A CMS Energy Company

k:\legal\lgl-s\ferc\ludington\fl1210net report.docx

www.consumersenergy.com

December 9, 2010

Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary 

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

Dockets Room, Room 1A

888 First Street, N.E.

Washington, DC 20426

Re: Consumers Energy Company and The Detroit Edison Company

Ludington Pumped Storage Project; Project No. 2680

 -- Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation for 2010

Dear Ms. Bose: 

On behalf of itself and its co-licensee, The Detroit Edison Company, Consumers Energy 

Company transmits herewith the 2010 Annual Report of Barrier Net Operation for the Ludington 

Pumped Storage Project, Project No. 2680. This filing contains a report describing the 2010 

barrier net operating results. Members of the Scientific Advisory Team for the barrier net (made 

up of licensee, resource agency, and other representatives) were provided with a draft version, 

and had no comments or suggested changes. 

2010 was the 22nd year of barrier net operation. The barrier net program originated as a threeyear developmental program in 1989, which had the dual goals of improving the barrier net’s 

design and optimizing the barrier net’s effectiveness. On February 28, 1995, the Licensees filed 

an Offer of Settlement to resolve all issues pending before the Commission in this proceeding. 

The Commission issued an Order approving the Offer of Settlement on January 23, 1996. That 

settlement called for, among other things, Licensees to continue installing and operating the 

seasonal barrier net and to achieve net performance standards of 80% effectiveness for game fish 

(salmonids and yellow perch combined) over five inches in length and 85% effectiveness for 

large forage fish (alewife and rainbow smelt combined) over five inches in length. For 2010, 

game fish effectiveness was 79% and large forage fish effectiveness was 94%. A temporary 

breach in the barrier net one week prior to final sampling dropped game fish effectiveness from 

86% to 77%. While results from the final sample raised this effectiveness, there was not 

sufficient time of operation following the breach to allow the overall annual effectiveness rating 

to recover.

General Offices: LEGAL DEPARTMENT

One Energy Plaza Tel: (517) 788-0550 JAMES E BRUNNER

 Senior Vice President

 and General Counsel

David E Barth

H Richard Chambers

Gary L Kelterborn

Deborah Ann Kile

M Bryan Little

Kathrine M Lorenz

Eric V Luoma

Raymond E McQuillan

Rhonda M Morris

Deborah A Moss*

Mirče Michael Nestor

Robert M Neustifter

Jeffrey D. Pintar

Vincent P Provenzano

Susan L Rasmussen

John C Shea

Scott J Sinkw itts

Charlotte A Walls

Attorney

Jackson, MI 49201 Fax: (517) 768-3644 

* Washington Office:

1730 Rhode Island Ave. 

N.W.

Suite 1007 

Tel: (202) 778-3340 JON R ROBINSON

 Vice President and

 Deputy General Counsel

 Utility Law and

 Regulation

Shelley J Ruckman

Kimberly C Wilson

Michael G Wilson

 Assistant General

 Counsel

Washington, DC 20036 Fax: (202) 778-3355

Writer’s Direct Dial Number: (517) 788-2974

Writer’s E-mail Address: rmneustifter@cmsenergy.com
2

We would be pleased to answer any questions you have regarding this filing. You can contact 

the undersigned at the phone number shown above in the letterhead.

Respectfully submitted,

By_/s/ Robert M. Neustifter_____

Robert M. Neustifter, Attorney

Consumers Energy Company

One Energy Plaza

Jackson, MI 49201

cc: See attached Distribution List 
K:\ENV\SFD\LPSP\Annual Reports\2010\Llud distribution 10.DOC 

LUDINGTON DISTRIBUTION LIST

Michael Cox, Department of the Attorney General 

Peter Manning, Department of the Attorney General 

Skiles Boyd, The Detroit Edison Company 

Jon P. Christinidis, The Detroit Edison Company 

Matt Shackelford, The Detroit Edison Company 

Robert Reider, The Detroit Edison Company 

Heather Campbell, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

H. Steve Hocking, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Todd Kalish, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

David Clapp, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Tammy Newcomb, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Kyle Kruger, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Dr. Bill Taylor, Michigan State University 

John Robertson, Michigan United Conservation Clubs 

Douglas Denison, National Wildlife Federation 

Mark Holey, US Fish and Wildlife Service 

Erik Olsen, Grand Traverse Biological Station 

Steve Lenart, Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians 

Tom Gorenflo, Chippewa-Ottawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority 

Archie Martell, Little River Band of Ottawa Indians 

Dr. Bruce Lippincott, HDR/LMS 

Jim Morrison, HDR/LMS 

Charles Madenjian, USGS, Great Lakes Science Center 

Dr. Ed Rutherford, Institute for Fisheries Research, U of M 
 United States of America 

 Before The 

 Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 

Consumers Energy Company

 The Detroit Edison Company 

 Project No 2680 

 Ludington Pumped Storage Project 

 * * * 

 2010 Annual Report of 

 Barrier Net Operation 

 Consumers Energy Company 

 The Detroit Edison Company 
 

 CONTENTS

 2010 ANNUAL LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

 BARRIER NET REPORT

 

Page

 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 1 

 I. INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................ 5 

 II. CONSULTATION SUMMARY................................................................................. 6 

III. 2010 BARRIER NET OPERATION.......................................................................... 7 

A. 2010 Barrier Net Design ......................................................................................7 

B. 2010 Barrier Net Installation..............................................................................9 

C. 2010 Barrier Net Operation ..............................................................................13 

D. 2010 Barrier Net Maintenance and Removal, Cleaning 

and Storage......................................................................................................... 14 

 IV. 2010 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING................................... 21 

A. 2010 Effectiveness Monitoring Program .........................................................21 

B. 2010 Barrier Net Effectiveness Results............................................................22 

C. Comparison of 1989-2010 Results ....................................................................24 

 V. 2010 BARRIER NET PROGRAM........................................................................... 29 

A. Actions to Improve Barrier Net Design and 

Performance .......................................................................................................29 

B. Effectiveness Monitoring...................................................................................29 

Figures

Exhibits

A. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program - 2010 

B. 2010 Ludington Project Summary of Pumping and Generating 

C. Comments of the Scientific Advisory Team on the 2010 

Annual Ludington Pumped Storage Project Barrier Net Report 

D. Licensees’ Response to the Scientific Advisory Team Comments 

on the 2010 Annual Barrier Net Report 

 
1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

In 2010, Consumers Energy Company and The Detroit Edison Company (the 

Licensees) installed and monitored a seasonal barrier net at the Ludington Pumped 

Storage Project (Project) to reduce fish losses. The barrier net was in place on 

April 6, was breached for removal on October 16, and removal was completed on 

November 1. Monitoring to evaluate barrier net effectiveness began the week of 

April 15 and ended the week of October 15. From September 8 through September 

24 a reservoir outage was conducted to support scheduled, FERC mandated repairs 

to the intake structure and asphalt liner. Since fish were not in jeopardy of 

entrainment during this outage, i.e., no pumping took place, effectiveness 

monitoring was not conducted. In lieu of effectiveness monitoring, collections 

were made to document fish abundance proximate to the Project for purposes 

pertaining to the State Settlement Agreement. This report describes the 2010 

seasonal barrier net results. 

The barrier net program originated as a three-year developmental program in 1989. 

It had the dual goals of improving the barrier net's design and optimizing the 

barrier net's effectiveness. Barrier net effectiveness for target species of fish 

identified by the Advisory Committee(1) and susceptible to capture(2) by the 

effectiveness monitoring gear (gill nets) was about 32% in 1989, over 41% in 

1990, and accomplished the dual goals of net design improvements and 

 1

The members of the Advisory Committee are noted in Section II. The Advisory 

Committee was replaced by a Scientific Advisory Team in accordance with the 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project Settlement Agreement dated February 27, 1995.

2

The minimum fish size category of 0 to 5 inches utilized from 1989 through 1992 was 

replaced by a minimum size category of 4 to 5 inches in 1993 through 2009. 

Effectiveness results for 1989-2009 reported throughout this report include only those 

fish that were susceptible to capture by the gill nets. 
2

optimization of barrier net effectiveness when an effectiveness of 88% was 

achieved in 1991. For the twenty years (1991 - 2010) following program 

development, target species effectiveness has averaged 90.7%. 

In accord with the FERC Ludington Pumped Storage Project Settlement 

Agreement, the Licensees Barrier Net Performance Standards are: 80% 

effectiveness for game fish (salmonids and yellow perch combined) over five 

inches in total length and 85% effectiveness for large forage fish (alewife and smelt 

combined) over five inches in total length. With few exceptions, annual 

monitoring results have historically met or exceeded the performance standards. In 

2010, game fish effectiveness was 79% and large forage fish effectiveness was 

94%. These effectiveness ratings are in keeping with recent past performance. The 

slightly lower effectiveness rating for game fish is attributable to the change in 

composition (yellow perch were predominant when standards were established but 

are now scarce), and to a temporary breach in the barrier net one week prior to 

final sampling which dropped the effectiveness from 86% to 77%. While the 

effectiveness value in the final sample raised the annual effectiveness value to 

79%, there was not sufficient time of operation following the breach to allow the 

overall annual effectiveness rating to recover. Additional barrier net effectiveness 

estimates that are among those used to calculate compensation for unavoidable fish 

losses in 2010 are 82% for 4 to 5 inch alewife and 80% for game fish including 

walleye. 

The high level of performance in all but the final two weeks of 2010 is directly 

attributable to an intensive inspection and maintenance program and advanced net 

design. Observations during dive inspections documented that the barrier net 

experienced little major damage despite prolonged periods of heavy sea conditions 

in 2010. The net breach, approximately 600 feet from the south shoreline 

connection, occurred on September 24th as a result of 8-foot plus waves and 
3

unprecedented periods of rough weather conditions dating back to late August that 

precluded net cleaning and imposed cumulative stress and strain on the net. 

Replacement panels were mobilized as the inclement weather persisted for two 

additional days. However, the replacement panels were not needed as divers were 

able to pull together the breach and reestablish anchor connections, restoring full 

net integrity by the evening of September 26. 

As in all previous monitoring years, repairs and/or replacement of entire panels is a 

scheduled winter activity that will be conducted prior to barrier net reinstallation 

the following spring. In accord with the Ludington Pumped Storage Project 

Settlement Agreement, the seasonal barrier net will be installed, maintained, and 

monitored in 2011. 

Although the barrier net monitoring program has remained essentially unchanged 

since the first year of monitoring in 1989, the historical results have documented a 

vast change in both the abundance and composition of the near shore fish 

community at Ludington. The 2010 result of 3,838 fish greater than or equal to 4 

inches in length is an historic low. It is lower than the previous minimum of 5,124 

caught during 2007 and is well below the catch of 9,106 fish from a year ago. 

While the annual monitoring program catch has averaged about 10,000 fish per 

year from 2002-2009, that average is several times lower than the monitoring catch 

at the beginning of the monitoring program. The difference in near shore 

abundance of fishes results primarily from a greatly reduced alewife population but 

also reflects a greatly reduced yellow perch population. Results from the 2010 

monitoring are confounded somewhat by atypical circumstances (more frequent 

inclement weather precluding sampling, warmer water temperatures than normal 

kept some fish offshore; and the warmer water led to algae blooms that fouled the 

sampling nets) that likely contributed to the smaller catches. However, these results 

are consistent with historical trends that reflect corresponding lake wide changes 
4

Lake Michigan fish populations (MDNRE3, USGS4). 

The abundance of not only alewife and yellow perch, but also rainbow smelt and 

walleye has changed substantially near the Project. Rainbow smelt, once common, 

are virtually absent in recent collections. Walleye, absent from effectiveness 

monitoring collections through the early 1990’s, now comprise a significant 

portion of the sport fish catch. The exotic invasive round goby, first found in the 

2003 collection, has become firmly established as among the most numerous nontarget fish. Notably, the 2010 results are the lowest to date for both alewife and 

Chinook salmon, the top predator of alewife and among the sport fishing industry’s 

most valuable species. Consistent with the past two years, lake trout dominates the 

game fish catch. 

 

 

(3) Michigan Department of Natural Resources Fishing Reporting System. 

http://www.dnr.state.mi.us/chartercreel/ 

(4) Madenjian et. al., 2010 - Status and Trends in Prey Fish Populations 2008. USGS report to the GLFC 

Lake Michigan Committee Meeting, March 26 2010. 
5

2010 ANNUAL LUDINGTON PROJECT BARRIER NET REPORT

I. INTRODUCTION 

In accord with an Order issued on September 30, 1988 by the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) Director, Division of Project Compliance and 

Administration, the Licensees (then Consumers Power Company, now Consumers 

Energy Company, and The Detroit Edison Company) installed and monitored, from 

mid-April to mid-October of 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992, a seasonal barrier net 

around the Project jetties and breakwater to minimize fish losses at the Project. In 

1991, the Licensees submitted to the FERC with the 1991 Annual Report of Barrier 

Net Operation, the "Plan for Permanently Mitigating Fish Mortality" at the 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project. The proposed mitigation plan consisted of 

continued operation and monitoring of a seasonal barrier net, mitigation for 

unavoidable fish losses, and funding for recreational facilities in the Ludington area 

in lieu of access to the Project jetties. On March 15, 1993 the FERC directed the 

Licensees to reinstall the barrier net by April 15, 1993, monitor its effectiveness, 

implement a specific increased level of quality control and provide the Commission 

with biweekly status reports. These activities were conducted during 1993 and 

repeated in 1994 through 2010 except, beginning in 1999, monthly status reports 

were provided to the Scientific Advisory Team (SAT, see section II below) rather 

than biweekly to the Commission. On February 27, 1995 the Licensees filed an 

Offer of Settlement which would resolve all issues pending before the FERC 

concerning the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. The Commission issued an 

Order approving the Offer of Settlement on January 23, 1996 (hereinafter 

Settlement Agreement). The Settlement Agreement calls for, among other things, 

the Licensees to continue annual installation and operation of the seasonal barrier 

net. 
6

In 2010, for the twenty-second consecutive year, the Licensees installed and 

monitored, from mid-April to mid-October, the barrier net around the Project jetties 

and breakwater in accord with the FERC directive and Settlement Agreement. The 

results of the 2010 barrier net operation, maintenance, and effectiveness monitoring 

are presented in this report. 

The barrier net deployed in 2010 is essentially the same design as the net that has 

been used since the early 1990’s. The barrier net panels used in 2010 were 

constructed by Redden Marine Supply, Inc. of Bellingham, Washington and Pacific 

Netting Products, Inc. (PNP) of Poulsho, Washington. Underwater Construction 

Corporation (UCC) of Essex, Connecticut installed, maintained, inspected and 

repaired the barrier net panels. HDR Michigan, of Omaha Nebraska, monitored the 

effectiveness of the barrier net in keeping with a rigorous quality control program. 

II. CONSULTATION SUMMARY 

An Advisory Committee which included representatives from the Licensees, the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR), the US Fish & Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) and the Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC) (for itself 

and the National Wildlife Federation (NWF)) was replaced by the Scientific 

Advisory Team (SAT) in August 1996, in accord with the Settlement Agreement. 

The SAT consists of representatives from the Licensees, MDNR, USFWS, MUCC, 

NWF, Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians (GTB), Little River 

Band of Ottawa Indians (LRB), Little Traverse Bay Band of Odawa Indians 

(LTBB), Chippewa/Ottawa Resource Authority (CORA) (formerly the ChippewaOttawa Treaty Fishery Management Authority or COTFMA), and Michigan State 

University. There were four SAT meetings in 2010. During the period that the net 

was deployed, each SAT meeting included a review of barrier net operating results, 

effectiveness monitoring benchmarks and results, and any unusual events. Monthly 
7

written reports describing barrier net operation and monitoring results were 

provided to SAT members within 10 business days following month end. 

 

III. 2010 BARRIER NET OPERATION

A. 2010 Barrier Net Design 

The 2010 barrier net, consisting of panels purchased from 2004 through 

2009, is essentially the same design as the net that was used in the 

1990’s. Barrier net specifications are provided in Table III-1. Panels 

#4, #7, #11, #36, #45, #47, #49, #54, #55, #56, #57, and #58 are new 

replacement panels for the 2010 season (Figure III-1). 

The first 1,175 feet of net from the shoreline, in both the north and south 

wings, is made of 1⁄2-inch bar mesh, while the remainder of the net is 

constructed with 3⁄4-inch bar mesh. The intent of using the 1⁄2-inch bar 

mesh near shore is to improve the net's effectiveness in excluding small 

fish which typically inhabit shallow waters in early summer. 

Historically, the barrier net's float line experienced some submergence 

during plant operations with multiple units generating; similar 

observations were made in 2010. Additional top skirting was added to 

the float line in 1994 to improve the surface seal in near shore areas and 

this continues to be a part of the barrier net design. The benefits and 

risks of additional flotation to reduce submergence were assessed in 

1992. Additional flotation was added in critical areas without 

jeopardizing net components or performance. The flotation along 

Panels #9 through #23 and #32 through #48 (Figure III-1) was doubled 

during 1993. This design has effectively decreased submergence and 
8

continues to be utilized. 

In 2003, the double float line was replaced by a single float line with 

larger floats in Panels #39 and #45 (Figure III-1) and net maintenance 

and submergence were evaluated. With only two modified panels in 

place, a single float line utilizing larger floats did not noticeably 

improve submergence; however, observations during inspections, 

repairs and net extraction document that the modified panels operated 

well and required less maintenance. Accordingly, new panels with 

single larger float lines have replaced retired double float line panels for 

the past several years. For the 2010 barrier net these panels are #11, 

#36, #45, and #47. Future replacements panels will continue to 

incorporate this same design change. 

 

Continual improvements in the bottom seal of the net have been made 

over the years. Rocks that caused or could cause damage to the barrier 

net or interfere with the bottom seal were removed by divers when 

practicable. In prior years, rocks interfered with the bottom seal and 

occasionally wore holes in the net when storms forced the net back and 

forth across them. A major rock removal effort was conducted in 1991 

and 1993. In addition, reinforcement of the barrier net lead line/border 

rope connections in known rocky areas since 1995 has greatly reduced 

separations and open areas in the barrier net. 

In 2003 Panels 45, 33 and 28 were modified with a drop lead line hung 

from the footer rope (also known as “yorking”) rather than being tightly 

tied to the footer rope. Photographs and inspections have documented 

much less wear along the lead line in these panels. In addition, less riser 

line wear or breakage was experienced. As a result, the yorking design 
9

has been incorporated over time as new panels are purchased. 

The top skirt, as in previous years, is made of polyethylene and the 

bottom skirt is made of nylon. Main line border and riser ropes are 

"Spectron” (Amsteel) and the hanging twine for attaching the riser ropes 

is made of nylon, or more recently, “Spectra” (Dyneema) twine. Top 

and bottom skirt depths are indicated in Table III-1. The skirt mesh 

matches the main net mesh in all areas. The riser line spacing is 20 feet 

in the main net. Since 1997 the barrier net design includes riser lines at 

25-foot spacing in the top skirt to minimize top skirt storm damage. 

In accord with the Settlement Agreement, a sufficient number of net 

panels used in previous years have been retained and repaired and are 

available for repair and/or replacement of either individual panels or, if 

necessary, replacement of the entire barrier net. 

B. 2010 Barrier Net Installation

1. Net Assembly and Staging 

The installation contractor, Underwater Construction Corporation, Inc., 

(UCC) began assembly and staging of the barrier net on March 3, 2010 

following completion of maintenance repairs. Panels were joined 

together in lengths that would fit on semi-trailers for transportation to 

the two deck barges used for net installation. 

A mobile crane loaded the barrier net from the semi-trailers onto the 

deck barges which were moored at the Oxy Chemical Sand Dock on 

Pere Marquette Lake, Ludington, Michigan. Major subsections of the 
10

net panels were sewn and shackled together to form two sections of 

approximately equal length in preparation for installation. Staging of 

the barrier net on the barges was completed on March 27, 2010. 

Equipment used during barrier net assembly and staging included: 

(2) Net Rollers 

(2) Net Barges 

(15) Semi-trailers with side rails 

(2) Semi-tractors 

(4) Pickup Trucks 

(2) Cutting Torches 

(1) Tug Boat 

(1) Mobile Crane 

(1) Fork Truck 

(2) Welders 

(1) Net Reel w/Drive 

(2) Net tools, hand tools and rigging 

(4) Fall protection 

2. Site Preparation

Site preparations for installation of the barrier net in 2010 consisted of 

locating and freeing the anchor chains of the permanent Lake Michigan 

bottom anchors. Using portable GPS units, UCC commenced locating 

the anchors on March 8, 2010 and completed locating and freeing the 

anchor chains on March 23, 2010. 

Equipment used during the above activities included: 

(1) 24-foot Skiff 
11

(1) 30-foot Inspection Vessel 

(2) Portable GPS units 

(2) Sets Dive Gear w/Bottled Air 

(2) Jet Pumps 

(4) Pickup Trucks 

(1) Office/Dive Trailer 

(1) Underwater Metal Detector 

(2) Net tools, hand tools and rigging 

(2) Cable ratchet pullers 

3. Net Installation

The method of installing the barrier net was the same as used during the 

1991-2009 period. The net was installed moving from anchor to anchor, 

assuring a firm connection and proper positioning before deploying 

additional netting. 

During barrier net installation in the high current areas, plant generation 

was limited to two units (except in case of an emergency). This 

coordination greatly improved the efficiency of barrier net installation. 

Installation status was provided to System Operations on a daily basis. 

 

Installation was initiated on Sunday March 28, 2010 when the north and 

south net barges, crane barges, and tugboats began at anchor point AF 

and worked toward the north and south shores, respectively (see Figure 

III-1). Inclement weather delayed the continued installation 

intermittently over a period of more than a week with total net 

deployment completed on Tuesday April 6. 
12

INSTALLATION 

Date Daily Total (feet) Cumulative (feet) 

 March 28 1,800 1,800 

March 30 4,000 5,800 

April 1 2,000 7,800 

April 6 5,050 12,850 

When installation was interrupted by severe weather or darkness, each 

section (north and south) of the barrier net was cut at a panel joint and 

secured at an anchor. Upon resuming installation, the panels were 

disconnected from the anchor to allow on-board sewing to the remainder 

of the barrier net prior to proceeding with the installation. 

Equipment used during installation included: 

(2) Spud Barges with Crane 

(2) 60-foot Tugs 

(2) Deck Barges 

(1) 24-foot Work Skiff 

(1) 30-foot Inspection Vessel 

(4) Dive Stations 

(2) Jet Pumps 

(1) Underwater Metal Detector 

(1) Underwater Cutting System 

(1) Fork Lift 

(3) Welders 

(1) Office Trailer 

(1) Front-End Loader 
13

(4) Net tools, hand tools and rigging 

(2) Cable ratchet pullers 

(3) Cutting Torches 

(5) Pickup Trucks 

(2) Net Rollers 

(2) Snatch Block Systems (80’ & 40’ cables) 

C. 2010 Barrier Net Operation 

An operational monitoring program log was prepared to document the 

operational condition of the barrier net and help assure timely corrective 

actions and maintenance. The operational monitoring program included 

twice-daily surface inspections, twice-weekly subsurface inspections, 

and observations describing the barrier net's condition, certain plant 

operational conditions, and weather. Subsurface inspections included 

one complete lead line inspection and additional lead line inspections in 

high flow areas as time and weather allowed. In addition, mid-water 

inspections were performed as time and weather permitted. The data 

from the operational monitoring program were used to establish barrier 

net maintenance activity needs and priorities. 

In general, the barrier net operated reliably during the 2010 period of 

deployment. Periods of heavy seas were more frequent than observed in 

most years, particularly later in the season. During the last half of 

August and through September, wave heights greater than 5 feet were 

recorded on 11 days. During rough weather on the morning of 

September 24th a breach was observed at panel #5 (Fig III-1) 

approximately 600 to 700 feet from the south leg shore connection. 

Panels east of the separation (panels #2 to #5) were washed to shore by 
14

the waves. Severe wave conditions persisted for two days, preventing 

the repair of the breach. During this time complete replacement panels 

were mobilized and made ready for installation. When weather subsided 

on September 26th, maintenance crews found the dislocated sections 

mostly intact and were able to pull the net together and re-attach the 

panels. Two Manta-ray anchors were replaced and panels were secured, 

repaired, and net integrity was reestablished by day’s end. 

D. 2010 Barrier Net Maintenance, Removal, Cleaning and Storage

1. Maintenance

Surface and subsurface observations of the barrier net were used to 

determine the need for maintenance and to determine the priority for 

maintenance activities. Surface observations were performed daily from 

the bluffs and whenever possible from a boat. 

Subsurface inspections were performed by UCC divers using hard hat 

(surface supplied air) dive equipment. Constant communication was 

maintained between the diver and the tender and radio operator in the 

dive boat. Subsurface inspections were conducted using a 30-foot 

inspection vessel.

Barrier net maintenance requirements were documented and tracked 

through maintenance closeout. The majority of the minor repairs were 

completed underwater by a three-man dive team utilizing a work skiff. 

Materials similar to those used in the net panels were used for repairs. 

Repairs were categorized as follows: 
15

a. Sewing of lead line and main net bottom borderline and bottom 

skirt separation. 

b. Sewing holes in the main barrier net and top and bottom skirts. 

c. Removing rocks and debris. 

d. Repairing riser line breaks. 

e. Removing sand and gravel, as needed, from the net panels near 

each beach at the water line. 

f. Repairing main net top border line breaks. 

g. Sewing of seam separations. 

h. Replacing top and bottom shackle patches. 

i. Replacing main net and top skirt buoys. 

j. Repair top skirt border line breaks. 

k. Repairing main net bottom boarder line breaks. 

l. Repairing lead line chain breaks. 

For most of 2010 net maintenance requirements were typical. However, 

severe weather with sustained high winds and heavy seas caused severe 

damage to the net from September 3rd – 6th and September 21st – 25th. 

 In addition to the breach at panel #5, the most significant damage 

occurred to the top skirt and main net riser lines. Most damage was 

repaired, but some top skirt damage in panels 53 – 58 will need to be 

addressed during the winter net shop activities. 

As in the past, the single most significant maintenance activity was 

barrier net cleaning. The cleaning technique used in 1991-2009 was 

continued in 2010. Two to three divers simultaneously cleaned the 

barrier net using high-pressure hand-held water spray wands. 

Production ranged from 400 to 800 feet cleaned per day depending on 

location, weather conditions and amount of cleaning required. 
16

Barrier net cleaning helped prevent algae and zebra mussels from 

damaging the barrier net and potentially reducing barrier net 

performance by restricting flow and subsequently increasing net 

submergence. Zebra mussel accumulation was relatively heavy during 

2010, with greatest buildup on the hardware, risers, panel seams, lead 

line, as well as 3’ – 5’ on the main net panels near each riser. Largest 

concentrations were noted late in the season, perhaps the result of 

persistently warmer water temperatures and abundant algae. Prior to net 

extraction in October the juvenile zebra mussels exploded. Observations 

during net extraction and net cleaning estimated mussel coverage at 

about 90% for 65 - 75% of the net and some areas had 100% coverage 

The entire net was cleaned three times, 91% was cleaned four times, 

63% was cleaned five time times, and some panels were cleaned as 

many as six times during the 2010 deployment season. 

Equipment used during maintenance activities included: 

(1) 30-foot Inspection Vessel 

(1) Jack-Up Barge/Tug 

(3) High-Pressure Washers 

(1) Breathing Air Compressor 

(3) Pickup Trucks 

(2) Cutting Torches 

(2) Jet Pumps 

(1) Underwater Metal Detector 

(1) Manta Ray Anchor Installation System 

(4) Standard Dive Systems 

(2) Underwater Cutting Systems 

(1) Fork Truck 
17

(1) Office Trailer 

(2) Welders 

(4) Net tools, hand tools and rigging 

(2) Cable ratchet pullers 

2. Removal

The barrier net was breached on Saturday, October 16 and removal 

continued over the following two weeks, interrupted several times by 

prolonged periods of severe weather. Following is a summary of net 

removal activities. 

