transmission line corridors, and selected grassland areas around the cooling 9 lake./ Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture o were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, o Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with 5 Remedy and Farmland Weedone 2,4-D. Musk thistle and Johnson grass were controlled by mechanical means, while the tenants of the agricultural leases controlled field bindweed through normal farming practices.

2.2.4 Waterfowl

Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from WCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2004, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2004, but was restricted to the plant site. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES/OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of WCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring 6

I G program was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing WCL E waterfowl and bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of o Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from that previously documented, then additional monitoring may be o initiated.

This additional monitoring may include collision mortality surveys.Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that o no significant usage changes occurred during 2004. No disease outbreaks or 9 widespread crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of WCL was observed/ in 2004. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2 o2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]5 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report. The land management program continued in 2004 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes or station events which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

There were two environmental evaluations completed in 2004, and these are summarized below. These evaluations concluded that unreviewed environmental questions did not exist per the EPP. There were no events identified in 2004 that required changes to the EPP.The first evaluation addressed impacts due to changes to the lake water chemical treatment program. A non-oxidizing biocide (EVAC) for use in the Fire Protection System to prevent macro-invertebrate growth was reviewed.

The active ingredient was found to biodegrade quickly, and not bioaccumulate in fish, fish food organisms, or sediments.

Detoxification in the effluent water was also not required.

Acute flow-through toxicity tests available for the product demonstrated that no toxicity to non-target organisms exposed to the effluent water would be expected.

Discharge approval from the KDHE was not required.The second evaluation determined that a fish cold-shock event that occurred following the plant shutdown on February 13, 2004, did not cause significant adverse impact to the WCL fishery. Cold-shock events were previously evaluated (FES/OLS Section 5.5.2.2), and this event was compared to previous events and that expected in the FES/OLS. The number of fish affected was small compared to previous events that did not adversely impact the fishery. Nearly ninety percent were common carp, and no game fish were observed.

The event was confined to the heated effluent area, and did 7 I M G not involve Wolf Creek or the Neosho River downstream of WCL. No threatened or E endangered fish species were impacted because none inhabit WCL. This event did not O result in an unreviewed environmental question pursuant to the EPP.o3 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 4/ 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports 0 9 There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts/ submitted to the NRC during 2004.2 o 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations 0 No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 2004.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]Potential non-radiological environmental noncompliances and noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is WCNOC's administrative vehicle for corrective action. Improvement items evaluated included hazardous waste management and minimization efforts, hazardous waste instructor and data management enhancements, clean air regulation review, environmental procedure accuracy and review, and spill investigation.

All the documented enhancements and reviews were determined not to be reportable pursuant to EPP criteria.8 I H A-G E 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING 0 STATION 0 4.1 2004 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 4/ The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and 0 wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation 9 values (EPP Section 4.2.3). The land management program at WCGS satisfied this 2 requirement.

Specific program objectives were to: 2 o a. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, o b. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, 5 c. satisfy licensing requirements, d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and e. enhance, for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WCGS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to WCL, approximately 1440 acres, exceeded the 500 acre buffer zone of.naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,422 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing in 2004 with 8 local tenants. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, and maximum grazing rates. By controlling these variables, range quality was maintained at levels, which provided optimum wildlife value and long term rent generation.

Approximately 542 acres were leased to 13 local farmers for hay production in 2004.Hay meadows were managed for high quality production by requiring hay to be cut by July 31 and bales removed by August 31. No late cutting was allowed.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 1149 acres during 2004.Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1272 acres of cropland was leased to 12 local farmers in 2004. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease requirements specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Fall tillage of crop residues was generally prohibited to reduce soil erosion.Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for educational purposes.9 I H G 4.2 2004 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES oD Zebra mussels were not observed during 2004 monitoring of the Neosho River and Wolf Creek Lake (WCL). Monitoring was completed to provide early detection so that zebra 4 mussel prevention plans can be initiated at Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS)./ Monitoring included substrate and shoreline searches of the Neosho River upstream of John Redmond Reservoir (JRR) and immediately downstream of JRR in the vicinity of g the Makeup-water Screen House (MUSH), where water is pumped from the Neosho/, River to WCL. Settlement monitors were placed and substrate scrapes were conducted 2 at plant structures on the Neosho River and WCL. Inspections of fishing boats entering o WCL were also continued through 2004.As a result of zebra mussels being discovered at El Dorado Lake on August 25, 2003, boat inspection forms were updated and lake attendant training was completed to ensure awareness of the increased potential for zebra mussels. El Dorado Lake, approximately 80 miles southwest of WCGS, is in the Walnut River drainage, which is immediately west of the Cottonwood/Neosho drainage.