REMOVAL 

Date Net Removal (feet) Cumulative (feet) 

 October 16 1,175 1,175 

October 18 4,000 5,175 

October 24 3,800 8,975 

October 25 1,900 10,875 

October 29 875 11,750 

November 1 1,100 12,850 

During the delay in removal storm force winds of 50 - 60 knots and sea 

state of 15' - 20' waves were observed for about two days. On October 

26, separation at Panel #4 of the remaining net was noted and panel #1 

(south shore connection) through #4 was washed ashore. Those panels 

were pulled up further onto the beach out of reach of the storm surge 

and removed with shore equipment on October 29. 

 

Equipment used for net removal, cleaning and storage included: 
18

(1) Spud Barge with Crane 

(1) 60- foot Tug Boat 

(1) Deck Barge 

(1) 30-foot Inspection Vessel 

(1) 18-foot Work Skiff 

(3) Standard Dive Systems 

(2) Cutting Torches 

(4) Net tools, hand tools and rigging 

(2) Cable ratchet pullers 

(4) Pickup Trucks 

(1) Fork Truck 

(1) Net Roller 

(14) Semi-trailers 

(2) Semi-tractors 

(1) Boom Truck 

(1) Jet Pump with 6 Cleaning Stations 

(1) Underwater Cutting System 

(2) Jet Pumps 

(3) Electric pressure washers 

(2) Gas pressure washers 

(1) Hydraulic Net Reel 

(1) Underwater Metal Detector 

(1) Office Trailer 

(1) Excavator 

3. Cleaning and Storage

Cleaning began after barrier net panels were onshore using a highpressure pump and six hose stations. Five high pressure washers had to 
19

be employed for 2010 to remove the extensive build up of zebra 

mussels. The entire barrier net was cleaned at the Oxy Chemical sand 

dock and was then inspected and stored in individual boxes by panel 

number at the Licensee's warehouse in Ludington, Michigan. Drying of 

the net panels will be conducted at ambient temperatures within the 

warehouse. 

A repair punch list was developed during barrier net inspection and 

storage and will be used to ensure the complete repair or recommended 

replacement of each net panel prior to barrier net deployment in 2011. 

A thorough inspection of each barrier net panel, including material 

strength tests, if warranted, will determine whether a net panel is 

repaired or recommended for replacement. 
 20

TABLE III-1 

BARRIER NET DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS 

1993 – 2010 

 Net Material Spectra 900 or Dyneema SK-65 

 Mesh Size: Panels 1-5, 58-62 

Panels 6-57 

 1⁄2" bar 

 3⁄4" bar 

 Net Depth 2' - 55' 

 Border Rope Material Spectron 12 (Amsteel) 

 Top Floats: Panels 1-3, 58-62 

 Panel 4 

Panel 5 

Panels 6-10, 12-20,22-32,34,36-

38,40,42,43,47-57 

Panel 11 

Panel 33 

Panels 35,39,44,46,21,41 

Panel 45 

 SO-60 

 R*8 

 BL - 7 

 K-44 

 

 R*10 

 B-10 

 BL-18 

 Spongex 8500 series 

 Hanging Twine #30 Nylon 

 Ever grip 

 Knot Spacing Every 2 mesh 

 Bottom Chain 1⁄2" long link lashing chain 

 Riser Line Spacing main net 20' 

 Top Skirt Material Polyethylene 

 Top Skirt Depth: Panels 2-5, 58-61 

 Panels 6-57 

 10' - 1⁄2” Bar 

 20' - 3⁄4” Bar 

 Top Skirt Floats: All Panels except 4,5,and 11 

 Panels 4 and 11 

 Panel 5 

 KllSCW/G 

 R*6 

 BL-6 

 Bottom Skirt Chain 3⁄8" Grade 30 proof coil chain 

 Bottom Skirt Material Nylon 

 Bottom Skirt Specifications 

Panels 1-5, 58-62 

Panels 6-57 

 1⁄2" Bar #18, 10' 

 3⁄4" Bar #18, 20' 
 21

IV. 2010 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING

A. 2010 Effectiveness Monitoring Program

The effectiveness of the barrier net in protecting fish during 2010 was 

monitored using the same methods as in 1989-2009. Barrier net 

effectiveness was calculated by comparing the relative fish abundance 

from gill net sample collections outside and inside the barrier net. 

Section B below provides a summary of the results of the 2010 

effectiveness monitoring program. The 2010 monitoring program 

results are described in greater detail in Exhibit A: "Report of the 

Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program - 2010." 

The annual safety and quality assurance audit of the barrier net 

monitoring program was conducted by NTH Consultants Ltd. from June 

30th through July 1st. There was one minor finding related to the 

calibration of thermistors used to measure water temperature. Although 

the thermistors were checked and recorded weekly against a standard 

instrument at three temperature ranges, there is no method of correcting 

the instrument (YSI – Model 55). Analysis of the data revealed a 

significant bias of -0.6 degrees Celsius, which did not significantly vary 

across a range of temperatures. Audit results were reviewed with the 

SAT and a corrective action plan was formalized: follow manufacturer’s 

servicing recommendations, correct field data for bias, and update 

QA/QC procedures. The 2010 audit report concluded that there was, 

“good compliance with the Quality Assurance / Quality Control 

Procedures for the Ludington Pump Storage Barrier Net Effectiveness 

Monitoring Program”. 
 22

B. 2010 Barrier Net Effectiveness Results

Effectiveness

Overall effectiveness for the target fish species specified by the former 

Advisory Committee (yellow perch, rainbow smelt, alewife, chubs, 

Chinook salmon, coho salmon, steelhead, lake trout, and brown trout), 

and susceptible to capture(1) by the effectiveness monitoring gear (gill 

nets) was 89.3% in 2010. Effectiveness for non-target fish species (all 

others) was 63.6%. Target species made up 72.1% of the 2010 

collection. 

The 2010 effectiveness for large alewife (>5 inches) was 94.5% and for 

small alewife (from 4 to 5 inches) was 82.0%. Alewife, the most 

abundant species collected at Ludington during each of the 20 years of 

monitoring, comprised 57.7% of the total number of fish collected 

during the 2010 effectiveness monitoring. The large (> 5 inches) 

alewife catch (1,677) is the smallest annual collection since barrier net 

monitoring began in 1989. Small (4 to 5 inches) alewife abundance has 

historically been highly variable (307 – 25,000). The 2010 catch of 537 

is down from the 1,625 collected last year but similar to low levels 

recorded the two years prior to 2009. 

 

The number of salmonids collected in 2010 (490) approached record 

low collections in 2006 (467) and 2007 (468). The effectiveness for 

salmonids greater than or equal to 5-inches was 77.4%. 

 

Barrier net effectiveness for yellow perch ≥ 5-inches was 100.0% with 

 (1)The minimum fish size category of 0 to 5 inches, utilized from 1989 through 1992 was 

replaced by a minimum size category of 4 to 5 inches in 1993 through 2010. Effectiveness 

results for 1989-2008, reported throughout this report, include only those fish that were 

susceptible to capture by the gill nets. 
 23

24 fish being collected outside the barrier. This catch is down from the 

114 to 188 collected over the past four years but similar to numbers 

collected over the period 2000 - 2005. Similarly, the 2010 bloater chub 

catch (14) was down substantially from last year (89) and the unusually 

large 2008 collection (360), but still well above numbers observed since 

1994. Barrier net effectiveness for bloater chub was 92.3%, much better 

than most other years. 

As in recent years, very few rainbow smelt (2) were collected during 

2010 monitoring. 

Non-target fish totaled 19 species in 2010 and made up 27.9% of the 

total gill net catch. The total of 1,071 is up only slightly from record 

low levels the past three years and but consistent with numbers observed 

since 2000. The spottail shiner was again the most abundant non-target 

species (279). The barrier net effectiveness for non-target species in 

2010 was 63.6%. 

In 2003 the exotic, invasive round goby was observed for the first time, 

when 13 were collected. The 2010 catch of round goby (160) was the 

third most abundant of non-target species. This was less than the 2008 

peak catch of 235, but if fish less than 4 inches are included (an 

additional 255 collected in 2010) it surpasses that mark. Round goby 

are native to the Black and Caspian Seas and were first discovered in the 

United States in 1990 in the St. Clair River, which connects Lake Huron 

with Lake St. Clair. Round goby are currently found in all of the Great 

Lakes and many tributary rivers. 

The FERC Settlement Agreement stipulates the Licensee's Barrier Net 

Performance Standards. They are 80% effectiveness for game fish 

(salmonids and yellow perch combined) over five inches in total length, 

and 85% effectiveness for large forage fish (alewife and smelt 

combined) over five inches in total length. In 2010, game fish 
 24

effectiveness was 79% and large forage fish effectiveness was 94%. 

Prior to the September 24-26 net breach, barrier net effectiveness was 

86% for game fish. The influx of fish inside the barrier net after the 

breach reduced effectiveness to 77%. Overall barrier net effectiveness 

increased to 79% with the next week’s sample. Unfortunately, severe 

weather prevented additional sampling for the remainder of the season. 

In 1997, the compensation methodology was modified to include 4 to 5 

inch alewife in acknowledgement of the barrier net’s effectiveness for 

this portion of the alewife population. For 2010, 4 to 5 inch alewife 

effectiveness was 82.0%. In 2004, retroactive to 2002, the game fish 

category for compensation purposes was expanded to include walleye 

over five inches in length. For 2010, the effectiveness for game fish 

including walleye was 80.4%. 

C. Comparison of 1989-2010 Results 

The 89.3% overall effectiveness for target species in 2010 confirms the 

barrier net’s effectiveness in protecting fish. Figure IV-1 illustrates that 

net design improvements initiated in 1991 and continued optimization of 

barrier net effectiveness measures have allowed the consistent 

attainment of fish protection goals. Figure IV-2 illustrates that barrier 

net effectiveness for target species, non-target species, game fish and 

large forage fish has been both excellent and consistent for the last 

twenty years.

The 2010 large forage fish (alewife and smelt > 5 inches) effectiveness 

of 94.5% is consistent with historical performance. As in the past, the 

2010 large forage collection was comprised almost entirely of large 

alewife; only 2 rainbow smelt were observed. The catch of 1,677 large 

alewife is substantially smaller that the previous historical minimum of 

3,099 in 2007. The low alewife numbers in 2010 may have resulted in 

part from the heavy bio-fouling of gill nets by algae of the genus 
 25

Cladophera, which was abundant in the lake this year. In addition, early 

arrival and persistence of water temperatures warmer than preferred by 

alewives1 may also have played a role in their scarcity. The 2010 

collection of 4 to 5 inch alewife (537) was also among the smallest but 

above the record low recorded in 2008 (307). These younger fish have 

typically shown more dramatic fluctuations in catch numbers reflecting 

strong year class survivorship. Viewing the combined catch of all 

alewives greater than 4 inches over the historical long-term (Figure IV3) shows numbers have been in steady decline since 2001. The alewife 

decline documented at Ludington since 2001 is consistent with a lakewide decline in this species documented over the same time period in 

recently published USGS2 survey data. 

The 77.4% barrier net effectiveness for large salmonids (> 5-inches) 

during 2010 compares well with the long term average of 79.6% since 

1991. Sampling immediately after the net breach in late September, 

dropped salmonid effectiveness nearly 10% from 84.3% to 74.7%. The 

489 salmonids > 5-inches collected during 2010 is historically among 

the lowest (Figure IV-4), despite the largest weekly collection of lake 

trout on record (151) in early October. Since 2007, when the large 

salmonid catch was at its lowest, lake trout have displaced the Chinook 

salmon as the most abundant salmonid. Lake trout were again the most 

numerous in 2010 (279) but well below the collections of over 400 fish 

in 2008 and 2009. An historic low number of Chinook salmon were 

collected in 2010 (61), which is consistent with a general decreasing 

trend observed in recent years and parallels their major prey species 

alewife. However, this small collection is in part due to reduced 

sampling because of unsafe weather conditions and a scheduled plant 

outage. During the last 2 weeks of August and throughout September 

 

1 Fish Respose to Climate Change – technical Appendix to Confronting Climate Change in the Great Lakes 

region; 2003. http://www.ucsusa.org/greatlakes/pdf/fish_responses.pdf 

2 Madenjian et. al., 2010 - Status and Trends in Prey Fish Populations 2008. USGS report to the GLFC 

Lake Michigan Committee Meeting, March 26 2010. 

http://www.glsc.usgs.gov/_files/reports/2009LakeMichiganPreyfish.pdf 
 26

(peak period of salmon migration) only 3 overnight gill net sets were 

obtained compared to an annual average of 8 for the past 5-years 

(sampling an additional night during the 3 week outage was conducted 

for State Settlement Agreement purposes and those results are reported 

separately below). In addition, warmer water temperatures recorded 

during sampling over this period are believed to have kept salmon 

populations offshore. The 2010 catch of brown trout was the second 

largest on record (124) behind the 152 collected last year. The large 

majority of browns however, were collected during spring. Catches of 

coho salmon (21) and steelhead (4) were consistent with prior years. 

The 2010 effectiveness for yellow perch > 5-inches was 100.0% 

compared to an average of 92.5% since net improvements were 

implemented in 1994(1). The number collected in 2010 (24) ends a 

modest increase seen in collections over the past 4 years and resembles 

those from catches during 2000 to 2005. As illustrated in Figure IV-4, 

the abundance of yellow perch ≥ 5-inches and, as a consequence, its 

composition of the game fish catch (salmonids and yellow perch > 5-

inches) has markedly declined from the period prior to 1997. The FERC 

standard of 80% effectiveness for game fish was established in 1996 

when the historical annual composition ranged from 75% to 88% yellow 

perch (1991-1995). Barrier net effectiveness for salmonids during that 

time ranged from 68% to 85% with an average of 77%, similar to 2010 

(79%). Since 2000, yellow perch annual composition of game fish has 

ranged from 7% to 21% with an average of only 10%. Clearly this shift 

in game fish composition reflects the decrease in barrier net 

effectiveness for game fish over time illustrated in Figure IV-2. 

However, the true game fish performance relative to species 

composition has remained unchanged. 

Non-target species represented 27.9% of the total catch in 2010. This is 

 

(1) Placement of barrier net anchors in the lake bottom, better anchor to net bottom line connections, rock removal activities, and 

reinforcement of the net lead line/border rope connections in known rocky areas have resulted in an improved bottom seal. 
 27

much larger than the long term average of 15.6% and second only to 

1999 when a large spottail shiner collection coincided with a small 

alewife collection. The magnitude of the catch (1,071) was similar to 

catches over the past several years despite limited sampling and gill nets 

impaired by algae bio-fouling. The number of different species (19) is 

the most since 2003 and likely the result of the prevalence of warmer 

than usual water temperatures. The effectiveness for non-target species 

in 2010 was 63.6% compared to 66.7% last year and a long term 

average of 70.0%. Non-target were the most abundant fish collected 

during sampling immediately after the barrier net breach, led by 60 of 

77 gizzard shad found inside the barrier net. Spottail shiner, a small 

cylindrical species capable of passing through the barrier net, was the 

most abundant non-target species collected during 2010 (26%), 

followed by freshwater drum (17%), and round goby (15%). 

Walleye made up 8% of non-target species with 86 fish. Though this is 

smaller than the average catch over the past five years (131), it was the 

third most abundant sport fish, behind lake trout and brown trout. This 

is consistent with results from the past several years and for this reason 

it has been included when calculating game fish effectiveness applied 

when determining compensation for unavoidable fish losses since 2002. 

 The 2010 barrier net effectiveness for walleye (all > 5-inches) was 

89.7% compared to an average of 94.4% effectiveness since 1993. 

The exotic invasive round goby catch was first observed in 2003 with a 

collection of 13 fish. Annual collections ranged between 43 and 95 

during the period 2004 to 2007. The peak catch of 235 in 2008 is in 

agreement with published 2008 lake wide USGS(1) survey data. The 

2009 collection dropped to 117 fish and this year it is back up to 160. 

Notable is the 2010 catch of round goby < 4.0”. The 255 fish is among 

the largest collections of any species < 4.0” over the past several years. 

 

(1) Madenjian et. al., 2010 - Status and Trends in Prey Fish Populations 2009. USGS report to the GLFC 

Lake Michigan Committee Meeting, March 26 2010. 
 28

Five lake sturgeon, a species listed as threatened by the State of 

Michigan, were collected during 2010 monitoring. At the request of the 

SAT, the licensees began the USFWS PIT (Passive Integrated 

Transponder) tagging protocol for lake sturgeon catches in 2010. Two 

of the five lake sturgeon captured had been previously PIT tagged. 

Notable, one lake sturgeon was found inside the barrier net, only the 

third such occurrence since monitoring began in 1989. Other instances 

were in 2001 and 2008. All lake sturgeon caught this year were released 

in good condition outside the barrier net. 

The 2010 monitoring program collection of 3,838 fish greater than or 

equal to 4 inches in length is the smallest recorded (Figure IV-3). In 

comparison, approximately 5,000 to 20,000 fish were collected in the 

years between 2001 and 2009. During 1997-2001 the average annual 

fish collection was nearly 30,000 fish, and from 1991 through 1996 the 

average annual catch was 49,923 fish. 

During the September 8th to September 24th outage to support FERCmandated repairs, fish were collected at the monitoring stations outside 

the barrier net for biological scaling purposes. This is in keeping with 

the terms of a December, 2004 agreement among the parties of the State 

Settlement Agreement. One overnight net set during the three week 

outage (unsafe weather precluded further sampling) resulted in the 

following collections: 38 salmonids, 3 yellow perch, 8 walleye, and 35 

fish from non-target species. 

The 1991-2010 results demonstrate consistent, effective barrier net 

performance. The lessons learned each year have helped to make design 

enhancements and to improve inspection and maintenance practices. These 

experiences have resulted in highly effective performance of the barrier net 

that is expected to be sustainable over time. 
 29

V. 2010 BARRIER NET PROGRAM

A. Actions to Maintain or Improve Barrier Net Design and Performance 

The barrier net incorporates design enhancements that have proved 

successful over the past several years. The 2010 barrier net was 

constructed of net panels acquired between 2004 and 2009. As a result 

of its performance, wholesale replacement is not planned for 2011. A 

number of replacement panels will incorporate the modified drop lead 

line design and single larger floats in an attempt to reduce net wear, 

enhance net performance, and minimize net submergence. In addition, 

the new panels will come with Amsteel Blue border and riser lines, 

which are substantially stronger than previous materials and are 

currently used when making repairs. 

To help maintain net performance achieved in recent years, the practices 

of rock removal in problem areas and immediate follow-up inspections 

after storms will be continued. Net anchorage will be adjusted, replaced 

or added as needed to improve bottom seal. Net inspections and 

maintenance will continue to be conducted on an intensive basis. 

B. Effectiveness Monitoring 

The Licensees will conduct effectiveness monitoring in 2011 in the 

same manner as was conducted in 2010 (see Exhibit A for details). The 

2011 program will have two objectives: 

(1) monitor the fish populations inside and outside the barrier 

net utilizing an index(1) to species and sizes and 

(2) continue the quality control program initiated in 1993.

 

(1)Index = the difference in relative abundance between outside catch and inside catch. 
FIG III-1
Figure IV-1 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project

Gill Net Effectiveness Monitoring

31.9

41.2

87.8

82.4

80.4

90.6

95.6 95.7 95.8 96.3 96.4

86.5

96.5

90.9

93.9 93.9

92.1

78.

0.0

10.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0

100.0

Target Species

% EFFECTIVENESS

1989 1991995 1992001 2002007 200
Figure IV-2 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project

Gill Net Effectiveness Monitoring

0.00

10.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.0070.0080.0090.00

100.00

Game fish >5" Large Forage >5" Target 

% EFFECTIVENESS

1991 1996 2001 2006 
Figure IV-3 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project

Gill Net Effectiveness Monitoring

0

5,000

10,00015,00020,00025,00030,00035,00040,00045,00050,00055,00060,00065,00070,000

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

200

Total Catch
Figure IV - 4 

Ludington Pumped Storage Project

Gill Net Effectiveness Monitoring

9495

8082 7995

3805

2482

3037

875

193

744

68 43 17 24 36 23 137 1

1561

1136 1096 1236

843

1497 1342

654

858 824

560 604 510

828

628

463 

0

1,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,0009,000

10,000

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2

Total number of fish caught

Perch > 5"Salmonids > 
REPORT OF THE LUDINGTON BARRIER NET 

EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM 

2010 

SUBMITTED TO: 

CONSUMERS ENERGY COMPANY 

& 

THE DETROIT EDISON COMPANY 

BY: 

HDR Michigan, Inc. 

5405 Data Court 

Ann Arbor, MI 48108-8949 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

LIST OF TABLES 

LIST OF FIGURES 

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................. 1 

2.0 INTRODUCTION....................................................................................... 2 

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS....................................................................... 3 

3.1 Lake Michigan Monitoring.......................................................................... 4 

3.2 Data Analysis.......................................................................................... 7 

3.2.1 Barrier Net Effectiveness.......................................................................... 8 

3.2.2 Statistical Analyses................................................................................. 9 

3.2.3 Fish Length Analyses.............................................................................. 9 

4.0 BARRIER NET MONITORING RESULTS......................................................... 9 

 4.1 Total Catch and Species Composition............................................................. 10 

4.2 Barrier Net Effectiveness Results.................................................................. 11 

4.2.1 Monthly Catch Results and Barrier Net Effectiveness........................................ 13 

4.2.2 Target Species Effectiveness..................................................................... 14 

4.2.3 FERC Net Performance Standards............................................................... 15 

4.2.4 Compensation for Unavoidable Fish Loses..................................................... 16 

4.3 Catch and Water Temperature Relationships..................................................... 16 

4.4 Catch Depth Distribution............................................................................ 17 

4.5 Small Fish Catch Summary.......................................................................... 18 

4.6 Fish Length Data Collection Results............................................................... 18 

4.7 Recaptured/Tagged Fish Summary.................................................................. 19 

5.0 DISCUSSION.............................................................................................. 19 

REFERENCES 

TABLES 

FIGURES 

APPENDIX A- GILL NET USE SUMMARIES 

APPENDIX B- BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 

 PARIED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS 

APPENDIX C- GILL NET DAILY CATCH SUMMARIES 

APPENDIX D- WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARIES 

APPENDIX E- MONTHLY DEPTH CATCH SUMMARIES 

APPENDIX F- MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT 
LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE 4.0-1 LAKE MICHIGAN NETTING DATES 

TABLE 4.0-2 GILL NETTING SET AND LIFT WATER TEMPERATURES 

TABLE 4.1-1 LIST OF SPECIES COLLECTED 

TABLE 4.1-2 LOCATIONAL CATCH DISTRIBUTION 

TABLE 4.1-3 NONTARGET SPECIES FISH CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS 

TABLE 4.2-1 MONTHLY GILL NET CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY 

TABLE 4.2-2 PAIRED STATION MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION DATA 

TABLE 4.2-3 MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION DATA - ALL PAIRED STATIONS 

TABLE 4.2-4 MONTHLY BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 

TABLE 4.2-5 GAME FISH AND LARGE FORAGE FISH CATCH 

AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY 

TABLE 4.2-7 MONTHLY COLLECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FISH DAMAGE 

 COMPENSATION DETERMINANTS 

TABLE 4.2-6 GAME FISH (INCLUDING WALLEYE), LARGE FORAGE FISH, AND 4-5” 

 ALEWIFE CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY 

TABLE 4.4-1 CATCH DEPTH DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY 

TABLE 4.5-1 SMALL FISH CATCH SUMMARY 
 

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 3.1-1 PLANT LAYOUT AND GILL NET SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS 

FIGURE 4.1-1 SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITON, OUTSIDE STATIONS 

FIGURE 4.1-2 NONTARGET SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITION, OUTSIDE STATIONS 

FIGURE 4.1-3 SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITION, INSIDE STATIONS 

FIGURE 4.2-1 CUMULATIVE WEEKLY BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 

FIGURE 4.2-2 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, TARGET AND NONTARGET SPECIES FISH 

FIGURE 4.2-3 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, TOTAL CATCH 

FIGURE 4.2-4 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, SALMONIDS 

FIGURE 4.2-5 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, YELLOW PERCH SIZE CLASSES 

FIGURE 4.2-6 WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS, ALEWIFE SIZE CLASSES 

FIGURE 4.2-7 GAME FISH CATCH IN GILL NETS FISHED OUTSIDE THE LUDINGTON 

 BARRIER NET 

FIGURE 4.2-8 WALLEYE CATCH IN GILL NETS FISHED OUTSIDE THE LUDINGTON 

 BARRIER NET 

FIGURE 4.3-1 SALMONID SPECIES ABUNDANCE vs. MEAN SET WATER 

 TEMPERATURE 

FIGURE 4.3-2 YELLOW PERCH AND NONTARGET SPECIES FISH ABUNDANCE vs. 

MEAN SET WATER TEMPERATURE 
FIGURE 4.3-3 ALEWIFE AND ALL FISH ABUNDANCE vs. MEAN SET WATER 

TEMPERATURE 

FIGURE 4.6-1 LENGTH FREQUENCY - 4 TO 5 INCH ALEWIFE 

FIGURE 4.6-2 LENGTH FREQUENCY - 4 TO 5 INCH YELLOW PERCH 

FIGURE 5.0-1 WEEKLY CATCH AND BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 
HDR/LMS 1

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

ANNUAL REPORT

2010

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The 2010 study was the twenty-second year of a program evaluating a 

seasonal barrier net at the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. 

2. The 2010 barrier net effectiveness1

 monitoring program began April 15 

and continued through October 15. 

3. Barrier net installation was completed on April 6. The barrier net was 

breached for removal on October 16. Removal was completed on 

November 1. 

4. The evaluation of barrier net effectiveness was based on analyses of; 

(a) comparisons of the cumulative number of fish collected inside and 

outside the barrier net, and (b) comparisons of weekly data from paired 

(inside/outside) sampling stations. 

5. Barrier net performance standards are 80% for game fish (salmonids 

and yellow perch combined) over five inches in total length and 85% 

for large forage fish (alewife and rainbow smelt combined) over five 

inches in total length. Game fish effectiveness was 78.7% and large 

forage fish effectiveness was 94.5%. 

6. Alewife was the most abundant species collected, comprising 57.7% of 

the total catch. Barrier net effectiveness was calculated at 94.5% for 

alewife greater than or equal to 5.0 inches in total length and 82.0% for 

4-5 inch alewife. 

7. Cumulative catch barrier net effectiveness estimates for target species 

and non-target species fish were calculated at 89.3% and 63.6% 

respectively. 

8. As in 1991-2009, the 2010 data demonstrate that the barrier net 

effectively excludes the majority of fish susceptible to collection by the 

sampling gill nets in the vicinity of the Ludington Pumped Storage 

Project for the monitoring period. 

9. Compensation for unavoidable fish losses is calculated using barrier net 

effectiveness estimates for large forage fish, game fish (defined as 

 

1

 Effectiveness indices are reported for fish greater than or equal to 4.0 inches in total length that were 

susceptible to capture by the gill nets. 
HDR/LMS 2

salmonids, yellow perch and walleye over five inches in total length) 

and 4-5 inch alewife. In 2010, effectiveness estimates for 

compensation calculations are 94.5% for large forage fish, 80.4% for 

game fish and 82.0% for 4-5 inch alewife. 

 

2.0 INTRODUCTION 

On January 23, 1996, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) 

issued an Order approving the Licensees’ Offer of Settlement. The Settlement 

Agreement identifies, among other things, the requirement for continued installation 

and operation of a seasonal barrier net. The 2010 estimates of barrier net performance 

are provided in this report. 

In 2010, HDR Michigan, Inc. was contracted by Consumers Energy Company 

(CECO) and The Detroit Edison Company (DECO) to conduct a monitoring program 

to evaluate the effectiveness of the Ludington Pumped Storage Project (LPSP) barrier 

net as a deterrent to fish passage. This program was the twenty-second consecutive 

year of study of the barrier net at the LPSP. The specific objectives of the 2010 

program were; (a) to monitor the fish populations inside and immediately outside of 

the barrier net utilizing an index to determine the effectiveness for species and sizes, 

and (b) to implement a rigorous quality control program. 

The 2010 effectiveness monitoring program began on April 15 and continued 

through October 15, interrupted by a suspension from September 8 to September 24 

for a reservoir outage. The sampling program consists of weekly gill net sets at eight 

(8) locations in Lake Michigan. Sampling results compare collections of fish taken 

from inside the barrier net with those from outside to estimate barrier net 

effectiveness. This document summarizes the results of the 2010 monitoring program. 

A comprehensive quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) program was 

conducted to document compliance with barrier net effectiveness monitoring 

commitments. As part of this program an independent auditor (NTH Consultants Ltd) 

conducted an environmental audit in 2010 to document adherence to the QA/QC 

procedures and work scope. A total of 170 program requirements were assessed with 

one finding: a significant 0.6 degree Celsius bias in the primary thermistor. A 

corrective action plan was implemented involving the manufacturers recommended 
HDR/LMS 3

servicing of the instrument, correction of field data, and revision of QA/QC 

procedures. All other QA/QC procedures were adhered to throughout the 2010 

barrier net monitoring program and certifications of compliance were provided weekly 

and monthly.

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 

In accordance with strict QA/QC procedures, the Cadillac District Office of the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) agreed to an agency notification 

procedure prior to the commencement of monitoring, received weekly details of all 

completed sampling activities and was provided notification in writing upon 

completion of annual monitoring. 

The barrier net installation began on March 28, 2010 and was completed on 

April 6. Sampling to assess barrier net effectiveness2

 was initiated on April 15. 

Effectiveness monitoring was scheduled twice per week, Monday and Tuesday, unless 

prohibited by weather or equipment problems. Postponed sampling was conducted 

later in the same study week, as soon as conditions allowed. No more than two (2) 

dates were sampled in a single study week to assess the effectiveness of the barrier 

net. 

Nine fish species of various size groups are identified as the target species to 

be used as indicators of the effectiveness of the barrier net. The following is a list of 

the target species and size groups for which numerical frequencies are recorded. 

TARGET SPECIES 

Common Name Scientific Name Size Groups 

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha 4-5” 5-12” 12-20” 20” 

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch 4-5” 5-12” 12” 

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush 4-5” 5-12” 12” 

Rainbow trout (steelhead) Oncorhynchus mykiss 4-5” 5-12” 12” 

Brown trout Salmo trutta 4-5” 5-12” 12” 

Yellow perch Perca flavescens 4-5” 5” 

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax 4-5” 5” 

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus 4-5” 5” 

Bloater chub Coregonus hoyi 4-5” 5” 

 

2

 All sampling dates reflect the date on which the nets were set. 
HDR/LMS 4

For discussion purposes, the various size groups of a particular species and 

related species (e.g., salmonids) are often discussed collectively. Fish less than 4.0 

inches long are discussed separately. 

Non-target fish species (all species not in the target group) are treated as a 

group throughout this document, unless the abundance or behavior of one of the 

species of the group warrants individual discussion. 

The FERC Settlement Agreement identifies barrier net performance standards 

of 80% effectiveness for game fish (salmonids and yellow perch combined) over five 

inches in total length and 85% effectiveness for large forage fish (alewife and rainbow 

smelt combined) over five inches in total length. The cumulative barrier net 

effectiveness for large forage fish, game fish (defined as salmonids, yellow perch and 

walleye over five inches in length) and 4-5 inch alewife, are used to calculate 

compensation for unavoidable fish losses resulting from LPSP operation. 

The effectiveness of the barrier net was determined by comparing gill net 

catch data from eight sampling stations located inside and outside the barrier. The 

difference between inside station and outside station catch abundance and species 

composition is attributed to the presence of the barrier net. 

3.1 LAKE MICHIGAN MONITORING

 Effectiveness monitoring was conducted at four stations inside and four 

stations outside the barrier net (Figure 3.1-1). Gill nets were fished overnight to 

provide the data used to estimate the relative fish abundance and species composition. 

These abundance and composition data were evaluated to measure the success of the 

barrier net as a deterrent to fish passage. 

Fifteen 24-foot deep and thirteen 6-foot deep gill nets were available for use 

throughout the study. Four at each depth were scheduled for use each study day. 

Each gill net consists of eleven 30-foot long panels of the following stretch mesh 

sizes: 1.0 inch, 1.5 inch, 2.0 inch, 2.5 inch, 2.75 inch, 3.0 inch, 4.0 inch, 4.5 inch, 5.0 

inch, 6.0 inch and 7.0 inch. The gill nets fished at sampling stations l, 2, 3 and 4 

(Figure 3. 1 -1) were 6-foot deep bottom gill nets set obliquely to the shoreline in 

approximately six feet of water. The 24-foot deep gill nets used at sampling stations 
HDR/LMS 5

5, 6, 7 and 8 were set obliquely to the shoreline at approximately the 24-foot lake 

bottom contour. Barring extremely poor weather or unusual circumstances, gill nets 

were set at or near dusk and retrieved on the following morning at or near sunrise, 

usually in the same order. 

All the gill nets used in the study were measured to assure compliance with net 

fabrication specifications. A numbered float uniquely identified each gill net. The gill 

net used each day at each sampling station was arbitrarily selected from the stock of 

in-service nets. A list describing which gill nets were used at each station during each 

sampling occasion is presented in Appendix A-1. Appendix A-2 summarizes how 

many times each gill net was used at each station. Six 24-foot deep nets and eleven 6-

foot deep nets were utilized during 2010 effectiveness monitoring. 

 The study design required that equivalent gill nets (length, depth and mesh 

sizes) be fished for equal periods (equal effort) at paired (in-out) stations to permit 

comparison of the inside and outside catches. 

The crew chief approved all gill nets before use. Gill nets fouled with algae 

were cleaned before reuse. Slightly damaged gill nets were often immediately 

repaired. Nets with major damage were removed from service and either repaired or 

destroyed. Gill net repairs were documented in a net repair logbook. 

Each of the four gill net stations inside the barrier net was paired with a gill net 

station outside the barrier net at a corresponding depth. By pairing the sample 

stations, the variables influencing catch abundance and composition were minimized, 

leaving the presence of the barrier net as the primary factor influencing catch statistics 

of the gill net collections (BWEC 1990). The effectiveness of the barrier net could 

then be assessed on either a paired station or a cumulative catch basis. These 

evaluation methods are discussed in Section 3.2. 

A literature review of previous studies at the Ludington site and a review of 

gill net data collected prior to the installation of the barrier net for the 1990 season 

support the study premise that sampling stations inside and outside the barrier net are 

comparable (BWEC 1990). Therefore, it is assumed that the catch abundance and 

composition at the outside gill net stations (the control group) represent the abundance 

and composition expected at the inside gill net stations (the experimental or treatment 
HDR/LMS 6

group) without the barrier net. Thus, in the data analyses for this report, the catch 

statistics from the inside stations were compared to those obtained from the outside 

stations and hypothesis testing involved the use of paired observations. 

Water temperature was recorded mid-depth at each gill net station during net 

setting and lifting with an YSI meter Model 33 or Model 55. The meters used to 

obtain water temperature data were checked each week against a standard at 

approximately 0, 10, and 20 degrees centigrade and a record is maintained of these 

checks. (The 2010 audit revealed the checks were consistently less than the standard 

readings and analysis of the checks over the 2010 season revealed a significant bias of 

-0.6 degrees with no significant difference from unity or no time trend. The internal 

precision of the instruments is 0.2 degrees and there is no correction offset (calibration 

is not possible). Therefore the field water temperature data were adjusted by the 

addition of 0.6 degrees and the instrument was sent to YSI for servicing.) At the 

shoreline stations temperatures were collected three feet below the water surface. At 

the offshore stations temperatures were collected twelve feet below the water surface. 

The mean of water temperatures collected at outside stations during gill net sets was 

used to correlate water temperatures to fish abundance. Individual water temperatures 

collected at each station during each gill net set and lift were used to characterize 

seasonal water temperatures near the LPSP. 

Seasonal abundance and species composition analyses were based upon only 

the outside catch data. Catch composition and catch distribution were obtained by 

collecting the following data from each station: 

 The number individuals within each size group for each species. For the 24-

foot stations, these tallies were further subdivided according to depth, the 

categories being; surface (0-8 ft.), mid-depth (8-16 ft.), or bottom (16-24 

ft.). 

 The total length, measured to the nearest 1⁄2 inch, of all fish less than 4.0 

inches. 

 The total lengths, measured to the nearest 1⁄2 inch, of all target species fish in 

the 4-5 inch size group or a sub-sample of up to 20 individual fish from 

each target species per net if more than 20 of these fish were collected in a 
HDR/LMS 7

net. Fish classified as 4.0 inches measure 4.0-4.25 inches, fish classified as 

4.5 inches measure 4.26-4.75 inches and fish classified as 5.0 inches 

measure 4.76-5.0 inches. 

Fish that either fell out of the gill net once in the boat or that were released 

alive were recorded. Fish that were observed falling out of a specific depth of the net 

were assigned that category. If depth of net was not observed, fish were assigned to a 

net depth based on the distribution of the remaining catch. 

3.2 DATA ANALYSES

The data collected from the gill nets fished at locations outside the barrier net 

(stations l, 4, 5 and 8) represent the fish population as it would occur near the LPSP if 

the barrier net was not in place. Therefore, data analyses that describe species 

abundance, species composition, time of occurrence and the effect of environmental 

variables (e.g., water temperature) were performed using data collected from only the 

outside sample stations. 

The fishery data collected from the barrier net effectiveness monitoring 

program were analyzed to determine the effectiveness of the barrier net in deterring 

fish passage into the enclosed area. Descriptive statistics were used to standardize the 

paired station data for presentation and analysis. Analytical statistics were applied to 

the data to establish the statistical validity of detected differences between the inside 

and the outside catches. 

Several permutations of descriptive analyses were undertaken to provide 

information on fish spatial distribution. For each component of the study, the data 

were summarized to reflect station by station abundance for each target group and for 

each species and size group. Each group or species was then compared to the entire 

net catch to obtain the total species composition of the net catches. A discussion of 

the statistical tests performed and the calculations made to derive the barrier net 

effectiveness indices are presented in Section 3.2.1. 
HDR/LMS 8

3.2.1 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 

Barrier net effectiveness calculations were performed using two methods. The 

method used to provide the weekly and monthly effectiveness calculations in 2010 

was the cumulative method. This method compares the total number of fish collected 

in a given period of time (daily, weekly, monthly, year-to-date) from all outside gill 

net samples to the total number of fish from the inside samples in the same period of 

time. Effectiveness is reported as a percentage, with 100% being fully effective, and 

is calculated using the following function: 

 Total Outside Catch-Total Inside Catch x 100 = Percent Effectiveness 

 Total Outside Catch 

Catch can represent all fish caught, or can be broken down by species, size 

groups, etc. For all effectiveness calculations, fish less than 4.0 inches in total length 

were omitted. 

A second method of calculating the effectiveness of the barrier net is also 

incorporated into this report. For this method, data from station pairs 1&2, 3&4, 5&6, 

7&8, were analyzed by calculating the outside net’s proportion of the pair’s total 

catch, then subtracting the inside net’s proportion of the total for the pair, to produce 

the difference in proportion. The function for this calculation is: 

 Outside Station Catch - Inside Station Catch = Difference in Proportion 

Station Pair Total Catch Station Pair Total Catch 

By definition the results of this function will express the effectiveness in the 

range of -1.0 to +1.0. A difference of -1.0 indicates 100% of the fish were caught 

inside the barrier net, while a +1.0 indicates 100% of the fish were caught outside the 

barrier net. A zero (0) would indicate equal numbers of fish were caught outside and 

inside the barrier net. For each gill net station pair, values for the difference in 

proportion were calculated for each target species and size group (e.g. Chinook 

salmon > 4-5 inches) as well as for total target species and total non-target species. To 
HDR/LMS 9

minimize missing data and maximize data integrity, weekly data (both sampling days) 

were summed for each station prior to the difference in proportion calculations. 

Means of these weekly calculations are not weighted by the corresponding catch and 

thus are not necessarily consistent with the cumulative net effectiveness values. 

 

3.2.2 STATISTICAL ANALYSES 

Means of difference in proportion calculations were tested against the null 

hypothesis that the two nets had equal catches (the difference in proportion is zero) 

using a one-tailed Student’s t-test. A maximum sample size of 80 (4 pairs of nets for 

20 weeks: 4x20 = 80) was possible for the hypothesis test. If a station pair did not 

catch a species or size group during a sampling week, data were considered missing. 

The T-test results provide the probability that we reject the null hypothesis (the barrier 

net did not influence the catch) when it is true. If the generated probability (p) is ≤ .05 

for the one-tailed test, the test is significant at a 95% confidence level. The t-test 

calculations are listed in Appendix B. 

3.2.3 FISH LENGTH ANALYSES 

Length data were collected from target species and also from any species less 

than 4.0 inches in length. Selected size classes of target species have been established 

to serve as indicators of the effectiveness of the barrier net. Accordingly, these size 

groups may be independently analyzed. 

4.0 BARRIER NET MONITORING RESULTS 

The barrier net monitoring program has remained essentially unchanged since 

the first year of study in 1989. Each year, effectiveness monitoring is scheduled to 

begin no sooner than April 15th and concludes no later than October 15th. In 2010, 27 

weeks of monitoring were possible. An absence of plant operating conditions during a 

reservoir outage September 8 to September 24 precluded effectiveness monitoring 

during weeks 22, 23, and 24. Weeks 1, 17, 19, and 27 were not sampled due to unsafe 

boating conditions. Adverse weather conditions were also responsible for a missed 

sample day in April (week 3), May (week 4), June (week 11), August (week 20), and 
HDR/LMS 10

twice during September (weeks 21 and 25). In summary, effectiveness monitoring 

was conducted on 34 of the 54 scheduled sampling dates from April 15 to October 15 

(Table 4.0-1). 

Water temperatures were recorded at each station during the set and lift of each 

net. All mid-depth temperatures recorded during the 2010 study are presented in 

Table 4.0-2. Water temperatures in 2010 started out as typical in the lower to mid 40s 

through April then upper 40s to mid 50s through mid June. On June 21 water 

temperatures in the 60s were recorded at all stations and they rose rapidly over the 

next two weeks reaching 70s at all stations. Record warm gill net set water 

temperatures were recorded on six of the next seven collection dates until late 

September. Normal water temperatures were recorded during the two samples taken in 

October (mid 40s to low 50s). 

4.1 TOTAL CATCH AND SPECIES COMPOSITION 

Twenty eight different fish species were collected during the 2010 monitoring 

(Table 4.1-1). Although this is the largest diversity in species since 2003, they 

composed a record low total of 3,838 fish greater than or equal to four inches in total 

length collected both inside and outside the barrier net. The catch is summarized by 

each target species size group and the non-target species fish combined for each 

sample station in Table 4.1-2. Daily and weekly catch summaries were reported each 

week and are presented in Appendices C and D, respectively. The target species catch 

included an historical low 2,214 alewife. The 57.7% of total catch represented by 

alewife is only greater than collections in 1989, 1992, and 1999 when yellow perch 

and spottail shiner were abundant. Other target species total collections numbered 

279 lake trout (7.3%), 124 brown trout (3.2%), a record low 62 Chinook salmon 

(1.6%), 47 yellow perch (1.2 %), 21 coho salmon (0.5%), 14 bloater chub (0.4%), 4 

steelhead (0.1%), and 2 rainbow smelt (<0.1%). The non-target species total 

collection was 1071 fish (27.9 % of the total catch). Spottail shiner comprised 26.1% 

of the total non-target catch while freshwater drum, round goby, round whitefish and 

gizzard shad comprised 16.5%, 14.9%, 11.4% and 8.3% respectively (Table 4.1-3). 
HDR/LMS 11

Other significant non-target species collections were; walleye (8.0%), redhorse spp. 

(6.4%) and white sucker (3.9%). 

The fish community in the vicinity of the LPSP is best represented by outside 

station catch data. No species was collected solely from the inside of the barrier net. 

Figure 4.1-1 depicts the percent species composition of the outside station gill net 

catches. Alewife accounted for 62.3% with the 4-5 inch and >5 inch categories 

representing 13.9% and 48.4%, respectively. This is historically among the smallest 

alewife contributions. Salmonids (five species combined) comprised a record 12.1% 

of the outside catch due to the relatively small catches of alewife. Yellow perch 

(1.2%) and bloater chub (0.4%) were scarce. Non-target species, with the exception of 

2 rainbow smelt, made up the remaining 24% of the outside catch. Figure 4.1-2 

provides the relative abundance of non-target species in the outside catch. Nine of the 

19 non-target species collected accounted for over 95% of these fish, led by freshwater 

drum (22.2%), spottail shiner (19.2%), and round goby (16.1%). 

 The contribution of alewife to the total catch inside the barrier net was 

similarly much lower than normal with greater than five inch alewife comprising 

15.9% and 4-5 inch alewife accounted for 14.8% (Figure 4.1-3). Salmonids (5 

species) made up 16.4% of the inside catch. Non-target fish accounted for 51.6% of 

the inside catch with spottail shiner and gizzard shad comprising 23.3% and 11.2%, 

respectively. 

4.2 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS RESULTS

The effectiveness of the Ludington barrier net is based upon the difference in 

the gill net catches inside the barrier net from the gill net catches outside the barrier 

net as described in Section 3.2.1 of this report. Gill net catches are reported as the 

number of fish caught per one night set. During the study period 272 gill net sets met 

study design requirements of equivalent nets fished for equal periods at paired stations 

(Table 4.0-1). 

The 2010 barrier net effectiveness for each target species size group is 

summarized on the right margin of Table 4.2-1. Effectiveness for combined target 
HDR/LMS 12

species and non-target species is also presented. For the nine target species combined 

across all size groups (see Section 3.0) cumulative effectiveness was 89.3%. 

The barrier net was 63.6% effective at excluding non-target species in 2010. 

In order of abundance (outside the barrier only), the effectiveness for non-target fish 

species was as follows; spottail shiner 14.6%, freshwater drum 98.3%, round goby 

73.0%, round whitefish 87.0%, gizzard shad 0.0%, walleye 89.7%, redhorse spp. 

74.5%, and white sucker 60.0%. Effectiveness for all non-target species can be found 

in Table 4.1-3. Cumulative weekly barrier net effectiveness for all fish greater than 

four inches, target and non-target fish combined, is presented graphically in Figure 

4.2-1. 

Over the course of the 2010 monitoring program, comparable inside and 

outside data were collected on 34 occasions during 20 weeks from stations 1&2, 3&4, 

5&6, 7&8. Weekly sums for each station were used to generate up to 20 difference in 

proportion values for each station pair, depending upon whether the species/size group 

was collected during the week. Combining all stations resulted in 80 observations (the 

four paired observations per week for 20 weeks). Paired station mean difference in 

proportion effectiveness of the barrier net is presented in Table 4.2-2. Values less than 

or equal to 0.0 indicate the barrier net has no effect on the abundance or distribution of 

fish while a positive value indicates the barrier net does effect abundance and/or 

distribution3

. For 2010 the mean difference in proportion for all species combined 

was .590 at stations 1&2, .597 at stations 3&4, .736 at stations 5&6 and .650 at 

stations 7&8. The descriptive statistics (number of observations, mean, standard 

deviation, minimum and maximum values) associated with these data are presented 

for each target species and size range in Appendix B. The descriptive statistics 

associated with all paired stations combined are presented for each species and size 

range in Table 4.2-3. The mean difference in proportion for all fish collected in 2010 

was calculated to be .643±.3224

 based upon 80 observations. The one-tailed Student's 

t-test revealed this value as significantly greater than 0.0 (P=.0000, Appendix B). 

 

3

 See section 3.2.1 

4

 Mean ± Standard Deviation 
HDR/LMS 13

Target species mean difference in proportion (.705±.348) was also statistically 

significant (P =.0000) as was the value for non-target species (.486±.496, P = .0000). 

The weekly mean differences in proportion, based on up to four paired station 

measures each week, are presented for the target and non-target species in Figure 4.2-

2. The target species effectiveness index was at or above 0.80 in 8 weeks and at or 

above 0.50 in 16 of the 20 weeks sampled. The non-target species index was at least 

0.50 or greater in 11 weeks and was at or above 0.70 during 5 weeks. The only 

negative values (shown during week 25) are associated with sampling just after a two 

day breach in the barrier net that resulted from prolonged severe weather conditions. 

Weekly paired-station difference in proportion effectiveness estimates for the 

total catch (all fish four inches or greater in length) are depicted in Figure 4.2-3. The 

weekly paired-station effectiveness measure was at or above 0.50 for 16 study weeks 

and over 0.80 for 5 of these weeks. 

4.2.1 MONTHLY CATCH RESULTS AND BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 

Catch data were tabulated by species and size groups collected inside and 

outside the barrier net for each month. These data are summarized in Table 4.2-1. 

Monthly cumulative effectiveness estimates were calculated for each size group of 

target species and non-target species as a whole and are presented in Table 4.2-4. 

 Monthly target species effectiveness for May through July, when alewife was 

the dominant species, ranged from 71.4% to 93.9%. Much fewer target fish were 

collected in August due to warm water temperatures and inclement weather precluded 

sampling. The effectiveness dropped to 51.0% in August for target fish. In September, 

a 3-week outage resulted in reduced sampling and notable, one sample date 

(September 27th) occurred immediately after a two-day barrier net breach (repaired on 

the 26th). Numerous salmon were found inside the barrier and as a result, monthly 

target species effectiveness for September was only 8.8%. Salmonids, primarily lake 

trout and brown trout were the prevalent target species during April when 

effectiveness was 95.6%. Lake trout were again the abundant species during October 

and barrier net effectiveness was 80.0%. The September net breach had an even 

greater impact on barrier net effectiveness for non-target species. The subsequent 
HDR/LMS 14

sampling found more non-target fish inside the barrier than outside, primarily gizzard 

shad. 

4.2.2 TARGET SPECIES EFFECTIVENESS 

The final cumulative percent effectiveness estimates for the target species size 

groups are presented in Table 4.2-1. Of the 2,767 target species fish collected during 

the 2010 monitoring, 561 (20.3%) were 4 to 5 inch fish represented by three species; 

alewife (537), yellow perch (23) and Chinook salmon (1). The corresponding barrier 

net effectiveness for these is 82.0%, 64.7%, and 0.0%, respectively. The barrier net 

effectiveness for all 4 to 5 inch target fish combined is 81.1%. 

The 2,206 target species fish greater than 5 inches in total length were 

represented by all nine species and the barrier net was 91.2% effective for them. The 

most abundant species collected in this size category was alewife (1,677 fish) and the 

barrier net was 94.5% effective at excluding them. 

Barrier net effectiveness for salmonids as a group was 77.2% in 2010. 

Effectiveness for the most abundant adult (> 12 inches) salmonids was 90.6% for lake 

trout, 83.1% for brown trout, and 0.0% for Chinook salmon. The barrier net was 

100.0% effective at excluding large yellow perch (> 5-inches). Barrier net 

effectiveness values for other, relatively scarce, target species can be found in Table 

4.2-1.

Hypothesis tests for difference in proportion effectiveness estimates (where 

sample size was sufficient) revealed positive means that were statistically significant 

(p < .05) for all target species size groups except >20 inch Chinook salmon,>12 inch 

coho salmon, 5-12 inch brown trout, and 4-5 inch yellow perch. (Appendix B). 

The weekly mean difference in proportion values for salmonids as a group is 

graphically portrayed in Figure 4.2-4. In 14 of the 20 weeks that salmonids were 

collected, mean difference in proportion values were at or above 0.50. The two 

negative values shown for weeks 13 and 15 represent 7 brown trout between 5 and 12 

inches in total length collected inside the barrier. The annual mean for salmonids as a 

group (0.545) was significantly greater than zero (p=.0000). 
HDR/LMS 15

Yellow perch weekly mean difference in proportion values are displayed for 

each size group in Figure 4.2-5. Effectiveness was 1.0 for all 6 weeks that yellow 

perch > 5 inches were collected. Effectiveness was positive in only 2 of the 5 weeks 

that 4-5 inch yellow perch collected. These results correspond to cumulative net 

effectiveness values of 100.0% for yellow perch > 5 inches and 64.7% for 4-5 inch 

yellow perch. 

In 17 of the 20 sample weeks, at least one large (>5 inch) alewife was collected 

from either an inside or outside station. As shown in Figure 4.2-6, the weekly mean 

difference in proportion for large alewives was above 0.50 in all but 3 of these weeks 

and the value was greater than 0.8 in 12 of the weeks. 

Four to five inch alewives were collected in 12 of the 20 study weeks. The 

weekly mean difference in proportion was above 0.75 in 7 of those weeks and the 

annual mean difference in proportion (0.640) was significantly larger than zero 

(P=0.0000, Appendix B). 

4.2.3 FERC NET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

The cumulative percent effectiveness estimates for game fish >5 inches and 

large forage fish >5 inches are presented in Table 4.2-5. A total of 513 game fish >5 

inches in total length were collected. Salmonids and yellow perch comprised 95.3% 

and 4.7% of the game fish catch, respectively. Barrier net effectiveness was 77.4% for 

salmonids >5 inches and 100.0% for yellow perch >5 inches. Among the salmonids 

performance for lake trout and steelhead was excellent but performance for the pacific 

salmon was poor. Overall, the 2010 barrier net effectiveness estimate for game fish 

>5 inches (78.7%) does not meet the FERC net performance standard of 80%. 

An historical low total of 1,679 forage fish >5 inches in total length were 

collected during 2010 monitoring. Alewife and rainbow smelt comprised 99.9% and 

0.1% of the catch, respectively. Barrier net effectiveness was calculated at 94.5% for 

alewife >5 inches and 100.0% for smelt >5 inches, resulting in a total effectiveness of 

94.5% for large forage fish. The 2010 barrier net effectiveness estimate for large 

forage fish exceeds the FERC net performance standard of 85%.
HDR/LMS 16

4.2.4 COMPENSATION FOR UNAVOIDABLE FISH LOSSES 

Compensation for unavoidable fish losses is calculated using barrier net 

effectiveness estimates for large forage fish, game fish (defined as salmonids, yellow 

perch and walleye over five inches in length) and 4-5 inch alewife. These estimates are 

provided in Table 4.2-6. 

As stated in the above section, the effectiveness estimate for large forage is 

94.5%. Beginning in 1997, compensation methodology was modified to include 4-5 

inch alewife in acknowledgement of barrier net effectiveness for this portion of the 

alewife population. The 2010 barrier net effectiveness for 4-5 inch alewife is 82.0%. 

The catch of yellow perch during barrier net monitoring has declined 

significantly over the years (Figure 4.2-7) while at the same time, the numbers of 

walleye present a significant percentage of game fish near the LPSP (Figure 4.2-8). In 

2004, retroactive to 2002, the game fish category for compensation purposes was 

expanded to include walleye over five inches in length. The 2010 barrier net 

effectiveness for game fish including walleye over five inches is 80.4%. To account 

for substantial changes in the Lake Michigan fish community since the initial 

valuation of damages, compensation payments since 2004 (retroactive to 2002) have 

been scaled to catches outside the barrier net. Table 4.2-6 provides these scaling data. 

Note that these values include data from samples obtained when the plant is shut down 

and normal effectiveness monitoring is suspended. Tracking the catch of the 

compensation groups, including the period of plant shutdown, is provided in Table 

4.2-7. 

4.3 CATCH AND WATER TEMPERATURE RELATIONSHIPS

 Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3 compare abundance of selected fish groups to 

the mean set water temperature at outside stations only, for each sampling week. 

Missing temperature data points indicate no sampling due to inclement weather 

(weeks 1, 17, 19 and 27) or a suspension in effectiveness monitoring due to a 

scheduled plant shutdown (weeks 22 – 24). A discussion of water temperatures is 

provided in Section 4.0. 
HDR/LMS 17

Salmonid abundance was relatively low throughout the year, driven by lake 

trout collections when water was in the 40s and 50s and fall salmon spawning 

migration (Figure 4.3-1). 

As indicated in Figure 4.3-2 yellow perch abundance was below an average of 

2 fish per outside station in 19 of the 20 weeks sampled. Individuals were not 

collected during 11 of the 20 weeks. Yellow perch abundance increased during the 

increasing water temperatures of late June through July when the average set water 

temperature was 72.6°. The highest abundance of yellow perch (2.25 fish per outside 

station) was during week 20 when the mean set water temperature dropped 7.4° from 

the previous week sampled (week 18). 