This placed potential sources of zebra mussels for transport to the Neosho River and WCL much closer than previously, which was north central Oklahoma.

Zebra mussels have been found at inland lakes in Oklahoma, including Oolagah, A. B. Jewel, Kaw, and Grand Lakes. Since 2003, the mussels have colonized the Walnut River below El Dorado Lake.The Neosho River and WCL would be conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth based on water quality conditions present. Introduction to WCL will most likely be caused by WCGS pumping activities from the Neosho River. Boat inspections will likely prevent mussel introduction via recreational boats. Monitoring in the Neosho River and WCL increased in 2004 by initiating planktonic veliger sampling.

Contact with the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks and the Kansas Department of Health and Environment will continue to enhance monitoring and maintain awareness of mussel range extension in the area. Kansas' Aquatic Nuisance Species Plan, which has been supported by WCNOC, is expected to prevent or slow the spread of zebra mussels by the public to other Kansas water bodies.10 I A." E 4.3 2004 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES 0 Monitoring during 2004 demonstrated that the fishery in Wolf Creek Lake remained in O good condition with no adverse trends identified.

Fish predation pressure on the gizzard shad population continued to prevent excessive shad impingement problems at the/ circulating water intake. Fishery monitoring activities as outlined in this report were o designed to continue to measure long-term trends and help Wolf Creek Generating 9 Station prepare for any short-term changes, particularly for any changes in the potential/ for shad impingement events.o Public angling on the lake did not impact the fishery's function of supporting plant o operations.

The catch and release philosophy promoted when the lake was opened for S the public has been compatible with gizzard shad control objectives.

Monitoring data did warrant management activities to improve the fishery for public use. These recommendations are: 1. Increase of the creel limit for crappie greater than 14 inches from two to ten fish per day to increase angler use and increase harvest of older crappie.2. Increase the catfish creel limit from five to ten fish per day. Catfish are not considered a significant predator of gizzard shad.3. Decrease the wiper length limit from 24 to 21 inches to increase harvest of older fish.4. Budget for a wiper stocking in 2006 to replace current aging year-classes.

11 I Ii A D 0 4/:1/2 0 0 6 Aw-d17 W LIF CREEK'NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION Kevin J. Moles Manager Regulatory Affairs April 26, 2006 RA 06-0065 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555

Subject:

Docket No. 50-482: 2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report Gentlemen:

Enclosed is the Annual Environmental Operating Report, which is. being submitted pursuant to Wolf Creek Generating Station (WCGS) Facility Operating License NPF-42, Appendix B. This report covers the operation of WCGS for the period of January 1, 2005, through December 31, 2005.No commitments are identified in this correspondence.

If you have any questions concerning this matter, please contact me at (620) 364-4126, or Ms. Diane Hooper (620) 364-4041.KJM/rlt Enclosure cc: J. N. Donohew (NRC), w/e W. B. Jones (NRC), w/e B. S. Malleft (NRC), wle Senior Resident Inspector (NRC), w/e P.O. Box 411/ Burlington.

KS 66839 I Phone: (620) 364-8831 An Equal Opportunity Employer MIF/HCNET M A E (I/2/2 6 WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ANNUAL ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING REPORT.2005 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CORPORATION P.O. BOX 411 BURLINGTON, KANSAS 66839 April 2006 I A TABLE: OF CONTENTS

1.0 INTRODUCTION

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

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

3/2 2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING

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

3 ,3 2.1 AQUATIC [Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) Section 2.11 ...... 3 6 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River .........

3 2.1.2 Oxidizing Biocide Discharges to Coffey County Lake............

3 2.1.3 Cold Shock ..............................

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

4 2.1.4 Impingement and Entrainment

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

4 2.1.5 Impacts of Coffey County Lake Discharges

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

5 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.21 .................................

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

5 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation in the Exclusion Zone .........................

5 2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Coffey County Lake .........

5 2.2.3 Herbicide Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures.........

5 2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring

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

6 2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program (EPP Subsection 4.2.1]...)..............

6 2.2.6 Wildlife Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2] ....... * .........

6 2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3] .............

7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS........

7 3.1 PLANT DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.11.......

7 3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS ..........................

...........

7 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports .......................................

e .........

7 3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations

.........

7 3.3 Environmental Noncompliances

[EPP Subsection 5.4.11 ...............