In the cooler waters of spring and early summer, non-target collections were 

comprised of more round goby whereas during warmer temperatures of mid summer 

freshwater drum were prevalent. The peak in non-target catch occurred during week 

25 when a large number of gizzard shad were collected. Notably, the cooler water 

during week 26 increased the non-target species catch when round whitefish 

dominated the non-target catch (Figure 4.3-2). 

Alewife, present during 18 of 20 sample weeks, comprised 62.2% of the total 

outside catch. In 2010, peak collections of both size categories of alewives from 

outside the barrier net occurred during late May, early June and early July when water 

temperatures were between the mid 50s to mid 60s°F (Figure 4.3-3). Throughout 

most of the rest of the summer, sampling temperatures were well above this alewife 

preferred range. 

4.4 CATCH DEPTH DISTRIBUTION 

The 2010 catch is summarized by depth (6-foot shoreline nets and depth 

distribution within the 24-foot nets) in Table 4.4-1. Monthly breakdown of these data 

are provided in Appendix E. The 24-foot deep nets fish 7,920 sq. ft. of net compared 

to 1,980 sq. ft. per 6-foot deep net. The 2010 total catch results does not reflect the 

difference in net size; 1,897 fish at the 24-foot deep nets compared to 1,941 taken in 

the shoreline nets. 
HDR/LMS 18

The majority of yellow perch (68.1%) and Coho salmon (66.7%) were 

collected in deep nets. The majority of steelhead (100.0%) and brown trout (80.6%) 

were collected in the shallow nets. There was little difference between numbers of 

alewife, lake trout, and non-target species collected in 6-foot and 24-foot nets. The 

catch was distributed among panels in the 24-foot deep nets as follows: 24.1% surface, 

19.7% middle and 56.2% bottom. Among alewives collected in deep nets, 45.8% 

were collected at the bottom. The majority of yellow perch, brown trout and lake trout 

collected in deep nets were found in the bottom section (93.8%, 83.3% and 68.8%, 

respectively). 

4.5 SMALL FISH CATCH SUMMARY 

Two hundred and sixty-two fish less than 4.0 inches in total length were 

collected in 2010 (Table 4.5-1). Alewife and yellow perch were the only target 

species less than 4.0 inches captured and numbered only 7 fish (4 alewife and 3 yellow 

perch. The non-target collection of small fish consisted of 255 round gobies. One was 

found in April and the rest during May through July sampling. The data show an 

estimated net effectiveness of 67.0% for these small round gobies. 

4.6 FISH LENGTH DATA COLLECTION RESULTS

In 2010, a total of 561 target species fish 4-5 inches long were collected. The 

majority of these were alewife (537), followed by yellow perch (23) and Chinook 

salmon (1). The length frequencies of the 4-5 inch alewife and 4-5 inch yellow perch 

are presented in Figures 4.6-1 and 4.6-2. In accordance with project protocol (see 

Section 3.1) all 4-5 inch fish were measured and placed in one of three length 

categories (4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 inches). In 2010, these length categories comprised 

23.2%, 48.4%, and 28.4%, respectively, of the 4-5 inch alewife collection. Small 

yellow perch were distributed as follows; 34.8% for the 4 inch interval, 52.2% for the 

4.5 inch interval and 13.0% for the 5 inch interval. 
HDR/LMS 19

4.7 RECAPTURED/TAGGED FISH SUMMARY

A number of fish were tagged and released inside the barrier net, outside the 

barrier net, and in the Ludington Pumped Storage Project reservoir during barrier net 

monitoring programs conducted in 1990, 1991 and 1992. No tagged fish have been 

recaptured or reported as recaptured by fishermen in recent years. 

Beginning in 2010 all viable lake sturgeon collected during the monitoring 

program were scanned for pit tags and untagged fish were to receive a pit tag upon 

release. In 2010, five lake sturgeon were collected outside the barrier net, and one was 

collected inside the barrier net. One fish collected on June 3 measured 315mm, and 

received a floy tag number 05854. A lake sturgeon captured on June 7 measured 

1140mm and was tagged with pit tag number 985120016221998. The next lake 

sturgeon, captured July 8, measured 650mm and already carried pit tag number 

486005223F. Two more sturgeon were captured on August 10; one measuring 

405mm was tagged with pit tag number 985120025061107, the other measured 

585mm, and already carried pit tag number 484C3F5904. The final lake sturgeon 

captured on August 23 measured 560mm, and was tagged with pit tag number 

985120025042275. This fish is noteworthy since it marks only the third lake sturgeon 

collected inside the barrier net since monitoring began in 1989 (others were in 2001 

and 2008). 

5.0 DISCUSSION 

The 2010 Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program was the twenty 

second consecutive year of study to assess the effectiveness of a seasonal barrier net at 

excluding fish from the areas proximate to the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. 

The objective of the 2010 monitoring program was to estimate the effectiveness of the 

barrier net by comparing fish populations inside and outside the barrier net. The 

effectiveness monitoring program work scope was reviewed and approved by the 

Scientific Advisory Team (formerly the Ludington Advisory Committee) in 2009. 

That formal approval is effective through 2014. 

The barrier net monitoring program has remained essentially unchanged since 

the first year of study in 1989. Each monitoring year, weather permitting, collections 
HDR/LMS 20

begin the week of April 15 and end the week of October 15. Accordingly, most 

monitoring years consist of 26 weeks. Depending on the calendar, monitoring may 

include an additional partial week which results in a 27 week monitoring year. In 

most years, due to adverse weather in mid April and early fall, some collections are 

not accomplished. Importantly, past monitoring results document that few fish are 

present near shore during mid-April and early fall. Moreover, results document that 

for species that are most abundant in the fall (e.g. salmonids), the barrier net 

effectiveness measurements during this period are often consistent with cumulative 

seasonal results. In 2010, effectiveness monitoring was conducted on 34 of the 54 

scheduled sampling dates. The 2010 effectiveness monitoring was precluded for three 

weeks (six scheduled sampling dates) due to a reservoir outage. 

While the barrier net monitoring program has remained essentially the same, 

the near shore fish community at Ludington has changed in both species abundance 

and species composition. During the 2010 sampling program an historical low 3,838 

fish greater than or equal to 4 inches in total length were collected. Collections the 

past 6 years have numbered 9,106 (2009), 9,321 (2008), 5,124 (2007), 11,991 (2006), 

11,120 (2005) and 19,274 (2004). During 1997-2001 the average annual fish 

collection was 27,593 fish, and from 1989 through 1996 the average annual catch was 

49,038 fish. 

Correspondingly, the catch of alewife, the predominant species collected 

during the 22 year monitoring program, closely tracks the total catch. Lake Michigan 

populations of yellow perch, walleye and rainbow smelt have changed substantially 

over the 22-year monitoring period. Rainbow smelt were again scarce in 2010 (only 

two were captured) and yellow perch numbers are still far below the levels of the 

1990s (Figure 4.2-7). Walleye numbers, though somewhat lower in 2010 (Figure 4.2-

8) are still more prevalent than in the early 90s and are a substantial part of the large 

sport fish collection. . 

The 1,589 large (> 5-inches) alewife collected outside the barrier net is a 

historical low and a considerable drop from the two previous years 2009 (5,392), 2008 

(6,238), and the previous low mark found in 2007 (2,933). The 455 small (4 to 5-

inch) alewife collected in 2010 is also a significant decrease from the 1,409 collected 
HDR/LMS 21

in 2009. These numbers suggest the overall number of alewife collected in 2010 

(small + large) is consistent with the long term trend of decreasing alewife abundance 

since monitoring began. Other factors may have contributed to the small alewife catch 

in 2010. Biofouling of gillnets with algae was abnormally heavy and persistent, 

particularly during June and July when alewife have historically been most abundant. 

In addition, water temperatures increased rapidly during 2010, above levels preferred 

by alewives (mid 50s to mid 60s). Water temperatures above 70s were recorded during 

nearly all sampling events from early July until late September. 

From 1994 to 2007, less than 10 bloater chub were collected annually outside 

the barrier net. The 2008 and 2009 catches were dramatically larger at 359 and 89, 

respectively. The 2010 collection of 13 bloater chub is consistent with those years 

prior. 

Similarly, the 2010 catch of 24 large (> 5 inch) yellow perch outside the 

barrier is a considerable decrease from the recent year catches of 2009 (103), 2008 

(165), 2007 (130) and 2006 (131) but consistent with the average of 35 fish across 

years 2000 to 2005. In contrast, from 1997 to 1999 an annual average of 592 large 

perch were taken, from 1994 to 1996 the average was 3,028 and for 1991 to 1993 the 

average was 7,011. 

The 399 large (> 5 inch) salmonid collection from outside the barrier net in 

2010 is smaller than catches in 2009 (651) and 2008 (589) but consistent with 2006 

(368) and 2007 (375). As in the past three years, the most abundant large game fish 

collected outside the barrier net was lake trout (254). The 2010 historical low catch of 

large Chinook salmon (35) was consistent with a declining trend observed over the 

past several years that parallels the abundance of alewife, their predominant prey 

species. However, reduced sampling as a result of inclement weather and a plant 

shutdown, during the period when salmon have historically been most abundant, likely 

played a role in the small catch. From mid August until October, only 3 of a possible 

14 overnight samples were obtained. Moreover, during two of these overnight sets 

water temperature was well above the preferred range for salmon. The largest 

collection of salmon occurred on September 27 following a two day net breach when 

more were found on the inside of the barrier net than outside. This resulted in overall 
HDR/LMS 22

game fish performance falling from 86% to 77%. The 2010 brown trout catch (98) was 

historically among the largest with the majority caught in the spring. Other salmonid 

species collections were similar in number to those in the past; coho salmon (8), and 

steelhead (4). Walleye, considered a game fish for compensation calculation 

purposes, were represented by (78) fish caught outside the barrier net. Walleye remain 

a substantial part of the large game fish captured in the vicinity of the Ludington 

Pumped Storage Plant. 

The 2010 non-target fish collection outside the barrier (785, including walleye) 

was similar to numbers observed the past several years, well reduced from years prior 

to 2000. The 2010 non-target collection is represented by nineteen species, the most 

since 2003. It is speculated that warmer than typical waters brought infrequent species 

such as white perch and smallmouth bass. 

Using the cumulative catch method, the 2010 barrier net effectiveness of 

89.3% for target species is consistent with the long-term (1991-2009) average of 

90.8%. Correspondingly, the 94.5% effectiveness for large forage fish is above the 

long-term average of 93.5% and, as in past years, it exceeds the FERC net 

performance standard of 85% for large forage fish. 

The effectiveness estimate for game fish of 78.7% did not meet the FERC net 

performance standard of 80%. Game fish effectiveness has averaged 83.8% since 

1991 and is typically reduced when few large yellow perch are collected. Historically, 

large yellow perch effectiveness is 92.5% since barrier net bottom seal improvements 

were implemented in 1994. The 2010 net effectiveness for yellow perch > 5 inches 

was 100.0%. Effectiveness for salmonids > 5-inches was 77.4% in 2010 and has 

averaged 79.3% since 1991, ranging from 68% to 90%. Prior to the sampling effort 

on September 27th, salmonid effectiveness was nearly 7% higher at 84.3%. Unsafe 

weather conditions as well as a plant outage precluded monitoring for nearly three 

weeks prior to this sampling and it is speculated that a net breach from severe storms 

allowed passage of salmonids through the net. 

The 2010 effectiveness estimate for 4 to 5 inch alewife of 82.0% is comparable 

to the long term average of 86.8%. 
HDR/LMS 23

The 63.6% effectiveness for non-target species in 2010 is below the average of 

70.2% since 1991. Sample collections from immediately after the two-day net breach 

(September 27th) were comprised of predominantly non-target fish and results lowered 

the barrier net effectiveness from 67% to 58% for non-target fish. If the large catches 

of gizzard shad from those samples (both inside and outside) are eliminated, the 2010 

non-target fish effectiveness is nearly identical to the long term average (70.6%). 

 The barrier net has historically performed well at excluding walleye. Prior to 

2009 when effectiveness was only 73.1%, the lowest annual effectiveness recorded 

was 88.5% in 2007. In 2010 the barrier net was again effective at excluding walleye 

(89.7%). 

The paired station analyses confirmed that the outside catches were 

significantly greater than the catches from inside the barrier for both target species and 

non-target species fish. Poorer weekly performance as measured by weekly mean 

difference in proportion values were generally associated with small catches. Similar 

results are seen when examining weekly cumulative catch effectiveness (Figure 5.0-1). 

This suggests that the barrier net effectiveness measures are more precise when fish 

are more abundant in the area and spatial variability is reduced. It also suggests that 

the less effective periods may be attributable to fish being trapped inside the barrier 

net when fish outside the barrier net have moved away. 

As during the period 1991-2009, the 2010 data confirms that the barrier net 

effectively excludes the majority of fish susceptible to gill net collection in the vicinity 

of the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. Since the dual goals of barrier net design 

improvement and optimization of barrier net effectiveness were achieved in 1991, 

effectiveness for target species, non-target species, game fish and large forage fish has 

continued to be both excellent and consistent. 
REFERENCES 

HDR/LMS. 2009. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

HDR/LMS. 2008. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

HDR/LMS. 2007. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

HDR/LMS. 2006. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

HDR/LMS. 2005. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 2004. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 2003. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 2002. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 2001. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 2000. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1999. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1998. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Lawler, Matusky, and Skelly Engineers, LLP. 1997. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

Effectiveness Monitoring Program 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1996. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1995. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1994. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1993. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1992. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1991. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 
Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1990. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Barnes-Williams Environmental Consultants. 1989. Report of the Ludington Barrier Net 

 Effectiveness Monitoring Program. 

Becker, G.C., 1983. Fishes of Wisconsin. The University of Wisconsin Press, First Ed., 1052 pp. 

 

Scott, W.B., and E.J. Crossman, 1973. Freshwater Fishes of Canada. Bryant Press Limited. First Ed., 966 

 pp. 

Snedecor, G.W., and W.G. Cochran, 1989. Statistical Methods. Iowa State University Press, Eighth Ed., 

503 pp. 
TABLES 

TABLE 4.0-1 

TABLE 4.0-2 

TABLE 4.1-1 

TABLE 4.1-2 

TABLE 4.1-3 

TABLE 4.2-1 

TABLE 4.2-2 

TABLE 4.2-3 

TABLE 4.2-4 

TABLE 4.2-5 

TABLE 4.2-6 

TABLE 4.2-7 

TABLE 4.4-1 

TABLE 4.5-1 
Set Date Study Week Gill Net Samples

4/19/2010 2 8

4/22/2010 2 8

4/28/2010 3 8

5/6/2010 4 8

5/11/2010 5 8

5/12/2010 5 8

5/17/2010 6 8

5/18/2010 6 8

5/24/2010 7 8

5/25/2010 7 8

5/31/2010 8 8

6/3/2010 8 8

6/7/2010 9 8

6/10/2010 9 8

6/14/2010 10 8

6/15/2010 10 8

6/21/2010 11 8

6/29/2010 12 8

6/30/2010 12 8

7/7/2010 13 8

7/8/2010 13 8

7/12/2010 14 8

7/13/2010 14 8

7/19/2010 15 8

7/20/2010 15 8

7/29/2010 16 8

7/31/2010 16 8

8/9/2010 18 8

8/10/2010 18 8

8/23/2010 20 8

9/1/2010 21 8

9/27/2010 25 8

10/4/2010 26 8

10/5/2010 26 8

Days Weeks Samples

34 20 272

HDR Michigan, Inc.

Note: Due to adverse lake conditions during weeks 1, 17, 19 and

27 samples were not collected. Monitoring was suspended

during weeks 22, 23, and 24 due to a reservior outage.

TABLE 4.0-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LAKE MICHIGAN NETTING DATES

2010
DATE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

4/19/2010 43.0 43.2 47.3 46.6 42.6 43.0 43.3 43.0

4/22/2010 43.7 43.2 47.7 46.9 43.0 43.5 44.6 44.1

4/28/2010 43.3 44.8 48.2 46.6 42.1 42.1 43.9 44.1

5/6/2010 51.1 51.6 52.7 52.9 46.4 50.2 51.4 50.4

5/11/2010 46.8 46.0 45.1 44.8 45.3 45.0 44.8 44.4

5/12/2010 46.2 46.6 46.4 46.6 45.1 45.5 45.9 45.5

5/17/2010 46.9 47.5 48.0 50.5 46.8 46.9 47.1 46.9

5/18/2010 47.1 47.7 53.2 50.7 46.0 47.1 47.7 47.5

5/24/2010 59.0 58.6 57.0 55.9 54.9 54.5 54.0 53.4

5/25/2010 58.6 58.6 56.8 56.7 56.5 55.9 55.6 54.9

5/31/2010 55.9 55.6 55.9 58.5 55.0 55.9 55.2 55.9

6/3/2010 55.0 55.8 59.4 59.4 51.8 53.8 54.7 57.6

6/7/2010 46.8 51.4 54.3 53.4 43.3 45.7 53.2 52.5

6/10/2010 51.8 51.6 53.6 53.1 51.8 51.3 52.0 51.8

6/14/2010 54.1 53.6 56.7 56.3 52.3 52.3 53.1 55.4

6/15/2010 54.5 52.0 50.9 50.7 53.4 52.2 51.1 51.6

6/21/2010 66.6 67.5 64.8 65.7 64.0 64.0 61.9 66.7

6/29/2010 67.5 68.2 69.4 69.6 64.8 66.6 67.6 68.5

6/30/2010 67.1 67.1 69.3 67.8 66.4 65.1 66.6 66.2

7/7/2010 72.7 73.2 72.5 71.6 71.6 71.4 71.1 71.2

7/8/2010 74.5 74.7 73.9 74.3 73.0 72.9 72.5 71.8

7/12/2010 75.0 75.2 76.3 75.7 72.3 72.3 74.5 74.1

7/13/2010 71.8 72.1 73.6 73.2 70.0 71.2 73.2 72.9

7/19/2010 75.6 76.1 75.9 75.4 73.8 73.6 74.1 75.0

7/20/2010 76.6 77.4 76.3 75.6 74.3 74.8 74.1 74.5

7/29/2010 75.6 76.1 77.0 77.7 75.2 75.0 75.4 75.2

7/31/2010 74.7 74.7 73.9 74.1 74.7 74.5 74.3 74.1

8/9/2010 76.6 76.8 75.7 75.0 74.8 75.2 74.1 73.9

8/10/2010 75.9 75.9 76.5 75.0 75.0 74.3 75.9 75.2

8/23/2010 67.6 67.8 71.4 70.9 62.6 64.9 70.7 70.2

9/1/2010 74.1 74.3 73.8 73.4 72.7 72.7 73.0 73.0

9/27/2010 62.1 62.2 61.9 61.3 61.2 61.2 60.8 60.8

10/4/2010 45.9 48.0 51.8 50.5 44.8 46.9 48.4 50.0

10/5/2010 46.6 48.0 48.9 48.9 45.5 47.3 46.8 46.4

1 2 3 4 5 6 

41.7 42.3 43.3 43.3 41.2 41.5 

42.1 42.1 43.7 43.5 42.4 42.4 

42.3 42.8 43.5 44.4 42.1 42.4 

45.7 45.5 50.0 49.6 45.5 46.6 

46.2 45.5 44.4 44.4 44.6 44.4 

46.8 46.9 45.7 45.5 44.6 44.4 

46.0 46.2 47.1 47.1 46.0 46.4 

46.9 46.9 47.5 47.3 45.7 46.0 

56.3 56.5 54.7 53.8 54.9 55.0 

56.3 56.5 55.4 55.0 56.7 56.7 

55.2 54.7 55.0 54.9 55.2 55.0 

54.7 53.6 55.8 55.9 51.1 54.1 

48.9 48.9 51.6 51.4 45.3 49.6 

51.1 50.9 50.9 49.3 51.4 50.9 

51.4 51.1 49.5 51.1 49.6 49.5 

55.4 54.3 52.0 52.2 55.8 55.0 

66.7 66.7 66.0 65.8 66.0 66.4 

65.8 66.2 66.4 66.2 66.0 66.0 

63.5 62.8 64.6 63.9 63.7 64.2 

72.3 72.3 71.2 71.1 71.2 71.4 

71.4 72.1 71.8 71.8 71.6 71.6 

68.9 69.4 70.2 70.2 70.2 70.2 

66.6 66.6 65.5 64.0 68.7 66.7 

73.2 73.6 73.4 73.6 73.0 73.0 

75.0 75.0 73.4 73.8 74.8 74.7 

74.3 74.1 75.0 74.8 74.5 74.5 

73.9 73.9 73.6 73.2 74.1 73.9 

74.5 74.5 74.3 74.3 73.8 73.8 

73.9 74.1 74.3 74.3 73.9 73.9 

66.2 67.3 68.0 68.2 66.2 68.9 

72.7 72.7 72.3 72.5 72.7 72.5 

60.4 60.3 60.1 59.9 60.4 60.4 

45.9 46.4 48.2 48.4 46.2 44.6 

46.9 47.7 48.2 48.0 46.8 46.6 

SET WATER TEMPERATURE(Fahrenheit)

STATION

LIFT WATER TEMPERATURE(Fahre

STATION

Note: Values cor

degree instrumen

weekly calibration

TABLE 4.0-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

GILL NETTING SET AND LIFT WATER TEMPERATURES

2010
Common Name Scientific Name

Alewife Alosa pseudoharengus

Brown trout Salmo trutta

Burbot Lota lota

Channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus

Chinook salmon Oncorhynchus tshawytscha

Chub (Bloater) Coregonus spp. (hoyi)

Coho salmon Oncorhynchus kisutch

Common carp Cyprinus carpio

Freshwater drum Aplodinotus grunniens

Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum

Lake Herring Coregonus artedi

Lake sturgeon Acipenser fulvescens

Lake trout Salvelinus namaycush

Lake whitefish Coregonus clupeaformis

Longnose sucker Catostomus catostomus

Northern pike Esox lucius

Rainbow smelt Osmerus mordax

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) Oncorhynchus mykiss

Redhorse spp. Moxostoma spp.

Rock bass Ambloplites rupestris

Round goby Neogobius melanostomus

Round whitefish Prosopium cylindraceum

Smallmouth bass Micropterus dolomieu

Spottail shiner Notropis hudsonius

Walleye Sander vitreus

White perch Morone americana

White sucker Catostomus commersoni

Yellow perch Perca flavescens

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.1-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LIST OF SPECIES COLLECTED

2010
Species Size Range

(Inches)

2 3 6 7 1 4 5 8 TOTAL

(Number of Samples/Nets:) (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (34) (272)

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

>5-12 1 1 0 1 1 10 5 4 23

>12-20 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 4

>20 3 5 3 10 0 6 2 5 34

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>12 1 6 2 4 0 0 4 4 21

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

>12 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

>12 6 6 2 10 76 49 66 63 278

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 2 4 1 6 1 16 1 3 34

>12 5 6 1 1 20 46 1 10 90

Yellow perch 4-5 0 1 2 3 3 2 12 0 23

>5 0 0 0 0 7 2 10 5 24

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2

Alewife 4-5 19 41 5 17 48 170 169 68 537

>5 34 13 20 21 407 373 462 347 1677

Chub 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5 0 1 0 0 6 1 3 3 14

Target Species >=4 71 87 37 73 570 679 737 513 2767

Nontarget Species >=4 81 72 67 66 196 185 184 220 1071

All Species Total >=4 152 159 104 139 766 864 921 733 3838

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.1-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LOCATIONAL CATCH DISTRIBUTION

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRIER

2010
Burbot 0 1 1 100.0 <0.1

Channel catfish 0 7 7 100.0 0.7

Common carp 1 2 3 50.0 0.3

Freshwater drum 3 174 177 98.3 16.5

Gizzard shad 62 27 89 * 8.3

Lake Herring 0 1 1 100.0 <0.1

Lake sturgeon 1 5 6 80.0 0.6

Lake whitefish 0 7 7 100.0 0.7

Longnose sucker 0 1 1 100.0 <0.1

Northern pike 0 2 2 100.0 0.2

Redhorse spp. 14 55 69 74.5 6.4

Rock bass 1 2 3 50.0 0.3

Round goby 34 126 160 73.0 14.9

Round whitefish 14 108 122 87.0 11.4

Smallmouth bass 7 1 8 * 0.7

Spottail shiner 129 151 280 14.6 26.1

Walleye 8 78 86 89.7 8.0

White perch 0 7 7 100.0 0.7

White sucker 12 30 42 60.0 3.9

TOTAL 286 785 1071 63.6 100.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

Note: Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch) / Outside Catch) X 100.

* Denotes negative effectiveness.

TABLE 4.1-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

NONTARGET SPECIES FISH CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS

Species

Inside Outside Total

Percent

Effective

Nontarget

Species Fish

% Composition

NUMBER OF FISH COLLECTED

2010
SPECIES Size

(Inches) Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 2 11 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 5 1 

>12-20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 

>20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 4 2 13 7 4 

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12 2 1 

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 31 2 63 3 13 0 0 0 2 2 11 17 13

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 1 3 1 3 6 7 12 0 1 0 0 0 

>12 3 27 6 38 0 11 1 0 0 0 1 1 2 

Yellow perch 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 11 2 2 1 4 0 

>5 0 0 0 1 0 9 0 5 0 9 0 0 0 

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Alewife 4-5 0 0 8 118 24 214 32 87 17 28 0 2 1 

>5 0 3 28 559 42 945 12 76 0 2 1 0 5 

Chub 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 4 0 5 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Target Species >=4 3 68 49 799 75 1202 55 192 24 49 31 34 31 15

Nontarget Species >=4 7 79 158 56 174 36 159 11 65 88 84 16 13

All Species Total >=4 3 75 128 957 131 1376 91 351 35 114 119 118 47 29

Note: Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch) / Outside Catch) * 100. All negative numbers are denoted by "*". 

TABLE 4.2-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY GILL NET CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

2010

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 
SPECIES

SIZE

RANGE

(Inches)

G1 and G2 G3 and G4 G5 and G6 G7 and G8

All PAIRED

STATIONS

Chinook salmon 4-5 - -1.000 - - -1.000

3

>5-12 .000 .833 1.000 .333 .641

4

>12-20 - .000 .000 - .000

5

>20 -1.000 -.050 .250 -.050 -.158

6

7

Coho salmon 4-5 - - - - -

8

>5-12 - - - - -

9

>12 -1.000 -1.000 .556 .467 .007

10

11

Steelhead 4-5 - - - - -

12

>5-12 - 1.000 - - 1.000

13

>12 1.000 1.000 - - 1.000

14

15

Lake trout 4-5 - - - - -

16

>5-12 - -1.000 - - -1.000

17

>12 .902 .771 .918 .804 .843

18

19

Brown trout 4-5 - - - - -

20

>5-12 -.333 .300 .000 -.150 .074

21

>12 .537 .737 .000 .857 .654

22

23

Yellow perch 4-5 1.000 .500 .606 -1.000 .227

24

>5 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000

25

26

Smelt 4-5 - - - - -

27

>5 - - 1.000 1.000 1.000

28

29

Alewife 4-5 .298 .544 .902 .780 .640

30

>5 .408 .827 .797 .569 .652

31

32

Chub 4-5 - - - - -

33

>5 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000 .818

34

35

Target Species >=4 .634 .647 .825 .715 .705

36

37

Nontarget Species >=4 .375 .448 .572 .561 .486

38

39

All Species Total >=4 .590 .597 .736 .650 .643

40

MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION

PAIRED STATIONS

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.2-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

PAIRED STATION MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION DATA

2010
SPECIES

SIZE

RANGE

(Inches)

OBS. MEAN STD. DEV. MINIMUM MAXIMUM

Chinook salmon 4-5 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>5-12 13 .641 .751 -1.000 1.000

>12-20 4 .000 1.155 -1.000 1.000

>20 12 -.158 .799 -1.000 1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 9 .007 .966 -1.000 1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

>12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>12 40 .843 .320 .000 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 19 .074 .950 -1.000 1.000

>12 27 .654 .687 -1.000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 8 .227 .867 -1.000 1.000

>5 11 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

Alewife 4-5 35 .640 .559 -1.000 1.000

>5 54 .652 .581 -1.000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 11 .818 .603 -1.000 1.000

Target Species >=4 77 .705 .348 -.500 1.000

Nontarget Species >=4 76 .486 .496 -1.000 1.000

All Species Total >=4 80 .643 .322 -.194 1.000

MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.2-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTION DATA - ALL PAIRED STATIONS

2010
SPECIES

SIZE

RANGE

(Inches)

SIZE

RANGE

(Inches) APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT

Chinook salmon 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5-12 - 81.8 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 *

>12-20 100.0 - - - - * -

>20 - - 100.0 - * * *

Coho salmon 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5-12 - - - - - - -

>12 - - - - 100.0 * 75.0

Steelhead 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5-12 - 100.0 - - - - -

>12 100.0 100.0 - - - - -

Lake trout 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5-12 - - - - - - -

>12 100.0 96.8 76.9 - 100.0 81.8 87.3

Brown trout 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5-12 100.0 * 50.0 41.7 100.0 - -

>12 88.9 84.2 100.0 - - * -

Yellow perch 4-5 - - - 72.7 * 75.0 -

>5 - 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 - -

Smelt 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5 - - - - - 100.0 100.0

Alewife 4-5 - 93.2 88.8 63.2 39.3 100.0 83.3

>5 100.0 95.0 95.6 84.2 100.0 - *

Chubs 4-5 - - - - - - -

>5 100.0 100.0 50.0 - - - 100.0

Target Species >=4 95.6 93.9 93.8 71.4 51.0 8.8 80.0

Nontarget Species >=4 100.0 50.0 67.8 77.4 83.1 * 88.4

All Species Total >=4 96.0 86.6 90.5 74.1 69.3 * 84.0

MONTHLY EFFECTIVENESS

HDR Michigan, Inc.

Note: Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch) / Outside Catch) * 100. All negative numbers are denoted by "*".

TABLE 4.2-4

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS

2010
TABLE 4.2-5

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

GAME FISH AND LARGE FORAGE FISH CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

2010

INSIDE OUTSIDE PERCENT EFFECTIVENESS

GAME FISH >5"

Chinook salmon 26 35 25.7

Coho salmon 13 8 *

Steelhead 0 4 100.0

Lake trout 25 254 90.2

Brown trout 26 98 73.5

Yellow perch 0 24 100.0

GAME FISH TOTAL 90 423 78.7

FORAGE FISH > 5"

Rainbow Smelt 0 2 100.0

Alewife 88 1589 94.5

FORAGE FISH TOTAL 88 1591 94.5

Note: Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch – Inside Catch) / Outside Catch) * 100. All negative numbers are denoted by “*”.

HDR Michigan, Inc.
TABLE 4.2-6

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

GAME FISH (INCLUDING WALLEYE), LARGE FORAGE FISH, AND 4-5” ALEWIFE

CATCH AND EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

2010

INSIDE OUTSIDE PERCENT EFFECTIVENESS

GAME FISH >5"

Chinook salmon 26 35 25.7

Coho salmon 13 8 *

Steelhead 0 4 100.0

Lake trout 25 254 90.2

Brown trout 26 98 73.5

Yellow perch 0 24 100.0

GAME FISH TOTAL 90 423 78.7

Walleye 8 78 89.7

GAME FISH INCLUDING WALLEYE 98 501 80.4

FORAGE FISH > 5"

Rainbow Smelt 0 2 100.0

Alewife 88 1589 94.5

FORAGE FISH TOTAL 88 1591 94.5

Alewife 4-5” 82 455 82.0

Note: Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch – Inside Catch) / Outside Catch) * 100. All negative numbers are denoted by “*”.

Additional Parameters for Scaling of Damage Compensation

Game Fish Catch Outside the Net (including walleye) =

Weight of Large Forage Caught Outside the Net =

* Includes fish collected during plant shutdown

HDR Michigan, Inc.
Category Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Game Fish 3 61 13 117 7 41 8 18 5 17 29 27 25 142 Walleye 0 0 1 3 2 14 5 22 0 24 0 5 0 10 Game Fish including Walleye 3 61 14 120 9 55 13 40 5 41 29 32 25 152 Large Forage 0 3 28 559 42 945 12 76 0 2 1 1 5 5 

PLANT SHUT DOWN (Sep 14)

SHUT DOWN TOTAL

Category Outside OutsideGame Fish 32 455Walleye 8 86Game Fish including Walleye 40 541Large Forage 0 1,591

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 

TABLE 4.2-7

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMP STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY COLLECTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH FISH DAMAGE COMPENSATION DETERMINANTS
SIZE

RANGE

(Inches)

SIZE

RANGE

(Inches)

6' NETS

SURFACE 0-8' MID-DEPTH 8'-16' BOTTOM 16'-24' SUBTOTAL

ALL

NETS

SPECIES TOTAL

Chinook salmon 4-5 1 0 0 0 0 1

>5-12 13 2 4 4 10 23

>12-20 2 1 1 0 2 4

>20 14 4 8 8 20 34

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0

>12 7 4 7 3 14 21

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 2 0 0 0 0 2

>12 2 0 0 0 0 2

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 1 0 0 0 0 1

>12 137 19 25 97 141 278

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5-12 23 0 2 9 11 34

>12 77 2 0 11 13 90

Yellow perch 4-5 6 0 0 17 17 23

>5 9 1 1 13 15 24

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5 0 1 1 0 2 2

Alewife 4-5 278 97 56 106 259 537

>5 827 294 200 356 850 1677

Chubs 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0

>5 8 0 0 6 6 14

Target Species >=4 1407 425 305 630 1360 2767

Nontarget Species >=4 534 33 68 436 537 1071

All Species Total >=4 1941 458 373 1066 1897 3838

24' DEEP NETS

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.4-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

CATCH DEPTH DISTRIBUTION SUMMARY

2010
Target Species

Alewife Inside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Outside 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4

Yellow perch Inside 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Outside 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Target Species Total Inside 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3

Outside 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 4

Round goby Inside 1 33 27 1 0 0 0 62

Outside 0 119 49 25 0 0 0 193

Nontarget Species

Nontarget Species Total Inside 1 33 27 1 0 0 0 62

Outside 0 119 49 25 0 0 0 193

All Species Total Inside 1 33 27 1 0 3 0 65

Outside 0 119 49 26 0 0 3 197

All Species

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4.5-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

SMALL FISH CATCH SUMMARY

2010

SPECIES LOCATION APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT TOTAL

FISH < 4.0 INCHES TOTAL LENGTH
FIGURES 

FIGURE 3.1-1 

FIGURE 4.1-1 

FIGURE 4.1-2 

FIGURE 4.1-3 

FIGURE 4.2-1 

FIGURE 4.2-2 

FIGURE 4.2-3 

FIGURE 4.2-4 

FIGURE 4.2-5 

FIGURE 4.2-6 

FIGURE 4.2-7 

FIGURE 4.2-8 

FIGURE 4.3-1 

FIGURE 4.3-2 

FIGURE 4.3-3 

FIGURE 4.6-1 

FIGURE 4.6-2 

FIGURE 5.0-1 
HDR M

FIGURE 3.1-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

PLANT LAYOUT AND GILL NET

SAMPLING STATION LOCATIONS

2010

LAKE

MICHIGAN

15

6

2 3 

7

BREAKWATER

BARRIER NET

PUMP/POWER STATION

SHORELINE

SH

BOAT

LAUNCH

1⁄4 MILE SOUTH

1⁄4 MILE SOUTH

SOUTH JETTY NORTH JETTY
BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITION, OUTSIDE STATIONS

2010

>5 inch Alewife

48.4%

Chub

0.4%

Salmonids (5 species)

12.1%

Yellow perch

1.2%

Others (20 species)

24.0%

4-5 in

1

FIGURE 4.1-1
FIGURE 4.1-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

NONTARGET SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITION, OUTSIDE STATIONS

2010

Gizzard Shad

3.3% White Sucker 3.8% Spottail Shiner

19.2%

Round Whitefish

13.8%

Walleye

9.9% Redhorse 

7.0%

O

Fresh

Round Goby

16.1%
FIGURE 4.1-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

SPECIES PERCENT COMPOSITION, INSIDE STATIONS

2010

Gizzard Shad

11.2%

Chubs

0.2%

Round Goby

6.1%

Others (9 species)

11.0%

Yellow per

1.1%

Salm

4-5 inch Alewife

14.8%

>5 inch Alewife

15.9%

Spottail Shiner

23.3%
FIGURE 4.2-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

CUMULATIVE WEEKLY BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS

2010

0

102030405060708090

100

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

WEEK NUMBER

CUMULATIVEPERCENTEFFECTIVENESS
-

.2

0

.2.4.6.8

1

MeanDifferenceinProportion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

STUDY WEEK

TARGET AND NONTARGET SPECIES FISH

Target Species Fish Nontarget Species Fish

HD

FIGURE 4.2-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS

2010
-

.2

0

.2.4.6.8

1

MeanDifferenceinProportion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

STUDY WEEK

TOTAL CATCH

HDR 

FIGURE 4.2-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS

2010
-

.4

-

.2

0

.2.4.6.8

1

MeanDifferenceinProportion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

STUDY WEEK

SALMONIDS

H

FIGURE 4.2-4

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS

2010
FIGURE 4.2-5

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS

2010

YELLOW PERCH SIZE CLASSES

-1

-0.8

-0.6

-0.4

-0.2

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 

STUDY WEEK

MeanDifferenceInProportion

Yellow Perch 4-5 Inches Yellow Perch >5 Inches
-1

-

.5

0

.5

1

MeanDifferenceinProportion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 

STUDY WEEK

ALEWIFE SIZE CLASSES

Alewife 4-5 Inches Alewife >5 Inches

H

FIGURE 4.2-6

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS

2010
FIGURE 4.2-7

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

GAME FISH CATCH IN GILL NETS FISHED OUTSIDE THE LUDINGTON BARRIER NE

2010

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 20

NumberCaught
FIGURE 4.2-8

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WALLEYE CATCH IN GILL NETS FISHED OUTSIDE THE LUDINGTON BARRIER N

2010

0

50

100

150

200

250

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2

NumberCaught
FIGURE 4.3-1

BARRIER MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

SALMONID SPECIES ABUNDANCE vs. MEAN SET WATER TEMPERATURE

2010

05

101520

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

WEEK NUMBER

MEANCATCHPEROUTSIDE

NET(NUMBEROFFISH)

01020304050607080
FIGURE 4.3-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

YELLOW PERCH AND NONTARGET SPECIES ABUNDANCE vs. MEAN SET WATER

TEMPERATURE

2010

02468

101214161820

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

WEEK NUMBER

MEANCATCHPER

OUTSIDENET(NUMBEROF

FISH)

01020304050607080
FIGURE 4.3-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

ALEWIFE AND ALL FISH ABUNDANCE vs. MEAN SET WATER TEMPERATURE

2010

0

20406080

100

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

WEEK NUMBER

MEANCATCHPEROUTSIDENET

(NUMBEROFFISH)
FIGURE 4.6-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LENGTH FREQUENCY - 4 TO 5 INCH ALEWIFE

2010

0

50

100

150200250

NUMBEROFFISHCOLLECTED

4 4.5 5

LENGTH (in.)
FIGURE 4.6-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

LENGTH FREQUENCY - 4 TO 5 INCH YELLOW PERCH

2010

02468

1012

NUMBEROFFISHCOLLECTED

4 4.5 5

TOTAL LENGTH (in.)
FIGURE 5.0-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

WEEKLY CATCH AND BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS

2010

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 

WEEK NUMBER

TOTALWEEKLYCATCH

(NUMBEROFFISH)

INSIDE CATCH OUTSIDE CATCH WEEKLY EFFECTIVENESS
APPENDIX A 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

GILL NET USE SUMMARY 

A-1 DAILY GILL NET DEPLOYMENT RECORD 

A-2 NET USE FREQUENCY 

2010 
Week Month Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Apr 19 42 40 39 45 50 49 48 47

22 45 39 40 42 49 50 47 48

3 Apr 28 42 39 45 43 47 48 49 50

4 May 6 45 39 42 43 47 49 50 48

5 May 11 42 43 39 45 49 47 48 50

12 42 39 43 45 49 47 48 50

6 May 17 45 43 42 39 49 50 47 48

18 45 43 42 39 49 47 50 48

7 May 24 42 39 45 43 49 50 48 47

25 42 39 43 45 49 50 47 48

8 May 31 39 42 45 43 47 48 49 50

3 42 43 45 39 49 48 47 50

9 Jun 7 39 42 43 45 48 47 49 50

10 42 39 43 45 49 47 48 50

10 Jun 14 43 39 42 45 50 47 49 48

15 39 43 45 42 47 50 49 48

11 Jun 21 43 39 42 45 49 48 50 47

12 Jun 29 45 42 44 43 50 49 47 48

30 45 42 44 43 50 49 48 47

13 Jul 7 45 42 44 43 48 50 47 49

8 44 43 42 45 47 49 50 48

14 Jul 12 45 42 43 44 49 47 50 48

13 44 45 43 42 49 50 48 47

15 Jul 19 42 43 44 45 49 47 48 50

20 45 44 43 42 49 47 50 48

16 Jul 29 42 43 44 45 50 48 47 46

31 45 44 43 42 46 47 48 50

18 Aug 9 45 44 43 42 48 47 50 46

10 42 44 43 45 48 47 46 50

20 Aug 23 43 45 42 44 50 46 48 47

21 Sep 1 43 45 42 44 46 50 47 48

25 Sep 27 45 42 44 43 50 47 46 48

26 Oct 4 44 42 45 43 50 48 46 47

5 45 44 43 42 47 50 48 46

Station #

HDR Michigan, Inc.

APPENDIX A-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

DAILY GILL NET DEPLOYMENT RECORD

2010
APPENDIX A-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

NET USE FREQUENCY

2010

SIX FOOT DEEP NETS

NET NO. Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 TOTAL

39 3 9 2 3 17

40 0 1 1 0 2

42 11 8 8 7 34

43 4 8 11 9 32

44 3 5 6 3 17

45 13 3 6 12 34

Total 34 34 34 34 136

TWENTY FOUR FOOT DEEP NETS

NET NO. Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 8 TOTAL

46 2 1 3 3 9

47 6 13 8 7 34

48 4 6 11 13 34

49 14 5 5 1 25

50 8 9 7 10 34

Total 34 34 34 34 136

HDR Michigan, Inc.
APPENDIX B 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

 BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE 

STATISTICS 

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN 

PROPORTIONS 

Calculations and Results 

Stations 1 and 2 

Stations 3 and 4 

Stations 5 and 6 

Stations 7 and 8 

Stations 1-8 Combined 

Stations 1-8 Combined Statistically Significant 

2010 
10/27/2009 HDR/LMS

2010

Calculations and Results

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS

The following statistical summary describes the analysis of the Lake Michigan gill netting data by paired (inside/outside) 

gill net sampling stations. To obtain a gill net catch large enough to analyze statistically, and to reduce inherent daily 

population diversity and population density fluctuation factors, the daily catches from each gill net station for each species 

and size category were summed for each study week.

The data presented in the following tables provides an alternate measure of the effectiveness of the Ludington PSP 

barrier net. The data used in the analysis are the calculated difference values between the proportion of the total weekly 

catch at each paired sampling station outside the barrier net and the total weekly catch at each corresponding inside 

station. The resulting difference in proportion values calculated for the various target species fish size classes and fish 

groups range between -1.0 and 1.0. A zero (0) proportion difference value equates to a totally ineffective condition of the 

barrier (inside catch equals outside catch). A negative difference in the proportion indicates a larger inside barrier catch, 

while a positive difference in the proportion reflects a larger catch on the outside of the barrier.
Species

Size Range

(Inches) Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max

Chinook salmon 4-5

>5-12 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

>12-20

>20 2 -1.000 .000 -1.000 -1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 1 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12

>12 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12

>12 9 .902 .173 .500 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 3 -.333 1.155 -1.000 1.000

>12 8 .537 .809 -1.000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

>5 2 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5

Alewife 4-5 9 .298 .817 -1.000 1.000

>5 13 .408 .767 -1.000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 4 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Spottail Shiner >=4 17 -.226 .848 -1.000 1.000

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 20 .684 .560 -1.000 1.000

All Target Species Fish >=4 19 .634 .432 -.500 1.000

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 20 .375 .524 -.600 1.000

All Salmonids >=4 13 .337 .832 -1.000 1.000

All Yellow Perch >=4 3 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

All Forage Fish >=4 15 .470 .754 -1.000 1.000

All Fish >=4 20 .590 .352 -.149 1.000

10/27/2010 HDR Michigan, Inc.

2010

Stations 1 and 2

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS
Species

Size Range

(Inches) Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max

Chinook salmon 4-5 1 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

>5-12 4 .833 .333 .333 1.000

>12-20 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

>20 4 -.050 .823 -1.000 1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 2 -1.000 .000 -1.000 -1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12 2 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

>12 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12 1 -1.000 -1.000 -1.000

>12 10 .771 .416 .000 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 10 .300 .949 -1.000 1.000

>12 10 .737 .624 -1.000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 2 .500 .707 .000 1.000

>5 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5

Alewife 4-5 8 .544 .554 -.333 1.000

>5 13 .827 .321 .000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

Spottail Shiner >=4 18 .339 .797 -1.000 1.000

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 18 .544 .657 -1.000 1.000

All Target Species Fish >=4 20 .647 .336 -.143 1.000

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 19 .448 .571 -1.000 1.000

All Salmonids >=4 20 .581 .561 -1.000 1.000

All Yellow Perch >=4 3 .667 .577 .000 1.000

All Forage Fish >=4 14 .655 .399 -.111 1.000

All Fish >=4 20 .597 .328 -.059 1.000

10/27/2010 HDR Michigan, Inc.

2010

Stations 3 and 4

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS
Species

Size Range

(Inches) Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max

Chinook salmon 4-5

>5-12 4 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

>12-20 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

>20 2 .250 1.061 -.500 1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 3 .556 .770 -.333 1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12

>12

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12

>12 9 .918 .221 .333 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

>12 2 .000 1.414 -1.000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 3 .606 .533 .000 1.000

>5 5 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

Alewife 4-5 11 .902 .171 .500 1.000

>5 14 .797 .297 .000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 3 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Spottail Shiner >=4 12 -.256 .764 -1.000 1.000

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 19 .778 .351 .000 1.000

All Target Species Fish >=4 19 .825 .223 .125 1.000

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 19 .572 .441 -.500 1.000

All Salmonids >=4 13 .757 .386 .000 1.000

All Yellow Perch >=4 8 .852 .350 .000 1.000

All Forage Fish >=4 17 .871 .152 .500 1.000

All Fish >=4 20 .736 .256 .087 1.000

10/27/2010 HDR Michigan, Inc.

2010

Stations 5 and 6

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS
Species

Size Range

(Inches) Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max

Chinook salmon 4-5

>5-12 3 .333 1.155 -1.000 1.000

>12-20

>20 4 -.050 .823 -1.000 1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 3 .467 .924 -.600 1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12

>12

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12

>12 12 .804 .389 .000 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 4 -.150 .870 -1.000 1.000

>12 7 .857 .378 .000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 2 -1.000 .000 -1.000 -1.000

>5 3 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5 1 1.000 1.000 1.000

Alewife 4-5 7 .780 .369 .000 1.000

>5 14 .569 .728 -1.000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 2 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Spottail Shiner >=4 12 -.271 .862 -1.000 1.000

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 18 .695 .416 -.500 1.000

All Target Species Fish >=4 19 .715 .362 -.250 1.000

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 18 .561 .443 -.600 1.000

All Salmonids >=4 18 .502 .655 -1.000 1.000

All Yellow Perch >=4 4 .333 .943 -1.000 1.000

All Forage Fish >=4 15 .659 .553 -1.000 1.000

All Fish >=4 20 .650 .344 -.194 1.000

10/27/2010 HDR Michigan, Inc.

2010

Stations 7 and 8

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS
Species

Size Range

(Inches) Obs Mean Std Dev Min Max

Chinook salmon 4-5 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>5-12 13 .641 .751 -1.000 1.000

>12-20 4 .000 1.155 -1.000 1.000

>20 12 -.158 .799 -1.000 1.000

Coho salmon 4-5

>5-12

>12 9 .007 .966 -1.000 1.000

Steelhead 4-5

>5-12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

>12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

Lake trout 4-5

>5-12 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>12 40 .843 .320 .000 1.000

Brown trout 4-5

>5-12 19 .074 .950 -1.000 1.000

>12 27 .654 .687 -1.000 1.000

Yellow perch 4-5 8 .227 .867 -1.000 1.000

>5 11 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000

Smelt 4-5

>5 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000

Alewife 4-5 35 .640 .559 -1.000 1.000

>5 54 .652 .581 -1.000 1.000

Chub 4-5

>5 11 .818 .603 -1.000 1.000

Spottail Shiner >=4 59 -.069 .843 -1.000 1.000

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 75 .677 .507 -1.000 1.000

All Target Species Fish >=4 77 .705 .348 -.500 1.000

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 76 .486 .496 -1.000 1.000

All Salmonids >=4 64 .545 .625 -1.000 1.000

All Yellow Perch >=4 18 .731 .552 -1.000 1.000

All Forage Fish >=4 61 .670 .516 -1.000 1.000

All Fish >=4 80 .643 .322 -.194 1.000

10/27/2010 HDR Michigan, Inc.

2010

Stations 1-8 Combined

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS
BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS 

PAIRED STATIONS - MEAN DIFFERENCE IN PROPORTIONS 

 

 Stations 1-8 Combined Statistically Significant 

 2010

The following table summarize Student's t-tests conducted to test the null hypthesis that the barrier net is not effective 

and that the weekly inside paired station catches are equal to the catches at the corresponding outside stations (H0:U= 0) 

versus the alternative hypothesis that the barrier net effectively excludes fish (Ho:U >0). If the attained significance value 

(P) of the one tailed test is less than 0.05 then the null hypothesis can be rejected at the 95% confidence level. The 

results summary is then designated "*STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*".

Size 

Range 

(Inches) 

 

 Obs Mean 

Std 

Dev Min Max 

t 

Statistic P 

Species 

Chinook salmon 4-5 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>5-12 13 .641 .751 -1.000 1.000 3.08 .0044 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

>12-20 4 .000 1.155 -1.000 1.000 .00 1.000 NOT COMPUTED

>20 12 -.158 .799 -1.000 1.000 .2528 U < 0.0

Coho salmon 4-5 

>5-12 

>12 9 .007 .966 -1.000 1.000 .02 .4911 

Steelhead 4-5 

>5-12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 NOT COMPUTED

>12 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 NOT COMPUTED

Lake trout 4-5 

>5-12 1 -1.000 -1.000 .000

>12 40 .843 .320 .000 1.000 16.65 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

Brown trout 4-5 

>5-12 19 .074 .950 -1.000 1.000 .34 .3695

>12 27 .654 .687 -1.000 1.000 4.95 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

Yellow perch 4-5 8 .227 .867 -1.000 1.000 .74 .2397

>5 11 1.000 .000 1.000 1.000 NOT COMPUTED

Smelt 4-5 

>5 2 1.000 .000 .000 1.000 NOT COMPUTED

Alewife 4-5 35 .640 .559 -1.000 1.000 6.78 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

>5 54 .652 .581 -1.000 1.000 8.24 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

Chub 4-5 

>5 11 .818 .603 -1.000 1.000 4.50 .0005 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

Spottail Shiner >=4 59 -.069 .843 -1.000 1.000 .2664 U < 0.0

Other Nontarget Fish >=4 75 .677 .507 -1.000 1.000 11.57 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

All Target Species Fish >=4 77 .705 .348 -.500 1.000 17.78 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

Nontarget Species Fish >=4 76 .486 .496 -1.000 1.000 8.55 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

All Salmonids >=4 64 .545 .625 -1.000 1.000 6.98 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

All Yellow Perch >=4 18 .731 .552 -1.000 1.000 5.62 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

All Forage Fish >=4 61 .670 .516 -1.000 1.000 10.15 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

All Fish >=4 80 .643 .322 -.194 1.000 17.90 .0000 *STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT*

 HDR Michigan, Inc.

10/28/2010
APPENDIX C 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

 GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORTS 

2010 
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Brown trout 0 2 0 0 2 1 6 0 1 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 2 

TOTAL 0 2 0 0 2 2 10 1 5 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

ALL SPECIES 0 2

TOTAL

0 2 0 4 11 1 5 

HD

4/23/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

4/19/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Brown trout 0 1 0 0 1 1 11 0 2 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 10 7 

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 0 1 0 0 1 4 16 10 11 

Common carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Smallmouth bass 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 

ALL SPECIES 0 1

TOTAL

0 1 0 6 16 11 11 

HD

4/23/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

4/22/2010
Target Species

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 1 1 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

ALL SPECIES 0 0

TOTAL

0 0 0 6 2 1 1 

HD

5/3/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

4/28/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 16 

Brown trout 3 1 0 0 4 1 5 0 2 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 3 

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

TOTAL 3 1 0 0 4 8 9 0 21 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Lake whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 4 3 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Spottail shiner 4 0 1 1 6 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 4 0 1 2 7 7 2 4 6 

ALL SPECIES 2 11

TOTAL

7 1 1 15 11 4 27 

HD

5/10/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/6/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Brown trout 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Lake trout 1 0 0 0 1 4 3 4 3 

TOTAL 1 2 0 0 3 5 5 5 3 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 

Spottail shiner 1 1 2 1 5 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1 1 2 2 6 2 0 2 4 

ALL SPECIES 2 9

TOTAL

2 3 2 7 5 7 7 

HD

5/13/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/11/2010
Target Species

Brown trout 1 0 0 0 1 1 4 0 1 

Chinook salmon 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 4 3 6 1 

TOTAL 2 0 0 0 2 5 8 6 2 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 

Spottail shiner 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 

Walleye 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 2 0 0 2 5 0 3 7 

ALL SPECIES 0 4

TOTAL

2 2 0 10 8 9 9 

HD

5/13/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/12/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 2 0 0 2 4 31 7 9 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 2 4 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 1 1 

TOTAL 0 2 0 0 2 13 36 8 10 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 7 0 7 0 0 3 0 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 

Spottail shiner 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 8 0 8 2 0 4 4 

ALL SPECIES 0 10

TOTAL

0 2 8 15 36 12 14 

HD

5/19/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/17/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 4 1 0 5 4 22 7 14 

Brown trout 0 0 0 1 1 0 4 1 1 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 4 0 

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 0 4 1 1 6 7 33 12 15 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Lake whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Round goby 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 5 4 

Spottail shiner 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 

TOTAL 1 0 1 0 2 1 2 5 5 

ALL SPECIES 1 8

TOTAL

1 4 2 8 35 17 20 

HD

5/19/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/18/2010
Target Species

Alewife 8 1 4 1 14 97 30 131 17 

Brown trout 1 0 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 2 1 

TOTAL 9 1 4 2 16 103 30 133 18 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 2 0 3 1 6 0 2 1 13 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Spottail shiner 9 0 15 0 24 0 2 5 2 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

TOTAL 11 0 18 1 30 3 5 8 17 

ALL SPECIES 3 46

TOTAL

20 1 22 106 35 141 35 

HD

5/26/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/24/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 7 1 0 9 46 10 79 13 

Brown trout 0 1 0 0 1 4 2 0 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 

TOTAL 1 8 1 0 10 53 13 81 13 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 3 0 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 0 2 2 3 1 3 4 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Spottail shiner 0 10 2 5 17 10 3 5 1 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 10 2 7 19 17 4 11 6 

ALL SPECIES 7 29

TOTAL

1 18 3 70 17 92 19 

HD

5/26/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/25/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 4 1 6 20 0 93 24 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

TOTAL 1 0 4 1 6 21 1 96 26 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 8 6 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 0 2 1 3 0 2 0 1 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 3 2 5 0 7 8 7 

ALL SPECIES 3 11

TOTAL

1 0 7 21 8 104 33 

HD

6/4/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

5/31/2010
Target Species

Alewife 5 1 1 0 7 48 36 37 98 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 1 1 0 2 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 5 3 2 0 10 50 36 37 98 

Lake Herring 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 

Spottail shiner 7 2 0 0 9 0 4 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

TOTAL 7 2 0 0 9 2 11 4 5 

ALL SPECIES 0 19

TOTAL

12 5 2 52 47 41 103 

HD

6/4/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/3/2010
Target Species

Alewife 12 1 0 1 14 3 16 2 0 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 1 