7 4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING STATION ............................................................

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

8 4.1 2005 Land Management Activities

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

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

8 4.2 2005 Zebra Mussel Monitoring Activities

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

...... 9 4.3 2005 Fishery Monitoring Activities

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

9 2 I A

1.0 INTRODUCTION

E The 2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report is being submitted in accordance with the objectives of the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B to the Facility Operating License NPF-42. The purpose of this report is to demonstrate that the Wolf Creek Generating El Station (WCGS) operated during 2005 in a manner protective of the environment

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL

MONITORING 2 2.1 AQUATIC [EPP Section 2.1]2 El 2.1.1 Impacts of Water Withdrawal on the Neosho River 6 The WCGS Final Environmental Statement/Operating License Stage (FESIOLS, Section 5.6), NUREG-0878, postulated that makeup water withdrawal of 41 cubic feet per second during drought conditions would extend the duration and severity of low-flow conditions below John Redmond Reservoir (JRR). This, in turn, was expected to reduce riffle habitat that would adversely affect the Neosho madtom, a federally listed threatened species.Neosho River flows at Burlington were maintained during makeup withdrawal activities.

Therefore, there were no adverse impacts to the Neosho River or Neosho madtom habitats attributable to WCGS water withdrawal during 2005.The owners of WCGS have contracted with the Kansas Water Resources Board to pump up to 9.672 billion gallons of water per calendar year to Coffey County Lake (CCL), formerly known as Wolf Creek Lake, from the tailwaters of the JRR.A total of 3.703 billion gallons, or 38 percent of the contracted allotment, was used for WCGS purposes during 2005. The makeup water for CCL was pumped from January 1 through January 12, May 1 through May 2, June 19 through June 27, and November 4 through December 31, 2005. Measurements at Burlington, Kansas, taken during 2005 by the United States Geological Survey, indicate that flows downstream of the WCGS withdrawal station in the Neosho River were not reduced by makeup pumping activities.

2.1.2 Oxidizing

Biocide Discharges to Coffey County Lake Circulating Water System (CWS) Discharge:

Biocide use at WCGS was predicted to cause periodic, appreciable mortality in a conservatively estimated 40 acres of the discharge area to CCL. However, these impacts were not expected to meaningfully affect the overall biological productivity of the lake (FES/OLS, Section 5.5.2.2).

The postulated biocide levels expected to cause the impacts were from 0.68 to 1.08 mg/I of total residual chlorine at the CWS discharge (FES/OLS, Section 4.2.6.1).

Three 30-minute doses per day of 411 pounds of chlorine per dose were projected to produce these concentrations.

Impacts from actual biocide use during 2005 were considered to be less than postulated in the FES/OLS. A sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation was used to control biological fouling in WCGS cooling water systems during 2005. Evaluations completed at WCGS demonstrated that the sodium hypochlorite and sodium bromide formulation would not have greater impacts to the cooling lake environment than those expected from the level -of 3 Ii A chlorine use identified in the FES/OLS. All changes were reviewed and approved by the Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE) prior to implementation.

D o The WCGS National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES, Number I-4 NE07-PO02) permit limits biocide discharges to levels lower than postulated in the FES/OLS. This permit was administered by the KDHE. The biocide level for 2 the CWS was limited to a maximum of 0.2 mg/I, total residual oxidant (TRO), for 6 a maximum of two hours per day. Compliance during 2005 was 100 percent./ Actual oxidizing biocide dosages averaged approximately 27.6 pounds per day 2) and the daily average TRO was 0.06 mg/l.Essential Service Water System (ESWS) Discharge:

6 During 2005, a continuous diversion of approximately 17,000 gallons per minute of WCGS Service Water System flow to the ESWS was completed to provide microbiologically induced corrosion protection and sedimentation control. The KDHE established a 1.0 mg/I TRO limit for the SWS flow diversion through the ESWS. Actual measurements of TRO averaged <0.09 mg/l, and compliance with the NPDES limit in 2005 was 100 percent. No fish mortality or water quality changes attributable to ESWS biocide discharges were observed.

Based on this information, permitted biocide discharge during 2005 did not have appreciable effects on the cooling lake environment.