Lake trout 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 

TOTAL 12 2 0 1 15 3 20 2 3 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Lake whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 1 

Round goby 1 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 3 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Spottail shiner 0 3 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 1 4 0 0 5 2 6 0 7 

ALL SPECIES 1 20

TOTAL

13 6 0 5 26 2 10 

HD

6/11/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/7/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 3 0 3 4 1 94 0 

Brown trout 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 1 

TOTAL 0 1 4 0 5 5 1 97 1 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Spottail shiner 0 5 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

TOTAL 0 5 0 0 5 1 4 1 6 

ALL SPECIES 0 10

TOTAL

0 6 4 6 5 98 7 

HD

6/11/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/10/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 38 13 4 0 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 

TOTAL 0 0 0 0 0 38 17 4 1 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 

Round whitefish 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Spottail shiner 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

TOTAL 2 1 1 0 4 1 5 3 0 

ALL SPECIES 0 4

TOTAL

2 1 1 39 22 7 1 

HD

6/16/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/14/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 0 1 2 2 11 16 2 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 1 0 0 1 2 2 14 17 2 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Spottail shiner 2 0 3 1 6 0 0 3 0 

TOTAL 2 0 3 1 6 0 2 3 2 

ALL SPECIES 2 8

TOTAL

3 0 3 2 16 20 4 

HD

6/16/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/15/2010
Target Species

Alewife 3 0 1 0 4 12 6 7 6 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

TOTAL 3 0 1 0 4 12 7 7 7 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 3 3 0 0 0 1 

Spottail shiner 1 1 2 1 5 8 0 4 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 

TOTAL 1 1 2 4 8 10 2 5 1 

ALL SPECIES 4 12

TOTAL

4 1 3 22 9 12 8 

HD

6/28/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/21/2010
Target Species

Alewife 3 5 4 11 23 93 210 60 76 

Brown trout 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 

Chinook salmon 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 6 2 

TOTAL 4 6 4 11 25 94 213 68 79 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 19 0 2 0 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 2 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 11 

Spottail shiner 4 3 0 0 7 2 2 0 0 

Walleye 1 1 0 0 2 3 0 1 1 

White perch 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

TOTAL 5 6 0 0 11 30 2 8 12 

ALL SPECIES 11 36

TOTAL

9 12 4 124 215 76 91 

HD

7/1/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/29/2010
Target Species

Alewife 11 1 0 1 13 60 119 45 40 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Lake trout 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 11 2 0 1 14 60 121 45 41 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 1 0 

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 2 0 2 1 0 5 8 

Round whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Spottail shiner 4 1 0 1 6 8 4 0 1 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

TOTAL 4 1 2 1 8 16 6 7 10 

ALL SPECIES 2 22

TOTAL

15 3 2 76 127 52 51 

HD

7/1/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

6/30/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 2 1 

Brown trout 1 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 

TOTAL 1 0 0 1 2 0 3 2 1 

Channel catfish 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Common carp 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 6 3 1 0 

Spottail shiner 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 1 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 

TOTAL 3 0 0 0 3 10 6 3 2 

ALL SPECIES 1 5

TOTAL

4 0 0 10 9 5 3 

HD

7/9/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/7/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 2 1 1 4 2 4 3 40 

Brown trout 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 1 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

TOTAL 0 2 1 5 8 2 4 4 41 

Channel catfish 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 14 7 2 6 

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Rock bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Spottail shiner 1 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 

White sucker 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1 0 1 2 4 18 12 4 8 

ALL SPECIES 7 12

TOTAL

1 2 2 20 16 8 49 

HD

7/9/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/8/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 1 0 2 0 2 6 3 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 1 0 1 1 3 0 5 6 4 

Freshwater drum 0 1 0 0 1 8 2 3 8 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 1 3 4 0 0 4 0 

Smallmouth bass 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 2 2 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 6 3 

White sucker 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 4 4 1 4 13 8 2 13 12 

ALL SPECIES 5 16

TOTAL

5 4 2 8 7 19 16 

HD

7/14/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/12/2010
Target Species

Alewife 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 

Brown trout 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

TOTAL 2 1 0 1 4 1 0 3 1 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 5 0 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 

Spottail shiner 0 2 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 

Walleye 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 

White sucker 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1 4 0 0 5 6 1 12 2 

ALL SPECIES 1 9

TOTAL

3 5 0 7 1 15 3 

HD

7/14/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/13/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 1 0 2 5 2 9 3 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

TOTAL 1 0 1 0 2 5 3 9 5 

Common carp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5 2 

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Rock bass 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 

Spottail shiner 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 

Walleye 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1 1 0 1 3 0 7 6 3 

ALL SPECIES 1 5

TOTAL

2 1 1 5 10 15 8 

HD

7/23/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/19/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 1 1 1 2 5 8 

Brown trout 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Yellow perch 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 2 0 2 4 1 2 5 8 

Channel catfish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 4 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 3 0 0 3 0 2 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 0 3 0 2 5 1 3 1 5 

ALL SPECIES 4 9

TOTAL

0 5 0 2 5 6 13 

HD

7/23/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/20/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 24 0 3 27 5 16 3 23 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 24 1 3 28 5 17 3 23 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Spottail shiner 2 0 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

White perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 2 0 0 0 2 1 3 0 3 

ALL SPECIES 3 30

TOTAL

2 24 1 6 20 3 26 

HD

8/1/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/29/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 1 2 1 4 0 4 8 4 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 

TOTAL 0 1 2 1 4 0 7 18 4 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Spottail shiner 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 5 1 

ALL SPECIES 1 5

TOTAL

1 1 2 0 8 23 5 

HD

8/1/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

7/31/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 1 1 7 9 8 3 1 8 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 

TOTAL 0 1 1 8 10 8 5 2 10 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 2 

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 

Round goby 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 

Smallmouth bass 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 1 0 2 2 5 7 1 0 7 

ALL SPECIES 10 15

TOTAL

1 1 3 15 6 2 17 

HD

8/11/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

8/9/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 2 0 6 8 0 2 2 5 

Chinook salmon 1 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 

TOTAL 1 2 0 9 12 0 2 2 5 

Lake sturgeon 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 0 1 0 1 0 5 0 3 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 0 0 1 0 1 1 8 1 5 

ALL SPECIES 9 13

TOTAL

1 2 1 1 10 3 10 

HD

8/11/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

8/10/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Brown trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 

Coho salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Lake trout 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Yellow perch 0 0 0 0 0 6 2 1 0 

TOTAL 0 2 0 0 2 6 3 4 2 

Lake sturgeon 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Nontarget Species

Northern pike 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

Smallmouth bass 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 10 4 

White perch 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 

TOTAL 0 4 1 0 5 12 5 14 4 

ALL SPECIES 0 7

TOTAL

0 6 1 18 8 18 6 

HD

8/30/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

8/23/2010
Target Species

Alewife 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 

TOTAL 0 0 1 0 1 0 4 3 0 

Freshwater drum 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 

Nontarget Species

Spottail shiner 1 1 0 1 3 1 2 0 0 

White perch 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 

TOTAL 3 1 0 1 5 3 3 3 1 

ALL SPECIES 1 6

TOTAL

3 1 1 3 7 6 1 

HD

9/7/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

9/1/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Brown trout 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 

Chinook salmon 2 3 3 5 13 0 2 3 3 

Coho salmon 1 5 2 4 12 0 0 1 1 

Lake trout 1 0 0 1 2 3 4 3 1 

Rainbow smelt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Yellow perch 0 0 1 0 1 3 0 1 0 

TOTAL 5 8 7 10 30 6 6 9 6 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 17 10 8 25 60 8 6 1 2 

Longnose sucker 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Rock bass 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 1 2 1 0 4 1 1 1 1 

Round goby 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Round whitefish 0 2 1 3 6 3 0 6 15 

Smallmouth bass 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 

Spottail shiner 0 0 1 2 3 2 15 1 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 

White sucker 3 3 2 0 8 0 0 1 0 

TOTAL 22 17 14 30 83 14 23 16 21 

ALL SPECIES 40 113

TOTAL

27 25 21 20 29 25 27 

HD

10/4/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

9/27/2010
Target Species

Alewife 2 1 0 2 5 0 1 3 3 

Brown trout 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 

Chinook salmon 0 1 0 4 5 0 1 0 2 

Lake trout 1 4 0 3 8 19 13 9 24 

TOTAL 3 8 0 9 20 19 15 12 29 

Burbot 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 

Gizzard shad 0 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 

Redhorse spp. 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 

Round whitefish 0 1 0 1 2 4 9 3 19 

Spottail shiner 1 0 0 0 1 0 15 0 2 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

White sucker 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 2 0 

TOTAL 1 4 2 1 8 9 28 11 25 

ALL SPECIES 10 28

TOTAL

4 12 2 28 43 23 54 

HD

10/7/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

10/4/2010
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 

Chinook salmon 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Chub (Bloater) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Coho salmon 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 2 

Lake trout 3 0 1 5 9 27 11 18 13 

Rainbow smelt 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

TOTAL 4 1 1 5 11 27 11 25 17 

Freshwater drum 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 7 6 

Nontarget Species

Lake whitefish 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 

Redhorse spp. 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 

Round whitefish 0 1 1 2 4 1 8 5 12 

Spottail shiner 2 0 0 0 2 0 4 0 0 

Walleye 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 3 3 

White sucker 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

TOTAL 2 1 2 3 8 2 23 18 22 

ALL SPECIES 8 19

TOTAL

6 2 3 29 34 43 39 

HD

10/7/2010

STATIONS INSIDE BARRIER STATIONS OUTSIDE BARRI

2 3 6 7

INSIDETOTAL

1 4 5 8 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

GILL NET DAILY CATCH REPORT

10/5/2010
APPENDIX D 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

 WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS 

SUMMARIES 

2010 
Target Species

Alewife 0 3 3 100.0

Brown trout 3 22 25 86.4

Chub (Bloater) 0 3 3 100.0

Lake trout 0 30 30 100.0

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 3 59 62 94.9

Common carp 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 2 2 100.0

Smallmouth bass 0 1 1 100.0

White sucker 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 0 6 6 100.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

3 65 68

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

95.4

HDR Michigan, Inc.

4/23/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 4/18/2010 to 4/24/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Brown trout 0 6 6 100.0

Chinook salmon 0 1 1 100.0

Chub (Bloater) 0 1 1 100.0

Lake trout 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 0 9 9 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

TOTAL 0 1 1 100.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

0 10 10

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

100.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

5/3/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 4/25/2010 to 5/1/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 0 18 18 100.0

Brown trout 4 8 12 50.0

Chinook salmon 0 1 1 100.0

Lake trout 0 9 9 100.0

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 2 2 100.0

TOTAL 4 38 42 89.5

Freshwater drum 0 4 4 100.0

Nontarget Species

Lake whitefish 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 3 3 100.0

Round goby 1 8 9 87.5

Round whitefish 0 2 2 100.0

Spottail shiner 6 1 7 .0

TOTAL 7 19 26 63.2

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

11 57 68

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

80.7

HDR Michigan, Inc.

5/10/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 5/2/2010 to 5/8/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 0 1 1 100.0

Brown trout 2 8 10 75.0

Chinook salmon 2 2 4 .0

Lake trout 1 28 29 96.4

TOTAL 5 39 44 87.2

Redhorse spp. 1 3 4 66.7

Nontarget Species

Round goby 0 5 5 100.0

Round whitefish 0 9 9 100.0

Spottail shiner 6 6 12 .0

Walleye 1 0 1 .0

TOTAL 8 23 31 65.2

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

13 62 75

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

79.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

5/13/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 5/9/2010 to 5/15/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 7 98 105 92.9

Brown trout 1 12 13 91.7

Chinook salmon 0 7 7 100.0

Chub (Bloater) 0 1 1 100.0

Lake trout 0 15 15 100.0

Rainbow trout (Steelhead) 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 8 134 142 94.0

Freshwater drum 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Lake whitefish 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 2 2 100.0

Round goby 8 12 20 33.3

Round whitefish 0 5 5 100.0

Spottail shiner 2 2 4 .0

TOTAL 10 23 33 56.5

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

18 157 175

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

88.5

HDR Michigan, Inc.

5/19/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 5/16/2010 to 5/22/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 23 423 446 94.6

Brown trout 2 11 13 81.8

Chub (Bloater) 0 3 3 100.0

Lake trout 1 7 8 85.7

TOTAL 26 444 470 94.1

Freshwater drum 0 9 9 100.0

Nontarget Species

Round goby 8 27 35 70.4

Round whitefish 0 3 3 100.0

Spottail shiner 41 28 69 .0

Walleye 0 3 3 100.0

White sucker 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 49 71 120 31.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

75 515 590

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

85.4

HDR Michigan, Inc.

5/26/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 5/23/2010 to 5/29/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 13 356 369 96.3

Brown trout 0 1 1 100.0

Chinook salmon 0 1 1 100.0

Chub (Bloater) 1 1 2 .0

Lake trout 2 5 7 60.0

Yellow perch 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 16 365 381 95.6

Lake Herring 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Lake sturgeon 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 11 11 100.0

Round goby 1 21 22 95.2

Round whitefish 1 0 1 .0

Spottail shiner 12 7 19 .0

Walleye 0 2 2 100.0

White sucker 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 14 44 58 68.2

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

30 409 439

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

92.7

HDR Michigan, Inc.

6/4/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 5/30/2010 to 6/5/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 17 120 137 85.8

Brown trout 2 4 6 50.0

Lake trout 1 8 9 87.5

TOTAL 20 132 152 84.8

Freshwater drum 0 2 2 100.0

Nontarget Species

Lake sturgeon 0 1 1 100.0

Lake whitefish 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 8 8 100.0

Round goby 2 6 8 66.7

Round whitefish 0 2 2 100.0

Spottail shiner 8 4 12 .0

Walleye 0 2 2 100.0

White sucker 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 10 27 37 63.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

30 159 189

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

81.1

HDR Michigan, Inc.

6/11/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 6/6/2010 to 6/12/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 2 86 88 97.7

Brown trout 0 4 4 100.0

Chub (Bloater) 0 1 1 100.0

Lake trout 0 4 4 100.0

TOTAL 2 95 97 97.9

Redhorse spp. 0 5 5 100.0

Nontarget Species

Round goby 1 5 6 80.0

Round whitefish 1 1 2 .0

Spottail shiner 8 4 12 .0

Walleye 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 10 16 26 37.5

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

12 111 123

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

89.2

HDR Michigan, Inc.

6/16/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 6/13/2010 to 6/19/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 4 31 35 87.1

Brown trout 0 2 2 100.0

TOTAL 4 33 37 87.9

Freshwater drum 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 1 1 100.0

Round goby 3 1 4 .0

Spottail shiner 5 12 17 58.3

Walleye 0 3 3 100.0

TOTAL 8 18 26 55.6

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

12 51 63

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

76.5

HDR Michigan, Inc.

6/28/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 6/20/2010 to 6/26/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 36 703 739 94.9

Brown trout 1 6 7 83.3

Chinook salmon 1 2 3 50.0

Chub (Bloater) 0 1 1 100.0

Lake trout 1 0 1 .0

Yellow perch 0 9 9 100.0

TOTAL 39 721 760 94.6

Freshwater drum 0 26 26 100.0

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 2 5 7 60.0

Round goby 2 29 31 93.1

Round whitefish 0 1 1 100.0

Spottail shiner 13 17 30 23.5

Walleye 2 6 8 66.7

White perch 0 2 2 100.0

White sucker 0 4 4 100.0

TOTAL 19 91 110 79.1

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

58 812 870

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

92.9

HDR Michigan, Inc.

7/1/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 6/27/2010 to 7/3/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 5 53 58 90.6

Brown trout 5 3 8 .0

Yellow perch 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 10 57 67 82.5

Channel catfish 0 6 6 100.0

Nontarget Species

Common carp 1 0 1 .0

Freshwater drum 0 39 39 100.0

Gizzard shad 0 1 1 100.0

Lake sturgeon 0 1 1 100.0

Rock bass 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 2 2 100.0

Round goby 0 1 1 100.0

Spottail shiner 4 7 11 42.9

Walleye 1 5 6 80.0

White sucker 1 0 1 .0

TOTAL 7 63 70 88.9

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

17 120 137

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

85.8

HDR Michigan, Inc.

7/9/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 7/4/2010 to 7/10/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 5 12 17 58.3

Brown trout 1 4 5 75.0

Chinook salmon 0 1 1 100.0

Yellow perch 1 3 4 66.7

TOTAL 7 20 27 65.0

Freshwater drum 1 32 33 96.9

Nontarget Species

Redhorse spp. 2 0 2 .0

Round goby 4 8 12 50.0

Smallmouth bass 1 0 1 .0

Spottail shiner 6 1 7 .0

Walleye 2 14 16 85.7

White sucker 2 1 3 .0

TOTAL 18 56 74 67.9

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

25 76 101

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

67.1

HDR Michigan, Inc.

7/14/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 7/11/2010 to 7/17/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 3 35 38 91.4

Brown trout 2 1 3 .0

Yellow perch 1 2 3 50.0

TOTAL 6 38 44 84.2

Channel catfish 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Common carp 0 1 1 100.0

Freshwater drum 0 14 14 100.0

Gizzard shad 0 3 3 100.0

Rock bass 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 1 1 100.0

Round goby 2 1 3 .0

Spottail shiner 4 3 7 .0

Walleye 2 1 3 .0

TOTAL 8 26 34 69.2

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

14 64 78

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

78.1

HDR Michigan, Inc.

7/23/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 7/18/2010 to 7/24/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 31 63 94 50.8

Brown trout 0 4 4 100.0

Yellow perch 1 10 11 90.0

TOTAL 32 77 109 58.4

Freshwater drum 0 3 3 100.0

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 1 1 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 2 2 100.0

Spottail shiner 3 3 6 .0

Walleye 0 2 2 100.0

White perch 0 1 1 100.0

White sucker 0 2 2 100.0

TOTAL 3 14 17 78.6

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

35 91 126

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

61.5

HDR Michigan, Inc.

8/1/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 7/25/2010 to 7/31/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 17 29 46 41.4

Chinook salmon 3 3 6 .0

Yellow perch 2 2 4 .0

TOTAL 22 34 56 35.3

Freshwater drum 0 6 6 100.0

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 0 2 2 100.0

Lake sturgeon 0 2 2 100.0

Redhorse spp. 1 4 5 75.0

Round goby 2 1 3 .0

Smallmouth bass 1 0 1 .0

Spottail shiner 2 10 12 80.0

Walleye 0 3 3 100.0

White sucker 0 2 2 100.0

TOTAL 6 30 36 80.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

28 64 92

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

56.3

HDR Michigan, Inc.

8/11/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 8/8/2010 to 8/14/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 0 1 1 100.0

Brown trout 0 1 1 100.0

Chinook salmon 2 0 2 .0

Coho salmon 0 2 2 100.0

Lake trout 0 2 2 100.0

Yellow perch 0 9 9 100.0

TOTAL 2 15 17 86.7

Lake sturgeon 1 0 1 .0

Nontarget Species

Northern pike 0 2 2 100.0

Redhorse spp. 0 2 2 100.0

Smallmouth bass 4 0 4 .0

Spottail shiner 0 4 4 100.0

Walleye 0 21 21 100.0

White perch 0 2 2 100.0

White sucker 0 4 4 100.0

TOTAL 5 35 40 85.7

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

7 50 57

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

86.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

8/30/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 8/22/2010 to 8/28/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 0 2 2 100.0

Chinook salmon 1 5 6 80.0

TOTAL 1 7 8 85.7

Freshwater drum 2 1 3 .0

Nontarget Species

Spottail shiner 3 3 6 .0

White perch 0 2 2 100.0

White sucker 0 4 4 100.0

TOTAL 5 10 15 50.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

6 17 23

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

64.7

HDR Michigan, Inc.

9/7/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 8/29/2010 to 9/4/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 1 0 1 .0

Brown trout 1 1 2 .0

Chinook salmon 13 8 21 .0

Coho salmon 12 2 14 .0

Lake trout 2 11 13 81.8

Rainbow smelt 0 1 1 100.0

Yellow perch 1 4 5 75.0

TOTAL 30 27 57 0.0

Freshwater drum 0 3 3 100.0

Nontarget Species

Gizzard shad 60 17 77 .0

Longnose sucker 0 1 1 100.0

Rock bass 1 0 1 .0

Redhorse spp. 4 4 8 .0

Round goby 0 1 1 100.0

Round whitefish 6 24 30 75.0

Smallmouth bass 1 0 1 .0

Spottail shiner 3 18 21 83.3

Walleye 0 5 5 100.0

White sucker 8 1 9 .0

TOTAL 83 74 157 0.0

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

113 101 214

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

0.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

10/4/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 9/26/2010 to 10/2/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
Target Species

Alewife 6 10 16 40.0

Brown trout 2 0 2 .0

Chinook salmon 5 4 9 .0

Chub (Bloater) 0 2 2 100.0

Coho salmon 1 4 5 75.0

Lake trout 17 134 151 87.3

Rainbow smelt 0 1 1 100.0

TOTAL 31 155 186 80.0

Burbot 0 1 1 100.0

Nontarget Species

Freshwater drum 0 32 32 100.0

Gizzard shad 2 1 3 .0

Lake whitefish 0 4 4 100.0

Redhorse spp. 4 0 4 .0

Round whitefish 6 61 67 90.2

Spottail shiner 3 21 24 85.7

Walleye 0 10 10 100.0

White sucker 1 8 9 87.5

TOTAL 16 138 154 88.4

ALL SPECIES

TOTAL

47 293 340

* Percent Effectiveness = ((Outside Catch - Inside Catch)/Outside Catch)*100; all negative numbers reported as 0% effective.

84.0

HDR Michigan, Inc.

10/7/2010

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING PROGRAM

WEEKLY CATCH and BARRIER NET EFFECTIVENESS SUMMARY

WEEK OF: 10/3/2010 to 10/9/2010

INSIDE

STATIONS

OUTSIDE

STATIONS

WEEKLY

TOTAL

PERCENT*

EFFECTIVENESS
APPENDIX E 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

MONTHLY DEPTH CATCH DATA SUMMARIES 

MONTHLY BOTTOM - 24’ NET CATCH SUMMARY 

MONTHLY MID-DEPTH - 24’ NET CATCH SUMMARY 

MONTHLY SURFACE - 24’ NET CATCH SUMMARY 

MONTHLY SHORELINE NET CATCH SUMMARY 

2010 
SPECIES Size

(Inches) Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 

>12-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 1 1 

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 18 1 23 0 5 0 0 0 1 1 3 6 3

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 3 1 4 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Yellow perch 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10 2 1 1 1 0 

>5 0 0 0 1 0 6 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alewife 4-5 0 0 1 19 2 34 3 27 9 10 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 3 117 11 172 7 45 0 0 0 0 0 

Chubs 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Target Species >=4 23 6 164 14 222 17 90 13 16 5 8 8 4

Nontarget Species >=4 1 40 94 13 62 11 56 6 23 30 38 6 5

All Species Total >=4 0 24 46 258 27 284 28 146 19 39 35 46 14 10

TABLE E-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY BOTTOM - 24' NET CATCH SUMMARY

2010

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 
SPECIES Size

(Inches) Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

>12-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

>20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 1 

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 1 0 

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 1 0 3 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Yellow perch 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 

Alewife 4-5 0 0 0 11 0 19 0 16 5 4 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 1 87 8 94 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 

Chubs 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Target Species >=4 1 1 102 8 117 1 27 5 4 10 5 2 2

Nontarget Species >=4 0 0 2 4 1 8 20 5 12 3 2 

All Species Total >=4 0 1 3 106 9 125 1 47 5 9 22 8 4 3

TABLE E-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY MID-DEPTH - 24' NET CATCH SUMMARY

2010

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 
SPECIES Size

(Inches) Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 

>12-20 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>20 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 

Yellow perch 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alewife 4-5 0 0 0 31 0 46 2 10 0 2 0 2 0 

>5 0 2 7 146 2 122 0 10 0 1 0 0 2 

Chubs 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Target Species >=4 5 7 183 3 170 2 20 5 3 5 5 

Nontarget Species >=4 0 0 7 3 4 4 3 3 

All Species Total >=4 0 5 14 186 3 174 2 24 0 8 6 5 5 2

TABLE E-3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

MONTHLY SURFACE - 24' NET CATCH SUMMARY

2010

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 
SPECIES Size

(Inches) Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outside Inside Outsid

Chinook salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 2 10 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 

>12-20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 

>20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 5 5 1 

Coho salmon 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 1 

Steelhead 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Lake trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>12 0 10 1 32 2 6 0 0 0 0 1 7 8 7

Brown trout 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5-12 0 1 3 1 2 5 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 

>12 3 24 5 33 0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Yellow perch 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 3 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 

Smelt 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Alewife 4-5 0 0 7 57 22 115 27 34 3 12 0 0 1 

>5 0 1 17 209 21 557 5 11 0 1 1 0 3 

Chubs 4-5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

>5 0 2 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Target Species >=4 3 39 35 350 50 693 35 55 6 24 13 16 16 7

Nontarget Species >=4 6 30 57 42 100 25 79 5 34 43 43 8 6

All Species Total >=4 3 45 65 407 92 793 60 134 11 58 56 59 24 13

TABLE E-4

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PLANT

MONTHLY SHORELINE NET CATCH SUMMARY

2010

APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 
APPENDIX F 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMED STORAGE PROJECT 

 MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT 

2010 
BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

MONITORING SUMMARY REPORT 

2010 

Prepared By 

Daniel Weisenreder 

HDR Michigan, Inc. 

5405 Data Court

Ann Arbor, Mi 48108-8949 

For 

Consumers Energy Company 

212 West Michigan Avenue 

Jackson, MI 49201 

and 

The Detroit Edison Company 

2000 Second Avenue 

Detroit, MI 48226 
TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1

RESPONSIBILITIES................................................................................................................... 1 

SUMMARY MONITORING REPORT...................................................................................... 2 

 I. COLLECTING 

A. Gill Nets......................................................................................................................... 2 

 II. DATA.................................................................................................................................. 5 

A. Fish Counting and Measurement..................................................................................... 5 

B. Creation of Records......................................................................................................... 6 

III. DISPOSITION OF FISH COLLECTED...................................................................... 7 

A Handling....................................................................................................................... 7 

B. Disposition.................................................................................................................. 8 

C. Log Maintenance.......................................................................................................... 10 

 IV. OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND/OR COMMENTS................................................. 10 

A. Inspection and Repair of Gill Nets.............................................................................. 10 

B. Data for the Michigan Department of Natural Resources............................................. 11 

C. Voucher Collection...................................................................................................... 11 

D. Scientific Collectors Permit......................................................................................... 12 

E. Deviations from Scheduled Activities.......................................................................... 12 

 F. Records Management.................................................................................................. 12 

V. CERTIFICATION.......................................................................................................... 13 

 
LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Set and Lift Dates for Gill Netting 

Table 2. Lake Conditions at Set and Lift of Gill Nets 

Table 3. Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets 

Table 4. Net Number Usage for Gill Net Sampling 

Table 5-1. Gill Netting Set Water Temperature (centigrade) 

Table 5-2. Gill Netting Lift Water Temperature (centigrade) 

Table 6. Fish Released in the Field 

Table 7. Summary of Fish Handled in Fish Disposition (pounds) 

Table 8. Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds) to Carlson’s Farm 

Table 9. Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds) to the Benzie County Council on Aging 

Table 10. Summary of Yellow Perch Samples Frozen for Michigan Department of Natural 

 Resources 

Table 11. Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds) to (ENTERGY, Palisades) for 

 Radiological Analyses 

Table 12. Data on Salmonids with Coded Wire Tags 

Table 13. List of Species in the Voucher Collection 

 LIST OF APPENDICES 

Appendix F-I. Gill Net Daily Catch Reports 

Appendix F-II. Letters of Authorization 

Appendix F-III. Gill Net History 

Appendix F-IV. Length Frequency of Yellow Perch 

 
1 

INTRODUCTION 

From April 15 through October 15, 2010 a monitoring program was undertaken to assess the 

effectiveness of a barrier net to reduce fish losses at the Ludington Pumped Storage Project, 

Ludington, Michigan. Monitoring consisted of weekly collection of fish by gill netting. Quality 

assurance/quality control procedures were implemented to assure completion of the monitoring 

program procedural steps, data logging, documentation of monitoring activities and fish disposition. 

RESPONSIBILITIES 

The primary responsibility of the monitoring program was to document and report on barrier net 

effectiveness activities by performing specific tasks including weekly reports to document weather 

conditions and water temperatures during sampling, gill netting parameters, and disposition of the 

catch. Disposition included sorting of fish into selected species, obtaining fish weights, contacting 

the fish disposition recipients and supervising/documenting the fish pickup. 

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources requested that data be collected from lake trout to 

augment research being conducted by the Fisheries Division. All salmonids with only an adipose fin 

clip were identified as fish carrying a coded wire-tag. The upper jaws of such fish were collected so 

that the tags could be retrieved for examination by the MDNRE. 

The MDNRE requested that length frequency data (in 25-millimeter size classes) be obtained from 

yellow perch. Measurements of all yellow perch returned to the laboratory were taken from April to 

October. 

Due to a reservoir outage from September 8 to September 24, barrier net effectiveness monitoring 

was suspended. However, to meet the damage compensation terms of the State Settlement 

Agreement (biological scaling of payment), sampling continued to document fish abundance near 

the Ludington Pumped Storage Project. 

The project supervisor completed twenty-seven weekly Monitoring Report Forms specified in the 

quality assurance/quality control procedure. Reports were submitted to the Superintendent, 

Ludington Pumped Storage Plant. Each report included copies of the monitoring contractor's gill net 

catch data sheets and gill net catch daily reports, a fish disposition summary and data requested by 

the MDNRE. 

The present report represents a summary of the weekly activities for the twenty-seven week 

effectiveness monitoring program and a compilation of the data that the project supervisor was 

responsible for collecting. The Monitoring Report Form is used as the outline for the summary. 

Referenced tables include data obtained during the reservoir outage. 
2 

 SUMMARY MONITORING REPORT 

 

I. COLLECTING

A. GILL NETS 

1. Was gill net deployment observed at all stations? 

Gill net deployment was observed at all stations on all sampling dates. 

2. If not, please list exceptions. 

3. Record setting date: 

Weather permitting; the routine sampling schedule was to set nets Monday 

and Tuesday of each week. 

The set dates and days of week for weeks 1 to 27 are provided in Table 1. 

No sets were made in weeks 1, 17, 19, 22, 24 and 27 due to adverse weather 

conditions. A Monday/Tuesday sampling schedule was achieved in seven of 

the twenty seven weeks. 

4. Describe lake conditions during set, include wave height, wind direction, air 

 temperature, etc. 

Lake conditions at set and lift for each sampling date are given in Table 2. 

5. List Crew Members: 

Persons on board the vessel at one time or another during 2010 sampling 

include: 

 

 HDR Michigan, Inc.

Dan Weisenreder (Crew Chief), Micah Schmidt, Jeff LaPrad, Blaise 

LaPrad and Derrick Schroeder (Technicians) 

Consumers Energy Company

Scott DeBoe (Senior Environmental Planner) 

The Detroit Edison Company

Gary Longton (Senior Environmental Engineering 

 Technician)

 Matt Shackleford (Environmental Staff Engineer)

 Jon Bateman (Environmental Associate Engineering 

 Technician) 
3 

 NTH Consultants, Ltd

 Brad Venman (Senior Vice President & Corporate 

 Quality Officer) 

 6. Record the time each gill net was set (followed by the number of each net). 

The times each gill net was set on each sampling date are given in Table 3. 

Each gill net was uniquely identified with a number. The identification of 

numbered gill nets used at each set (by station) is provided in Table 4. 

7. Record the mid-depth water temperature in Centigrade at each gill net 

 set. 

Mid-depth water temperature for each set is given in Table 5-1. 

. 

8. Briefly describe the conditions of the gill nets (include tears, changes in 

 numbers of panels, etc.) prior to sampling and indicate if any nets were 

 replaced since previous sampling. 

In accordance with the QA/QC Procedures, the monitoring contractor 

implemented a rigorous equipment maintenance program. Tears in nets were 

repaired before a net was set (see Appendix F-III, Table A). No changes 

occurred in numbers of panels. 

9. Was gill net lifting observed at all stations? 

Gill net lifting was observed at all stations on all sampling dates. 

10. If not, list exceptions. 

11. Record lifting date: 

The lift dates for 2010 sampling are provided in Table 1. Lifts were made on 

the day following a set. 

12. Record the time each gill net was lifted. 

The times each gill net was lifted on each sampling date are given in Table 3. 

13. Record the mid-depth water temperature in Centigrade at each gill net 

 lift. 

Mid-depth water temperature for each lift is given in Table 5-2. 
4 

14. List Crew Members 

 Crew members are listed in Section I.A.5. of this text. 

15. Comment: 

Only fish that were in the gill net when it was brought into the boat were 

considered as caught. However, if a fish was observed to fall out of the net 

just before reaching the boat it would be recorded as caught if species 

identification and size class were determined with certainty. 

All salmonids with an adipose fin clip were returned to the lab for 

processing. 

Where conditions allowed, every effort was made to return live fish to the 

water. When fish were released in the field the data were recorded in the 

Boat Log. Data included station caught, station released, species, size class 

for target species, and panel depth of capture (surface, mid-depth and bottom) 

for the 24-foot deep nets. Data were transcribed to the gill net data sheets in 

the laboratory. A record of the fish released, or observed to fall out of the 

net, during 2010 sampling is presented in Table 6. 

16. Vessel used in the assessment. 

Two vessels were used during the 2010 assessment. During weeks 1 through 

15 a 20-foot steel hulled boat powered by a 70 HP outboard engine with the 

Michigan registration number MC 4869 GJ was used. Starting week 16 a 28- 

foot aluminum hulled boat powered by a 150 HP outboard engine with 

Michigan registration number MC 2602 TG was used. 

17. Briefly describe the conditions of the gill nets (including tears, changes in 

 numbers of panels, etc.) after sampling. 

Tears in nets after lift are documented on gill net data sheets. Small tears 

were repaired immediately and the nets remained in service. Otherwise, nets 

were taken out of service and repaired before the next use. Repair could 

involve a few meshes or replacement of a complete panel. However, no 

changes were made in the numbers of panels in a net. Repair history for each 

gill net is presented in Appendix F-III. 

18. Describe lake conditions during lift, including wave height, wind direction, 

air temperature, etc. 

Lake conditions during net lift for each sample date are given in Table 2. 
5 

II. DATA

A. FISH COUNTING AND MEASUREMENT 

1. Gill nets (Lake Michigan and Reservoir) 

a. What size mesh was used? 

Gill nets were 330-feet long and either 6-foot or 24-foot deep. Mesh 

in each net consisted of 11, 30-foot panels of stretch mesh sizes of 1 

inch, 1 1/2 inch, 2 inch, 2 1/2 inch, 2 3/4 inch, 3 inch, 4 inch, 4 1/2 

inch, 5 inch, 6 inch and 7 inch. In the weekly monitoring reports 

"standard set" signified that this complete array of nets was set. 

b. Were fish correctly identified? 

Yes. If there was any doubt about identification, fish were keyed out 

using: Becker, George C. 1983 Fishes of Wisconsin, The Univ. 

Wisconsin Press, 1052 p. 

c. Did you observe counts of fish from each net 

Yes. The project supervisor participated in counts of fish. 

d. Did you observe counts of fish from each panel? 

Yes. For the 6-foot deep nets all fish were put into one container and 

then counted. With the 24-foot deep nets fish were sorted into lots 

representing fish caught at the bottom, mid-depth and surface 

sections of each net. Fish caught at each depth section were then 

counted. 

When a 24-foot deep net was returned to the laboratory and 

processed, some fish (primarily alewife) would fall out of the net. 

When the depth panel of origin was unknown, these fish were 

allocated to the gill net section (surface, mid-depth or bottom) in the 

proportion of capture for the species collected in that sample. 

e. If NO, which nets/panels were not observed? 

Counts were always observed from each net/panel. 

f. Describe any actions which reflect inaccurate counts. 
6 

None. 

g. Were all fish less than 4 inches measured? 

 Yes. Two hundred and fifty five round gobies, four alewife, and three 

yellow perch <4 inches were captured and measured. 

h. If sub sampled, describe the methods used to randomly measure 

 lengths of fish from 4 to 5 inches long. 

When 20 or more fish of a target species in the size category of 4-5 

inches were caught, the sub-sampling procedure was as follows; (1.) 

all fish larger than 5 inches and less than 4 inches were removed from 

the sample, (2.) a grab sample of 20 fish was then taken from the full 

sample of fishes in the 4-5 inch size class, and (3.) these fish were 

measured. 

Fish length was recorded to the nearest 0.5 inches (4.0, 4.5 and 5.0 

inches). Fish classified as 4.0 inches measured 4.0 - 4.25 inches, 

those classified as 4.5 inches measured 4.26 - 4.75 inches and fish 

classified as 5.0 inches measured 4.76 - 5.0 inches. 

The above procedure was called "Standard Method" in the weekly 

monitoring reports. 

i. Did you observe all length measurements of fish taken from all gill 

 net panels? 

Yes. The project supervisor was present for all fish length 

measurements. 

j. If NO, which measurements were not observed? 

k. Describe any actions which reflect inaccurate size of fish captured 

 in gill nets. 

None 

B. CREATION OF RECORDS 

1. Did you observe data entry? 

Yes. 
7 

2. Did you spot check recording sheets versus data files? 

Yes. A complete audit of the data was conducted. The fish catch records in 

the monitoring contractor's weekly reports (Gill Net Daily Catch Report) 

have been compared with the field data sheets and the data agree. Copies of 

the Daily Catch Reports are provided as indicated in Appendix F-I.

3. Describe any actions which would not reflect accurate data entry. 

None. 

III. DISPOSITION OF FISH COLLECTED

Disposition of fish was authorized by a contract between HDR/LMS and the MDNR (see 

Appendix F-II). Briefly, the contract required that when less than 75 pounds in the round of 

edible fish were collected on a sampling day, both edible and non-edible fish were to be 

disposed of to Carlson’s Farm. When 75 pounds or more of edible fish were collected, they 

were to be dispositioned to the Benzie County Council on Aging in Honor, Michigan. 

Starting in week 13 of 2007, the contract was updated. The new contract included the 

contractor, HDR Michigan, Inc., clean and store edible fish when less than 75 pounds were 

collected. Fillets were stored in a locked freezer on site while the edible fish carcasses were 

disposed of with non-edible fish at Carlson’s farm. Edible fish were defined as fish in good 

condition and included; brown trout, lake trout, rainbow trout (steelhead), salmon (Chinook 

and coho), whitefish, and walleye, all over 10 inches, as well as yellow perch over 8.5 

inches. An additional fish recipient, Entergy, received a relatively small number of fish for 

radiological studies. As in past years, written authorization for these fish was given by the 

MDNRE (Appendix F-II). 

A. HANDLING 

 

1. Fish were sorted and weighed, as follows: 

Pounds

Yellow perch greater than 8.5” Weight: 9

Lake trout greater than 10" Weight: 1,367

Whitefish greater than 10" Weight: 213 

Chinook and coho greater than 10" Weight: 611.5 

All Others Weight: 2,216.5 

 Total 4,417 

2. Fish were processed and iced. 

Yes. Processing and icing was completed between 8:30 AM and 1:30 PM. 
8 

 3. Fish pickup was arranged. 

Yes. Carlson’s Farm and the Benzie County Council on Aging were informed 

by telephone when fish were available for pickup. Fish were picked up 

within the time frame agreed upon between the project supervisor and the 

disposition recipient. This varied from 2 to 36-hours after collection. A 

secured 4 x 8 foot shed was provided to hold whole fish until pickup. 

Carlson’s Farm was provided with a key for the lock on the shed. 

Cleaned fish were stored in a locked freezer until the Benzie County Council 

on Aging was available. 

B. DISPOSITION 

The total pounds of fish handled are given in Table 7. The fish caught in the 

study were distributed as follows (whole fish pounds): 

 Benzie Council Carlson’s 

 On Aging1

 Farm2 MDNR Entergy Total 

 

Yellow perch >8.5" 9 2 - - 11 

Lake trout >10" 1,354 - - 13 1,367 

Whitefish >10" 213 - - - 213 

Chinook/coho >10" 526.5 85 - - 611.5 

All Others 596 1,586.5 - 32 2,214.5 

Totals 2,698.5 1,673.5 - 45 4,417 

 1 Includes weight of edible fish carcasses sent to Carlson’s Farm. All Others species listed in Table 9 

 2 Does not include weight of edible fish carcasses that were also received

 1. FISH DISPOSITION CONTRACTOR 

a. Carlson’s Farm 

Non edible fish were disposed of at Carlson’s Farm. In addition, 

because the Benzie County Council on Aging was unable to pick up 

edible fish collected during week 16, all fish were disposed of at 

Carlson’s Farm. Fish carcasses from the edible fish cleaned and 

frozen for the Benzie County Council on Aging were also disposed of 

at Carlson’s Farm. 

1. Recipient's Name: 

Pat Carlson 
9 

2. Recipient's Organization: 

Carlson’s Farm. 

3. Date and time of distribution: 

Recorded in Fish Distribution Log. 

4. Description of Fish Taken 

A total of 1,673.5 pounds of whole-fish (Table 8). This 

excludes the edible fish carcasses received. 

 2. OTHERS 

a. Benzie County Council on Aging: 

 

The project supervisor notified the Benzie County Council on Aging 

when fish were available. Benzie County Council on Aging pickedup fish beginning April 23. 

1. Recipient's Name: 

Max Kracht, Jeff Sattler, Gary Huddleston and Cynthia 

Dutton 

2. Recipient's Organization: 

Benzie County Council on Aging, Honor, MI. 

3. Date and Time of Distribution: 

Recorded in Fish Distribution Log. 

4. Description of Fish Taken: 

A total of 2,698.5 pounds of fishes (Table 9). This includes 

the weight of carcasses distributed to Carlson’s Farm. 

b. Michigan Department of Natural Resources: 

 Yellow perch are no longer collected for the MDNR. 

 (Table 10)
10 

c. Entergy, Palisades (formerly Consumers Energy): 

Authorization was given by the MDNR for ENTERGY, Palisades to 

obtain fish from spring and fall barrier net monitoring collections for 

radiological analyses (See Appendix F-II). 

1. Recipient's Name: 

John Gulvas 

2. Recipient's Organization: 

ENTERGY, Palisades 

3. Date and Time of Distribution: 

Recorded in Fish Distribution Log. 

 4. Description of Fish Taken: 

A total of 45 pounds of fishes (Table 11) 

C. LOG MAINTENANCE 

1. Was the Fish Disposition Log completed to describe the 

 catch, document the pickup date and organization and 

 include the recipient's signature? 

Yes. The recipient's signatures are in the Fish Disposition 

Log and listed in the monitoring weekly reports. 

IV. OTHER OBSERVATIONS AND/OR COMMENTS

A. INSPECTION AND REPAIR OF GILL NETS 

The nets used in 2010 were a composite of nets used from 1994-2010. These 

included nets purchased in 1994 (Nets #2, 7and 8), nets purchased in 1996 (Nets # 

17, 19-21 and 23-24), nets purchased in 1997 (Nets # 25-29), nets purchased in 1998 

(Nets #31-34), nets purchased in 1999 (Nets #35-39) and nets purchased in 2000 

(Nets #40-51). Nets removed from the system (destroyed) because of poor condition 

before the 2010 sampling program and repairs made prior to or during the 2010 

sampling program are shown in Appendix F-III. 
11 

B. DATA FOR THE MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 

1. Coded Wire-Tags 

As part of the QA/QC Control Procedure, authorization was given (by the 

MDNR) for the project supervisor to collect the snout (top jaw from the eyes 

forward) from all salmonids with an adipose fin clip. Such fish carry a coded 

wire-tag and the MDNR Fisheries Division is gathering data from such fish. 

 Six Chinook salmon and five lake trout snouts were collected 

 during 2010 (Table 12). 

2. Observations of bacterial kidney disease (BKD) 

This program was discontinued in 1999. 

 

3. Lake Sturgeon 

Six lake sturgeon were collected during the 2010 sample season. Five were 

collected outside the barrier net while one was collected inside the barrier 

net. Two fish were captured during June. One fish captured June 3 was 

tagged with MDNR floy tag numbered 05854. One fish captured June 7 was 

tagged with a pit tag number 985120016221998. A fish captured on July 8 

was found to be carrying a pit tag number 486005223F. Three more fish 

were captured during August. One fish captured on August 10 was tagged 

with a pit tag number 985120025061107. Another fish captured on August 

10 was found to be carrying a pit tag number 484C3F5904. The last fish 

captured on August 23 was tagged with pit tag number 985120025042275. 

All lake sturgeon captured were released in good condition, outside the 

barrier net. 

4. Yellow Perch Length Frequency 

The MDNR requested that the project supervisor compile length frequency 

data for yellow perch, measured to the nearest millimeter. The length 

frequency distribution for each catch is provided in Appendix F-IV.

 C. VOUCHER COLLECTION 

 

The voucher collection developed in 1993 was maintained. No additions were 

made in 2010. Forty-two species are currently in the voucher collection. A list of 

species in the voucher collection is given in Table 13. 
12 

 D. SCIENTIFIC COLLECTORS PERMIT 

The project supervisor was issued a scientific collectors permit on February 26, 

2010. (see Appendix F-II). This served as authorization for the project supervisor 

to be in the possession of fish off site, e.g., to transport fish to a landfill (if 

necessary) and to transport biological specimens (scales, snouts, and caudal fins) 

to the MDNR. The permit had a special provision which allowed the project 

supervisor to handle threatened and endangered species, including sturgeon. 

E. DEVIATIONS FROM SCHEDULED ACTIVITIES 

 None. 

F. RECORDS MANAGEMENT 

In accordance with the QA/QC Procedures, the Fish Disposition Log and copies 

of each weekly Monitoring report have been deposited in the Consumers Energy 

E&LS File. 

TABLE 1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Set and Lift Dates for Gill Netting

2010

HDR Michigan, Inc.

*During reservoir outage

Week Month Set Date Day Lift Date

2 Apr 19 Mon 20

22 Thu 23

3 Apr 28 Wed 29

4 May 6 Thu 7

5 May 11 Tue 12

12 Wed 13

6 May 17 Mon 18

18 Tue 19

7 May 24 Mon 25

25 Tue 26

8 May 31 Mon 1

3 Thu 4

9 Jun 7 Mon 8

10 Thu 11

10 Jun 14 Mon 15

15 Tue 16

11 Jun 21 Mon 22

12 Jun 29 Tue 30

30 Wed 1

13 Jul 7 Wed 8

8 Thu 9

14 Jul 12 Mon 13

13 Tue 14

15 Jul 19 Mon 20

20 Tue 21

16 Jul 29 Thu 30

31 Sat 1

18 Aug 9 Mon 10

10 Tue 11

20 Aug 23 Mon 24

21 Sep 1 Wed 2

*23 Sep 14 Tue 15

25 Sep 27 Mon 28

26 Oct 4 Mon 5

5 Tue 6
TABLE 2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Lake Conditions at Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Set Lift

Week Month Date Weather Wind

Direction

Wave

Height

(feet)

Air

Temperature

(centigrade)

Weather Wind

Direction

W

He

(f

2 4 19 PC N 1-2 7.6 PC E 

4 22 C N <1 7.5 C E 

3 4 28 C 0 <1 8.8 PC SE 1

4 5 6 PC N 1-2 9.8 OC NE 25 5 11 OC E <1 7.7 R E 

5 12 PC SE <1 10.7 R SE 1

6 5 17 PC NE <1 16.4 PC E 

5 18 PC NE 1-2 12.7 C E 

7 5 24 PC 0 <1 23.7 C SE 

5 25 C N <1 20.5 PC SE 

8 5 31 PC N 1-2 16.1 FOG 0 

6 3 PC 0 <1 15.0 PC SE 

9 6 7 C N <1 14.1 C SE 

6 10 R N <1 14.4 PC E 

10 6 14 OC N 2-3 15.3 OC E 
TABLE 2 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Lake Conditions at Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Set Lift

Week Month Date Weather Wind

Direction

Wave

Height

(feet)

Air

Temperature

(centigrade)

Weather Wind

Direction

W

He

(fe

10 6 15 R E <1 16.5 FOG W 1

11 6 21 OC/R S <1 20.6 FOG S 2

12 6 29 C NE 1-2 17.7 C E <

6 30 C N <1 17.7 C E <

13 7 7 PC SW <1 23.8 R S 1

7 8 PC/FOG NW <1 22.2 PC NE <

14 7 12 PC N 1-2 21.5 PC E <

7 13 C N 1-2 23.4 C SE <

15 7 19 OC 0 <1 23.2 FOG E <

7 20 C SW 1-2 22.9 PC NW 1

16 7 29 C W <1 23.5 PC W 2

7 31 OC NE <1 19.5 C E <

18 8 9 C S 2-3 24.8 FOG E <

8 10 PC N <1 24.0 PC SE <

20 8 23 C N <1 22.9 PC SE 1

21 9 1 OC W 1-2 22.4 R/FOG SE <
TABLE 2 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Lake Conditions at Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Set Lift

Week Month Date Weather Wind

Direction

Wave

Height

(feet)

Air

Temperature

(centigrade)

Weather Wind

Direction

W

He

(fe

23 9 14 C NW <1 15.1 C E <

25 9 27 C 0 <1 13.6 C N <

26 10 4 C N <1 12.8 C W 1

10 5 C 0 <1 12.6 C E <

Weather:

C- Clear

PC- Partly Cloudy

OC- Over Cast

R- Rain
Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

2 Apr 19 1 19:20 06:12

2 19:14 06:06

3 19:50 06:41

4 19:58 06:48

5 19:28 06:20

6 19:36 06:29

7 21:12 07:03

8 20:08 06:55

2 Apr 22 1 19:30 06:08

2 19:25 06:00

3 19:54 06:37

4 20:00 06:44

5 19:36 06:16

6 19:42 06:24

7 20:13 07:01

8 20:07 06:53

3 Apr 28 1 19:46 06:17

2 19:40 06:10

3 20:09 06:45

4 20:14 06:51

5 19:52 06:23

6 19:57 06:33

7 20:26 07:08

8 20:20 07:00

4 May 6 1 20:05 06:01

2 19:59 05:55

3 20:27 06:36

4 20:33 06:40

5 20:11 06:12

6 20:17 06:24

7 20:44 07:00

8 20:39 06:50

5 May 11 1 19:38 06:06

2 19:32 06:00

3 19:59 06:33

4 20:05 06:40

5 19:43 06:14

6 19:48 06:23

7 20:16 06:55

8 20:10 06:48

5 May 12 1 19:42 05:54

2 19:37 05:47

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 3

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

3 20:02 06:27

4 20:06 06:33

5 19:47 06:04

6 19:51 06:14

7 20:16 06:50

8 20:11 06:42

6 May 17 1 19:50 06:03

2 19:45 05:55

3 20:12 06:35

4 20:18 06:41

5 19:55 06:13

6 20:01 06:23

7 20:30 06:58

8 20:24 06:50

6 May 18 1 20:16 06:37

2 20:10 06:31

3 19:36 05:58

4 19:42 06:02

5 20:21 06:47

6 20:28 06:55

7 19:57 06:19

8 19:51 06:10

7 May 24 1 20:19 06:28

2 20:14 06:23

3 19:48 05:45

4 19:52 05:50

5 20:24 06:39

6 20:29 06:50

7 20:03 06:10

8 19:58 06:00

7 May 25 1 20:25 06:30

2 20:20 06:24

3 19:51 05:49

4 19:57 05:54

5 20:30 06:41

6 20:36 06:51

7 20:08 06:11

8 20:03 06:03

8 May 31 1 20:20 05:53

2 20:15 05:48

3 20:41 06:23

4 20:46 06:28

HDR Michigan, Inc.
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

5 20:25 06:02

6 20:30 06:12

7 20:56 06:45

8 20:51 06:37

8 Jun 3 1 20:16 05:50

2 20:09 05:44

3 20:38 06:24

4 20:43 06:29

5 20:21 06:01

6 20:26 06:11

7 20:54 06:50

8 20:49 06:39

9 Jun 7 1 20:37 06:38

2 20:32 06:32

3 20:05 05:42

4 20:10 05:48

5 20:42 06:48

6 20:48 06:59

7 20:21 06:19

8 20:16 06:10

9 Jun 10 1 20:16 05:46

2 20:12 05:40

3 20:37 06:16

4 20:42 06:21

5 20:21 05:54

6 20:26 06:04

7 20:54 06:42

8 20:48 06:32

10 Jun 14 1 20:55 05:56

2 20:49 05:48

3 21:18 06:34

4 21:24 06:43

5 21:00 06:06

6 21:07 06:18

7 21:36 07:08

8 21:30 06:56

10 Jun 15 1 20:07 07:00

2 20:01 06:52

3 19:29 05:58

4 19:34 06:05

5 20:14 07:16

6 20:20 07:30

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 3
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

7 19:46 06:36

8 19:40 06:21

11 Jun 21 1 20:17 06:03

2 20:10 05:46

3 20:39 07:06

4 20:44 07:14

5 20:23 06:22

6 20:28 06:43

7 20:56 07:48

8 20:49 07:33

12 Jun 29 1 21:16 06:40

2 21:07 06:30

3 20:35 05:47

4 20:42 05:53

5 21:21 06:51

6 20:28 07:07

7 20:55 06:16

8 20:48 06:06

12 Jun 30 1 20:08 05:52

2 20:02 05:45

3 20:40 06:26

4 20:46 06:33

5 20:15 06:02

6 20:22 06:13

7 21:00 06:54

8 20:53 06:44

13 Jul 7 1 19:23 06:05

2 19:17 05:58

3 19:49 06:47

4 19:54 06:53

5 19:31 06:17

6 19:37 06:33

7 20:06 07:15

8 20:00 07:04

13 Jul 8 1 21:18 06:57

2 21:14 06:50

3 20:44 06:00

4 20:50 06:19

5 21:27 07:08

6 21:32 07:19

7 21:03 06:37

8 20:58 06:28

HDR Michigan, Inc.
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

14 Jul 12 1 21:06 06:09

2 21:02 06:03

3 21:29 06:46

4 21:35 06:53

5 21:11 06:19

6 21:18 06:29

7 21:46 07:13

8 21:40 07:03

14 Jul 13 1 20:26 05:54

2 20:22 05:47

3 20:48 06:31

4 20:53 06:37

5 20:32 06:04

6 20:37 06:15

7 21:03 06:57

8 20:58 06:47

15 Jul 19 1 20:22 06:08

2 20:15 06:02

3 20:46 06:46

4 20:51 06:53

5 20:28 06:18

6 20:34 06:30

7 21:03 07:12

8 20:56 07:02

15 Jul 20 1 20:45 06:56

2 20:38 06:46

3 20:07 05:59

4 20:12 06:06

5 20:51 07:10

6 20:59 07:20

7 20:25 06:25

8 20:17 06:16

16 Jul 29 1 21:01 07:03

2 20:56 06:55

3 20:24 06:10

4 20:30 06:17

5 21:08 07:14

6 21:15 07:28

7 20:44 06:37

8 20:37 06:27

16 Jul 31 1 20:53 06:56

2 20:47 06:49

HDR Michigan, Inc.
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

3 20:19 06:04

4 20:24 06:10

5 20:58 07:08

6 21:04 07:20

7 20:37 06:36

8 20:30 06:23

18 Aug 9 1 20:57 07:02

2 20:50 06:54

3 20:23 06:12

4 20:28 06:18

5 21:04 07:13

6 21:12 07:26

7 20:41 06:39

8 20:34 06:28

18 Aug 10 1 20:45 07:00

2 20:41 06:52

3 20:15 06:11

4 20:20 06:17

5 20:51 07:19

6 20:56 07:30

7 20:31 06:38

8 20:25 06:28

20 Aug 23 1 20:32 06:44

2 20:27 06:38

3 20:50 07:32

4 20:55 07:41

5 20:36 06:54

6 20:42 07:05

7 21:05 08:00

8 21:00 07:49

21 Sep 1 1 19:33 07:01

2 19:27 06:55

3 19:57 07:30

4 20:02 07:36

5 19:39 07:10

6 19:46 07:19

7 20:13 07:54

8 20:08 07:44

23 Sep 14 1 19:40 06:13

2 19:35 06:05

3 19:57 06:47

4 20:01 06:54

HDR Michigan, Inc.
TABLE 3 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Times of Day for Set and Lift of Gill Nets

2010

Week Month Date Station Set Time Lift Time

5 19:43 06:24

6 19:49 06:33

7 20:10 07:15

8 20:05 07:03

25 Sep 27 1 18:53 07:54

2 18:47 07:49

3 19:17 07:13

4 19:22 07:19

5 18:59 08:04

6 19:06 08:14

7 19:39 07:36

8 19:31 07:27

26 Oct 4 1 18:44 05:59

2 18:39 05:48

3 19:06 06:36

4 19:11 05:44

5 18:50 06:10

6 18:55 06:20

7 19:24 07:06

8 19:19 06:56

26 Oct 5 1 19:07 07:36

2 19:01 07:22

3 18:34 06:46

4 18:40 06:55

5 19:12 07:48

6 19:18 07:58

7 18:50 07:16

8 18:45 07:06

HDR Michigan, Inc.
Week Month Day 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Apr 19 42 40 39 45 50 49 48 47

22 45 39 40 42 49 50 47 48

3 Apr 28 42 39 45 43 47 48 49 50

4 May 6 45 39 42 43 47 49 50 48

5 May 11 42 43 39 45 49 47 48 50

12 42 39 43 45 49 47 48 50

6 May 17 45 43 42 39 49 50 47 48

18 45 43 42 39 49 47 50 48

7 May 24 42 39 45 43 49 50 48 47

25 42 39 43 45 49 50 47 48

8 May 31 39 42 45 43 47 48 49 50

3 42 43 45 39 49 48 47 50

9 Jun 7 39 42 43 45 48 47 49 50

10 42 39 43 45 49 47 48 50

10 Jun 14 43 39 42 45 50 47 49 48

15 39 43 45 42 47 50 49 48

11 Jun 21 43 39 42 45 49 48 50 47

12 Jun 29 45 42 44 43 50 49 47 48

30 45 42 44 43 50 49 48 47

13 Jul 7 45 42 44 43 48 50 47 49

8 44 43 42 45 47 49 50 48

14 Jul 12 45 42 43 44 49 47 50 48

13 44 45 43 42 49 50 48 47

15 Jul 19 42 43 44 45 49 47 48 50

20 45 44 43 42 49 47 50 48

16 Jul 29 42 43 44 45 50 48 47 46

31 45 44 43 42 46 47 48 50

18 Aug 9 45 44 43 42 48 47 50 46

10 42 44 43 45 48 47 46 50

20 Aug 23 43 45 42 44 50 46 48 47

21 Sep 1 43 45 42 44 46 50 47 48

25 Sep 27 45 42 44 43 50 47 46 48

26 Oct 4 44 42 45 43 50 48 46 47

5 45 44 43 42 47 50 48 46

Station #

HDR Michigan, Inc.