2.1.3 Cold Shock In the event of a rapid decline in plant power level during winter, fishes attracted to the WCGS heated discharge could experience mortality due to a quick reduction in body temperature (cold shock). In reference to licensing document evaluations, the WCGS EPP Section 2.1 (c) states, "Cold shock effects on fish due to reactor shutdowns could cause significant mortality to aquatic species in the cooling lake." No adverse impacts due to cold shock mortality events occurred during 2005.There were two plant shutdowns during 2005. The first was from January 22 through February 4, and the second from April 9 through May 19, 2005. Both shutdowns, but primarily the first, were during cold periods when fish have generally been attracted to the warm water discharges, thus susceptible to cold-shock events. No fish mortality attributable to cold-shock effects were observed following these plant shutdowns.

2.1.4 Impingement

and Entrainment Impacts of entrainment and impingement of fish and aquatic organisms due WCGS cooling water pumping were projected to be significant, as indicated in the WCGS EPP, Section 2.1 (d). EPP Section 2.1 states that the NRC relies on the State of Kansas for determination of the need for monitoring entrainment and impingement impacts. Although the State of Kansas has not required WCGS to monitor entrainment and impingement impacts, periodic observations during 2005 indicated that fish impingement at the WCGS circulating water intake was negligible.

4 Ii A 2.1.5 Impacts of Coffey County Lake Discharges to the Neosho River 13 The WCGS NPDES permit requires that CCL discharges be sampled on the first o day of each discharge and weekly thereafter until the end of each respective 4 discharge.

Discharge limits were set for chlorides, and pH (NPDES Outfall 004).Lake discharges typically have occurred at the Blowdown Spillway and Service Spillway.

During 2005, no discharges occurred at the Blowdown Spillway.ý There were no NPDES violations from discharges from the Service Spillway, and no/ detrimental effects have been identified to the Neosho River water quality in 2005.O 2.2 TERRESTRIAL

[EPP Section 2.2]6 2.2.1 Control of Vegetation In the Exclusion Zone The composition and structure of vegetation in the 453 hectare (1120 acre)exclusion zone were selectively controlled to be compatible with the function and security of station facilities.

Most areas in the immediate vicinity of the power block have been planted and maintained in a lawn-type condition.

Other areas within the exclusion area have been mowed for security and aesthetic purposes.There were no changes in overall vegetation management of the exclusion zone during 2005.2.2.2 Vegetation Buffer Zone Surrounding Coffey County Lake.To create a buffer zone of least 500 acres around CCL, as specified in EPP Section 2.2 (b), agricultural production activities were curtailed in 1980 within a border ranging from -approximately 200-400 feet adjacent to the lake shoreline.

This area is approximately 1440 acres. Previously grazed or hayed native grass areas were left undisturbed.

Previously cultivated lands were allowed to advance through natural succession stages, or native grasses were established in these areas. Land management activities included controlled burning to enhance and/or maintain the designated buffer zone with a naturally occurring biotic community.

2.2.3 Herbicide

Use for Maintenance of WCGS Structures Herbicides were used on transmission line corridors, gravel areas, railroad easements, and various land areas associated with WCGS. Application rates followed label instructions.

All herbicides used were registered by the Kansas Department of Agriculture when purchased.

No environmental impacts from herbicide treatment of WCGS facilities were identified.

A summary of herbicide application is provided below.The Lacygne to Benton 345 kilovolt (KV) transmission line corridor on property associated with WCGS was sprayed to control undesirable brush and tree growth. Herbicides included Tordon 22K (EPA Reg. No. 62719-6), Escort (EPA Reg. No. 352-439), and Arsenal (EPA Reg. No. 241-346).In areas where bare-grouncd control was desired, a herbicide mix of Karmex DF (EPA Reg. No 352-508) and Oust (EPA Reg. No. 352-401) was used. Roundup Ultra (EPA Reg. No 524-475), or comparable substitutes, was also used for 5 A A problem weed areas. These herbicides were used on various gravel areas, E including the switchyard, protected area boundary, meteorological tower, storage D tank berms, railroad beds, and storage yards." Nuisance tree and brush growth was controlled with Tordon 22 K, Tordon RTU 4 (EPA Reg. No. 62719-31), Remedy (EPA Reg. No. 62719-70), Weed Pro 2,4-D (EPA Reg. No. 10107-31), and Roundup Ultra. Areas treated included the dam,.2 spillways, railroad easements, and selected grassland areas around the cooling 6 lake./:2 Four plants listed as noxious weeds by the Kansas Department of Agriculture 0l were controlled on WCGS lands. These were serecia lespedeza, musk thistle, O Johnson grass, and field bindweed.

Serecia lespedeza was treated with 6 Pasturegard (EPA Reg. No. 62719-477), Remedy, and Weed Pro 2, 4-D. Musk thistle was controlled with mechanical means. Johnson grass was controlled with Roundup Ultra while field bindweed was controlled through normal farming practices by the tenants of the agricultural leases.2.2.4 Waterfowl Disease Contingency Plan and Monitoring A waterfowl disease contingency plan was maintained to provide guidance for station biologists in the event of suspected or actual disease outbreaks.

The contingency plan lists appropriate federal and state wildlife agency contacts to be made by WCNOC in the event of such problems.

During routine environmental monitoring and surveillance activities taking place over this reporting period, no waterfowl mortality attributable to disease pathogens was identified.

2.2.5 Fog Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.1]Visibility monitoring was initiated in December, 1983, and continued through 1987. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the impact of waste heat dissipation from CCL on fog occurrence along U. S. 75 near New Strawn, Kansas. The program was required through one year of commercial operation that started in September, 1985. Upon conclusion of 1987 data collection, sufficient information was available to evaluate cooling lake fogging, and all commitments relevant to fog monitoring had been satisfied.

The fog monitoring study concluded that operation of WCGS did not appreciably increase fogging incidents from that measured before operation.

During 2005, there were no reports of fogging incidents in the vicinity of nearby U. S. 75 from individuals or local agencies responsible for traffic safety. Periodic fogging caused by the cooling lake did occur during the winter months of 2005, but was restricted to the plant site. No mitigation actions or further monitoring were warranted.

2.2.6 Wildlife

Monitoring Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.2]A wildlife monitoring program was initiated in 1982 to monitor and assess waterfowl, waterbird, and bald eagle usage of CCL. This program included transmission-line collision surveys to assess collision mortality and determine potential mitigation needs. This wildlife monitoring program was to continue for at least two years following WCGS start-up (FES-OLS Section 5.5.1.2), which occurred during September, 1985. Upon completion of 1996 monitoring, sufficient data had been collected to determine waterfowl, waterbird, and bald 6

• 1 A eagle usage of CCL. Consequently, the scope of the wildlife monitoring program E was reduced. The current program consists of reviewing CCL waterfowl and D bald eagle survey data collected by the Kansas Department of Wildlife and Parks (KDWP). If review of the KDWP's data indicates usage has changed from thatpreviously documented, then additional monitoring may be initiated, if warranted.

4 This additional monitoring may include collision mortality monitoring.

/: Review of waterfowl and bald eagle monitoring data from the KDWP indicate that F no significant usage changes occurred during 2005. No disease outbreaks or/ widespread crop depredation attributable to waterfowl use of CCL was observed 2 in 2005. No changes to the wildlife monitoring program were warranted.

2.2.7 Land Management Program [EPP Subsection 4.2.3]6 Land management activities on all company-owned lands except within the 453 hectare (1120 acre) WCGS exclusion area were designed to achieve balances between agricultural production and conservation values. An annual management plan addressed needs and accepted techniques for land maintenance, soil conservation, and wildlife management.

These included the repair or construction of soil conservation structures, wetland areas, and permanent vegetative covers. An environmental education area was improved and maintained as part of the land management program. A summary of the year 2005 land management activities appears in Section 4.1 of this report The land management program continued in 2005 to balance agriculture production and conservation values.3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION PLAN REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

3.1 PLANT

DESIGN OR OPERATION CHANGES [EPP Section 3.1]Proposed plant design and operational changes which have the potential to affect the environment must receive an environmental evaluation prior to implementation.

There were no changes in station design or operation nor were there tests or experiments that required a evaluation for the presence of an un-reviewed environmental question during 2005.3.2 NON-ROUTINE ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS 3.2.1 Submitted Non-routine Reports There were no environmental reports involving significant non-routine impacts submitted to the NRC during 2005.3.2.2 Unusual or Important Environmental Event Evaluations No unusual or important environmental events reportable according to specifications in the EPP were identified during 2005.3.3 ENVIRONMENTAL NONCOMPLIANCES

[EPP Subsection 5.4.1]Potential non-radiological environmental noncompliances or noteworthy events were documented and evaluated in accordance with WCNOC's Corrective Action Program, using Performance Improvement Requests (PIRs). A PIR is WCNOC's administrative 7

i.process for corrective action and improvements.

Events evaluated during 2005 G included improvements to the refrigerant and chemical control programs.

All the E documented enhancement and reviews were determined not to be reportable pursuant D to EPP criteria.4.0

SUMMARY

OF ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS AT WOLF CREEK GENERATING 4 STATION/2 4.1 2005 LAND MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

/ The EPP requires a land management program that will implement conservation and 2 wildlife management techniques to attempt to balance production and conservation b values (EPP Section 4.2.3). The land management program at WCGS satisfied this requirement.

Specific program objectives were to: 6 a. conserve or improve both agricultural and natural resources, b. foster good relations with local agricultural and natural resource communities, c. satisfy licensing requirements, d. improve the appearance of the company's lands, and e. enhance, for educational purposes, the natural resources of the Environmental Education Area (EEA).These objectives were attained as explained below.Grasslands at WCGS consisted of areas leased for grazing and hay production and other areas maintained for regulatory compliance, soil conservation, and wildlife.

Areas adjacent to CCL, approximately 1500 acres, exceeded the 500 acre bvffer zone of"naturally occurring biotic communities" referenced in the EPP. Approximately 1,930 acres of native rangeland were leased for grazing and haying in 2005. Leases specified rotation programs, season lengths, maximum grazing rates, and hay cutting dates.Fire has always been an integral part of the prairie and was used to control woody brush invasion, control less desirable cool-season grasses or weeds, increase wildlife value, and to increase prairie vigor and production.

Prescribed burning was completed on approximately 1997 acres during 2005.Management of cropland reduced soil erosion, maintained rent income, and increased wildlife benefits.

Conservation farming, terracing, and wildlife strip management continued to help achieve the objectives.

A total of 1282 acres of cropland was leased in 2005. Consistent with past years, the cropland lease contracts specified that common conservation practices be followed.

On fields with appropriate terraces to follow, contour farming was required.

Double-cropping, i.e., producing two crops on the same acreage during the same season, was generally prohibited because this practice usually increases soil loss. Fall tillage of crop residues was prohibited except for certain instances, such as tillage necessary for fall planting of wheat, plowing of terraces and deep tillage practices to improve productivity.

Activities at the EEA were designed to improve wildlife habitat and increase the public's chances to view a greater variety of wildlife.

Tree and shrub planting, wildlife food plots, controlled burning, and trail improvements were a few of the techniques employed.

The EEA has drawn a large amount of attention and continues to be well suited for educational purposes.8 A G E 4.2. 2005 ZEBRA MUSSEL MONITORING ACTIVITIES D Zebra mussels were not observed during 2005 monitoring of the Neosho River and 0 CCL. Monitoring was completed to provide early detection of the presence of zebra 4 mussel in the vicinity of WCGS. Efforts included substrate and shoreline searches of/ the Neosho River upstream of JRR and immediately downstream of JRR in the vicinity.2 of the Makeup-water Screen House (MUSH), where water is pumped from the Neosho 1 River to CCL. Settlement monitors were placed and substrate scrapes were conducted/ at plant structures on the Neosho River and CCL. Inspections of fishing boats were also 2 continued through 2005.0 08 Zebra mussels were discovered at El Dorado Lake on August 25, 2003, approximately 13 80 miles southwest of WCGS in the Walnut River drainage, which is immediately west of the Cottonwood/Neosho watershed.

During 2005, the mussels expanded their range downstream to Oklahoma.

None have been observed in the Neosho watershed in Kansas.The Neosho River and CCL would be conducive for zebra mussel survival and growth based on water quality conditions present. Introduction to CCL will most likely be caused by WCGS pumping activities from the Neosho River. Boat inspections will likely prevent mussel introduction via recreational boats. Monitoring was designed to help ensure that zebra mussels would be detected as early as practical in the WCGS area.4.3 2005 FISHERY MONITORING ACTIVITIES Monitoring during 2005 demonstrated that the fishery in CCL remained in good condition with no adverse trends identified.

Fish predation pressure on the gizzard shad population continued to prevent excessive shad impingement problems at the circulating water intake. Fishery monitoring activities as outlined in this report were designed to continue to measure long-term trends and help WCGS prepare for any short term changes, particularly for any changes in the potential for shad impingement events.Public angling on the lake did not impact the fishery's function of supporting plant operations.

The catch and release philosophy promoted when the lake was opened for the public has been compatible with gizzard shad control objectives.

Monitoring data did warrant management activities to improve the fishery for public use. These recommendations to the KDWP were: 1. Increase of the creel limit for crappie greater than 14 inches from two to ten fish per day to increase angler use and increase harvest of older crappie.2. Increase the catfish creel limit from five to ten fish per day to be consistent with statewide creel limits. Catfish are not considered a significant predator of gizzard shad.3. Decrease the wiper length limit from 24 to 21 inches to increase harvest of older fish.9