TABLE 4

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Net Number Usage for Gill Net Sampling

2010
HDR M

TABLE 5-1

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Gill Netting Set Water Temperatures (centigrade)

2010

STATION#

Week Month Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Apr 19 6.1 6.2 8.5 8.1 5.9 6.1 6.3 6.1

22 6.5 6.2 8.7 8.3 6.1 6.4 7.0 6.7

3 Apr 28 6.3 7.1 9.0 8.1 5.6 5.6 6.6 6.74 May 6 10.6 10.9 11.5 11.6 8.0 10.1 10.8 10.25 May 11 8.2 7.8 7.3 7.1 7.4 7.2 7.1 6.9

12 7.9 8.1 8.0 8.1 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.5

6 May 17 8.3 8.6 8.9 10.3 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.3

18 8.4 8.7 11.8 10.4 7.8 8.4 8.7 8.6

7 May 24 15.0 14.8 13.9 13.3 12.7 12.5 12.2 11.9

25 14.8 14.8 13.8 13.7 13.6 13.3 13.1 12.7

8 May 31 13.3 13.1 13.3 14.7 12.8 13.3 12.9 13.3

3 12.8 13.2 15.2 15.2 11.0 12.1 12.6 14.2

9 Jun 7 8.2 10.8 12.4 11.9 6.3 7.6 11.8 11.4

10 11.0 10.9 12.0 11.7 11.0 10.7 11.1 11.0

10 Jun 14 12.3 12.0 13.7 13.5 11.3 11.3 11.7 13.0

15 12.5 11.1 10.5 10.4 11.9 11.2 10.6 10.9

11 Jun 21 19.2 19.7 18.2 18.7 17.8 17.8 16.6 19.312 Jun 29 19.7 20.1 20.8 20.9 18.2 19.2 19.8 20.3

30 19.5 19.5 20.7 19.9 19.1 18.4 19.2 19.0

13 Jul 7 22.6 22.9 22.5 22.0 22.0 21.9 21.7 21.8

8 23.6 23.7 23.3 23.5 22.8 22.7 22.5 22.1

14 Jul 12 23.9 24.0 24.6 24.3 22.4 22.4 23.6 23.4

13 22.1 22.3 23.1 22.9 21.1 21.8 22.9 22.7

15 Jul 19 24.2 24.5 24.4 24.1 23.2 23.1 23.4 23.9

20 24.8 25.2 24.6 24.2 23.5 23.8 23.4 23.6

16 Jul 29 24.2 24.5 25.0 25.4 24.0 23.9 24.1 24.0

31 23.7 23.7 23.3 23.4 23.7 23.6 23.5 23.4

18 Aug 9 24.8 24.9 24.3 23.9 23.8 24.0 23.4 23.3

10 24.4 24.4 24.7 23.9 23.9 23.5 24.4 24.0

20 Aug 23 19.8 19.9 21.9 21.6 17.0 18.3 21.5 21.221 Sep 1 23.4 23.5 23.2 23.0 22.6 22.6 22.8 22.823 Sep 14 17.8 17.9 18.2 18.2 17.8 17.7 18.0 17.925 Sep 27 16.7 16.8 16.6 16.3 16.2 16.2 16.0 16.026 Oct 4 7.7 8.9 11.0 10.3 7.1 8.3 9.1 10.0

5 8.1 8.9 9.4 9.4 7.5 8.5 8.2 8.0
HDR M

TABLE 5-2

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Gill Netting Lift Water Temperatures (centigrade)

2010

STATION#

Week Month Date 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

2 Apr 19 5.4 5.7 6.3 6.3 5.1 5.3 5.8 5.8

22 5.6 5.6 6.5 6.4 5.8 5.8 6.0 5.9

3 Apr 28 5.7 6.0 6.4 6.9 5.6 5.8 6.2 6.34 May 6 7.6 7.5 10.0 9.8 7.5 8.1 9.7 9.95 May 11 7.9 7.5 6.9 6.9 7.0 6.9 7.2 7.4

12 8.2 8.3 7.6 7.5 7.0 6.9 6.8 7.2

6 May 17 7.8 7.9 8.4 8.4 7.8 8.0 8.3 8.3

18 8.3 8.3 8.6 8.5 7.6 7.8 8.3 8.5

7 May 24 13.5 13.6 12.6 12.1 12.7 12.8 12.5 12.2

25 13.5 13.6 13.0 12.8 13.7 13.7 12.9 12.6

8 May 31 12.9 12.6 12.8 12.7 12.9 12.8 12.6 12.3

3 12.6 12.0 13.2 13.3 10.6 12.3 12.5 13.6

9 Jun 7 9.4 9.4 10.9 10.8 7.4 9.8 9.9 10.3

10 10.6 10.5 10.5 9.6 10.8 10.5 10.1 9.6

10 Jun 14 10.8 10.6 9.7 10.6 9.8 9.7 10.3 10.4

15 13.0 12.4 11.1 11.2 13.2 12.8 12.1 12.0

11 Jun 21 19.3 19.3 18.9 18.8 18.9 19.1 18.9 18.912 Jun 29 18.8 19.0 19.1 19.0 18.9 18.9 18.8 18.3

30 17.5 17.1 18.1 17.7 17.6 17.9 15.8 17.6

13 Jul 7 22.4 22.4 21.8 21.7 21.8 21.9 21.6 21.6

8 21.9 22.3 22.1 22.1 22.0 22.0 21.9 22.3

14 Jul 12 20.5 20.8 21.2 21.2 21.2 21.2 20.3 21.1

13 19.2 19.2 18.6 17.8 20.4 19.3 19.8 19.8

15 Jul 19 22.9 23.1 23.0 23.1 22.8 22.8 22.9 22.9

20 23.9 23.9 23.0 23.2 23.8 23.7 23.1 23.1

16 Jul 29 23.5 23.4 23.9 23.8 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.7

31 23.3 23.3 23.1 22.9 23.4 23.3 23.2 23.2

18 Aug 9 23.6 23.6 23.5 23.5 23.2 23.2 23.2 23.2

10 23.3 23.4 23.5 23.5 23.3 23.3 23.5 23.5

20 Aug 23 19.0 19.6 20.0 20.1 19.0 20.5 21.0 21.121 Sep 1 22.6 22.6 22.4 22.5 22.6 22.5 22.5 22.523 Sep 14 17.2 17.4 17.5 17.6 17.4 17.6 17.4 17.525 Sep 27 15.8 15.7 15.6 15.5 15.8 15.8 15.6 15.626 Oct 4 7.7 8.0 9.0 9.1 7.9 7.0 9.0 9.2

5 8.3 8.7 9.0 8.9 8.2 8.1 8.3 8.0
TABLE 6

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Fish Released in the Field

2010

Target Species Non-Target Species

Week Month Date Chinook

Salmon

Steelhead Lake Trout Brown Trout Yellow Perch Coho Salmon Alewife Channel Catfish Round Goby Red- horse Round Whitefish White Sucker Fresh- water Drum 

2 4 19 4 4

4 22 1 7 6

3 4 28 1 3

4 5 6 1

5 5 11 5 1

5 12 3 3

6 5 17 3 2

5 18 1 3 2 1 2

7 5 24 1 4

5 25 1 2

8 5 31 4 3

6 3 1 4 

9 6 7 1 

6 10 4 

10 6 14 2
TABLE 6 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Fish Released in the Field

2010

Target Species Non-Target Species

Week Month Date Chinook

Salmon

Steelhead Lake Trout Brown Trout Yellow Perch Coho Salmon Alewife Channel Catfish Round Goby Red- horse Round Whitefish White Sucker Fresh- water Drum 

10 6 15 1 1

11 6 21

12 6 29 1 33 1 2

6 30 1 18

13 7 7 1 

7 8

14 7 12 2 1

7 13 1

15 7 19

7 20

16 7 29

7 31

18 8 9

8 10 1 

20 8 23 

21 9 1 1 2

23 9 14 3 1
TABLE 6 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Fish Released in the Field

2010

Target Species Non-Target Species

Week Month Date Chinook

Salmon

Steelhead Lake Trout Brown Trout Yellow Perch Coho Salmon Alewife Channel Catfish Round Goby Red- horse Round Whitefish White Sucker Fresh- water Drum 

25 9 27 1 3 1 

26 10 4 14 1

10 5 29 1 1

Total 8 2 78 30 1 1 65 1 5 2 1 3 5 
TABLE 7

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Handled in Fish Disposition (pounds)

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

Lake

Trout

Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

Brown

Trout

All

Others

Totals

2 4 19 28 25 10 63

4 22 105 22 26 153

3 4 28 0.5 10 5 15.5

4 5 6 65 45 31 141

5 5 11 75 9 16 100

5 12 85 13 16 114

6 5 17 28 19 23 70

5 18 30 18 9 57

7 5 24 30 22 66 118

5 25 18 15 39 72

8 5 31 1 35 46 82

6 3 20 82 102

9 6 7 20 8 43 71

6 10 5 16 21

10 6 14 15 22 37

6 15 11 10 21

11 6 21 5 20 25

12 6 29 4 2 145 151

6 30 1 56 57

13 7 7 2 82 84

7 8 0.5 2 90 92.5

14 7 12 0.5 135 135.5

7 13 0.5 1 78 79.5
TABLE 7 (Cont'd)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Handled in Fish Disposition (pounds)

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

Lake

Trout

Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

Brown

Trout

All

Others

Totals

15 7 19 0.5 50 50.5

7 20 0.5 43 43.5

16 7 29 10 10

7 31 1 18 19

18 8 9 35 38 73

8 10 10 14 24

20 8 23 3 10 26 140 179

21 9 1 40 10 50

23 9 14 12 192 1 73 278

25 9 27 60 220 6 337 623

26 10 4 388 72 11 160 631

26 10 5 338 16 220 574

Totals 11 1,367 611.5 248.5 2,179 4,417
TABLE 8

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds) to Carlson's Farm

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

Lake Trout Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

Brown

Trout

All

Others

Totals

2 4 19 10 10

4 22 26 26

3 4 28 5 5

4 5 6 25 25

5 5 11 13 13

5 12 5 5

6 5 17 15 15

5 18 4 4

7 5 24 55 55

5 25 33 33

8 5 31 45 45

6 3 65 65

9 6 7 40 40

6 10 15 15

10 6 14 16 16

6 15 10 10

11 6 21 5 20 25

12 6 29 2 110 112

6 30 50 50

13 7 7 2 82 84

7 8 0.5 2 90 92.5

14 7 12 75 75

7 13 50 50
TABLE 8 (Cont'd)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds) to Carlson's Farm

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

Lake Trout Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

Brown

Trout

All

Others

Totals

15 7 19 0.5 50 50.5

7 20 0.5 43 43.5

16 7 29 10 10

7 31 1 18 19

18 8 9 35 38 73

8 10 10 14 24

20 8 23 55 55

21 9 1 40 10 50

23 9 14 45 45

25 9 27 265 265

26 10 4 68.5 68.5

26 10 5 99.5 99.5

Totals 2 85 11.5 1,575 1,673.5
TABLE 9

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds)

to the Benzie County Council on Aging

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

>8.5"

Lake

Trout

>10"

Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

>10"

Steelhead

>10"

Brown

Trout

>10"

Walleye.

>10"

Whitefish

>10"

Totals

2 4 19 28 25 53

4 22 105 22 127

3 4 28 0.5 10 10.5

4 5 6 65 1 45 5 116

5 5 11 75 9 3 87

5 12 85 13 7 4 109

6 5 17 28 19 8 55

5 18 30 18 5 53

7 5 24 30 22 8 3 63

5 25 18 15 5 1 39

8 5 31 1 35 1 37

6 3 20 17 37

9 6 7 20 8 3 31

6 10 5 1 6

10 6 14 15 6 21

6 15 11 11

11 6 21

12 6 29 4 35 39

6 30 1 5 1 7

13 7 7

7 8

14 7 12 0.5 60 60.5

7 13 0.5 1 28 29.5
TABLE 9 (Cont'd)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds)

to the Benzie County Council on Aging

2010

Week Month Date Yellow

Perch

>8.5"

Lake

Trout

>10"

Chinook/

Coho

Salmon

>10"

Steelhead

>10"

Brown

Trout

>10"

Walleye.

>10"

Whitefish

>10"

Totals

15 7 19

7 20

16 7 29

7 31

18 8 9

8 10

20 8 23 3 10 26 124

21 9 1

23 9 14 12 192 1 25 3 233

25 9 27 60 220 6 22 50 358

26 10 4 383 72 11 5 60 531

26 10 5 330 16 50 65 461

Totals 9 1,354 526.5 1 237 358 213 2,698.5
TABLE 10

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Record of Yellow Perch Samples Frozen

for Michigan Department of Natural Resources

2010

Per MDNR request, HDR Michigan, Inc. no longer collects and freezes yellow perch.
TABLE 11

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Summary of Fish Disposition (pounds)

to (ENTERGY, Palisades) for Radiological Analysis

2010

Week Month Date Species Weight

26 10 4 Lake Trout 5

Gizzard Shad 10

White Sucker 10

Redhorse Sucker 5

Spottail Shiner 1

Alewife 0.5

26 10 5 Lake Trout 8

Redhorse Sucker 5

Spottail Shiner 0.25

Alewife 0.25

Total 45
TABLE 12

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STOAGE PROJECT

Data on Salmonids with Coded Wire Tags

2010

Week Month Date Species Length

(mm)

Weight

(lbs)

21 9 1 Chinook Salmon 765 12.5

23 9 14 Chinook Salmon 700 8.5

9 14 Chinook Salmon 510 3.5

25 9 27 Chinook Salmon 885 16

9 27 Chinook Salmon 790 12

9 27 Chinook Salmon 790 12.5

26 10 5 Lake Trout 705 8.2

10 5 Lake Trout 690 7

10 5 Lake Trout 595 4.5

10 5 Lake Trout 673 6.2

10 5 Lake Trout 750 9.5
TABLE 13

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

List of Species in the Voucher Collection

2010

SPECIES PRESERVED EXISTING PHOTO DATE PICTURE TAKEN

ALEWIFE X

BLACK BUFFALO X

BLACK BULLHEAD X

BLACK CRAPPIE X

BLOATER CHUB X

BOWFIN X

BROOK TROUT X

BROWN TROUT X

BURBOT X

CHANNEL CATFISH X

CHINOOK SALMON X

COHO SALMON X

COMMON CARP X

COMMON SHINER X

FRESHWATER DRUM X

GIZZARD SHAD X

LAKE CHUB NO SPECIMEN AVAILABLE. FISHES OF WISCONSIN

BECKER

LAKE STURGEON X

LAKE TROUT X

LAKE HERRING SPECIMEN IN U.M. MUSEUM X

LAKE WHITEFISH X

LARGEMOUTH BASS X

LONGNOSE DACE X

LONGNOSE GAR X

LONGNOSE SUCKER X

MOTTLED SCULPIN X

NORTHERN PIKE X

QUILLBACK NO SPECIMEN AVAILABLE FISHES OF WISCONSIN

BECKER
TABLE 13 (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

List of Species in the Voucher Collection

2010

PUMPKINSEED X

RAINBOW SMELT X

REDHORSE X

ROCK BASS X

ROUND WHITEFISH X

ROUND GOBY X

SEA LAMPREY X

SMALLMOUTH BASS X

SPOTTAIL SHINER X

STEELHEAD X

THREESPINE STICKLEBACK X

TROUT-PERCH X

WALLEYE X

WHITE PERCH X

WHITE SUCKER X

YELLOW PERCH X
Appendix F-I.

2010 Gill Net Catch Daily Reports 

Gill net catch daily reports for barrier net effectiveness 

monitoring are provided in APPENDIX C of Exhibit A. 

Gill net catch daily reports for sampling during the reservoir 

outage conducted from September 8 - September 24, 2010 are 

supplied on following pages. 
Plant Shutdown data - week 23 September 14 2010

Scaling

Spp Station 1 Station 2 Station 3 Station 4 Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Bottom Mid Surface Inside Outside Data Large Forage

Alewives 4-5" 0 00 Alewife

Alewives > 5" 0 00 0

Smelt 4-5" 0 0 Smelt

Smelt > 5" 0 00 0

Brown Trout 4-5" 0 0

Brown Trout 5-12" 0 0Brown Trout > 12" 1 10Chinook Salmon 4-5" 0 0Chinook Salmon 5-12" 1 1 11Chinook Salmon 12-20" 1 102Chinook Salmon >20" 6 1 2 1 9 4 3 1 25 28Coho Salmon 4-5" 0 0Coho Salmon 5-12" 0 0Coho Salmon >12" 2 1 11 1 4 4Lake Trout 4-5" 0 0Lake Trout 5-12" 0 0Lake Trout >12" 1 1 2 00Steelhead Trout 4-5" 0 0Steelhead Trout 5-12" 0 0Steelhead Trout >12" 0 00Walleye 4-5" 0 0Walleye > 5" 3 221 0 8 8Yellow Perch 4-5" 1 1 0 Game Fish

Yellow Perch > 5" 1 1 00 40

Chubs 4-5" 0 0

Chubs > 5" 0 0Burbot 0 0Carp 0 0Freshwater Drum 1 1 2 04Gizzard Shad 3 3 0Longnose Sucker 0 0Redhorse Sucker 212211 3 3 9Round Goby 1 01Round Whitefish 1 1 02Spottail Shiner 16 2 9 0White Perch 0 0White Sucker 2 2 2 2Quillback Carp 0 0Rock Bass 0 0Smallmouth Bass 0 0channel catfish 0 0lake herring 0 0lake whitefish 0 0northern pike 0 0sea lampery 0 0trout perch 0 0lake sturgeon 0 0

8 3 1 1 0 2 4 0 0 19 7 5 25 58

Station Totals 10 3 15 5

Totals

12 3 4 31

Station 5 Station 6 Station 7 Station 8
Appendix F-II. 

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT 

Letters of Authorization 

2010 




FISH DISPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS/REQUIREMENTS 

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE BARRIER NET EVALUATION PROJECT

Contractor shall maintain edible and non-edible fish with ice at the Ludington Pumped 

Storage Garage Laboratory and supervise fish pick-up including maintenance of a fish 

disposition log book. Total anticipated poundage is 2,000 – 5,000 lbs. 

Contractor will subcontract non-edible fish disposal to Patrick Carlson of 1645 South 

Victory Corners, Ludington, MI 49431. Tel 231-843-4067 

EDIBLE FISH

The edible fish are: Brown trout over 10”, Lake trout over 10”; Rainbow trout (steelhead) 

over 10”; Salmon over 10”; Walleye over 10”, Whitefish over 10” and Yellow perch over 

8.5”. 

Contractor shall notify the following when a quantity over 75 lbs of edible fish is 

available. When quantities less than 75 lbs are captured, the contractor shall clean and 

freeze edible fish until an acceptable quantity is available, which will be picked up at the 

Ludington lab. 

 Benzie County Council on Aging, Inc. 

 P.O. Box 337 

 Honor, MI 49640 

 ATTN: Linda Davis 

 TX: (231) 325-4851 

 FAX: (231) 325-4855 

Contractor will obtain a signed receipt for the poundage of edible fish, in the round, by 

species from the Benzie County Council on Aging, Inc. 

NON EDIBLE FISH

Subcontractor (Pat Carlson) shall pick up and dispose of all non-edible fish and edible 

fish carcasses by burying not less than two (2) feet deep on the N1/2 of the SE 1⁄4, 

Section 29, T18N, R17W, Mason County, Michigan, in accordance with Michigan 

department of Agriculture rules outlined in Act 239, P.A. of 1982, as amended. 

MONITORING

Subcontractor compliance with disposal practices shall be the responsibility of the 

Michigan Department of Natural Resources. The disposal may periodically be monitored 

by Mr. Todd Kalish or District Law Enforcement personnel. 

Appendix F-III. 

Gill Net History 

TABLE A- Net Repair History 

TABLE B- Inspection Record of Nets in Use 

2010 
TABLE A

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Net Repair History

2010

NET

NO.

DATE 1" 1.5" 2" 2.5" 2.75" 3" 4" 4.5" 5" 6" 7"

45 4/9 X X X

45 4/12 X X X X X

39 4/16 X X X

42 4/16 X X X X

42 4/19 X

43 4/19 X X X X X

44 6/2 X X X

44 6/10 X X X X X X

44 7/21 X

50 8/11 X

45 8/11 X

43 9/1 X

The mark (X) indicates which mesh was repaired either by mending or panel replacement.
TABLE B

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Inspection Record of Nets in Use

2010

PANEL MESH SIZE

NET # STATUS 1′′ 1.50′′ 2.00′′ 2.50′′ 2.75” 3.00” 4.00” 4.50” 5.00” 6.00

1 DESTROYED

10/97

2 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O3 DESTROYED

9/24/08

4 DESTROYED

10/97

5 DESTROYED

10/97

6 DESTROYED

10/97

7 DESTROYED

5/16/04

8 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O9 DESTROYED

9/24/98

10 DESTROYED

10/97

11 DESTROYED

10/97

12 DESTROYED

10/97

13 DESTROYED

10/97

14 DESTROYED

10/97

15 DESTROYED

10/97

16 DESTROYED

10/97
TABLE B (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Inspection Record of Nets in Use

2010

PANEL MESH SIZE

NET # STATUS 1′′ 1.50′′ 2.00′′ 2.50′′ 2.75′′ 3.00′′ 4.00′′ 4.50′′ 5.00′′ 6

17 DESTROYED

10/5/99

18 DESTROYED

9/24/98

19 IN-USE OK OK OK FIX OK OK OK OK OK O20 DESTROYED

10/5/99

21 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

INSPECT

22 DESTROYED

7/27/98

23 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

INSPECT

24 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O25 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O26 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O27 DESTROYED

8/6/99

28 IN-USE OK OK FIX FIX OK OK OK OK OK F29 DESTROYED

10/5/99
TABLE B (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Inspection Record of Nets in Use

2010

PANEL MESH SIZE

NET # STATUS 1′′ 1.50′′ 2.00′′ 2.50′′ 2.75′′ 3.00′′ 4.00′′ 4.50′′ 5.00′′ 6

30 DESTROYED

7/27/98

31 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O32 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

INSPECT

33 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O34 IN-USE FIX OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

INSPECT NEEDS

CLEANING

35 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O36 DESTROYED

10/5/99

37 DESTROYED

8/6/99

38 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O39 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O40 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O41 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

NEEDS

CLEANING
TABLE B (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Inspection Record of Nets in Use

2010

PANEL MESH SIZE

NET # STATUS 1′′ 1.50′′ 2.00′′ 2.50′′ 2.75′′ 3.00′′ 4.00′′ 4.50′′ 5.00′′ 6

42 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O43 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O44 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O45 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O46 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O47 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O48 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O49 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O50 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O51 IN-USE OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK OK O

NEEDS

CLEANING
Appendix F-IV. 

Length Frequency of Yellow Perch 

2010 
TABLE A

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Length Frequency of Yellow Perch

in 25- Millimeter Size Groups

2010

Total Length (mm)

Week Month Day 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 32

8 5 31 1 

12 6 29 4 1 2 1 

13 7 8 1 

14 7 12 1 1 

14 7 13 1 1 

15 7 19 1 1 

15 7 20 1 

16 7 29 1 

16 7 31 6 4 

18 8 9 2 

18 8 10 2 20 8 23 2 1 1 1 4 
TABLE A (Cont’d)

BARRIER NET MONITORING PROGRAM

LUDINGTON PUMPED STORAGE PROJECT

Length Frequency of Yellow Perch

in 25-Millimeter Size Groups

2010

Total Length (mm)

Week Month Day 75 100 125 150 175 200 225 250 275 300 32

23 9 14 1 1 

25 9 27 3 5 

Totals 14 13 1 3 6 3 2 5 3 1 
EXHIBIT B

2010 Ludington Project Summary of Pumping and Generating 
Week Ending 1 or more 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more 6

9-Apr-10 23.75 18.50 13.75 9.00 6.25 2.50

16-Apr-10 66.25 57.00 44.75 33.50 23.75 10.50

23-Apr-10 76.25 61.75 43.75 30.75 20.00 12.50

30-Apr-10 64.25 38.25 25.25 12.25 8.75 0.50

7-May-10 78.75 50.25 30.50 13.50 8.00 3.00

14-May-10 75.75 46.75 27.25 11.25 3.00 0.75

21-May-10 61.00 33.25 20.25 5.50 2.50 0.75

28-May-10 72.00 52.50 36.25 25.25 15.50 8.25

4-Jun-10 69.25 56.50 47.00 20.00 12.25 5.25

11-Jun-10 65.25 51.00 45.50 25.50 17.25 10.75

18-Jun-10 69.50 60.50 50.25 28.50 20.50 10.75

25-Jun-10 62.25 58.00 51.00 31.25 26.00 17.25

2-Jul-10 64.25 56.25 50.75 26.75 16.75 11.25

9-Jul-10 72.00 67.00 60.25 31.25 23.00 17.50

16-Jul-10 68.25 62.25 56.25 39.25 26.50 14.75

23-Jul-10 71.50 66.50 57.25 33.25 23.25 0.00

30-Jul-10 65.75 59.25 53.00 39.00 30.75 9.50

6-Aug-10 61.25 57.00 52.25 36.50 30.00 21.75

13-Aug-10 64.25 54.75 48.25 34.25 27.00 21.50

20-Aug-10 69.50 58.75 52.25 43.75 36.00 24.25

27-Aug-10 59.75 52.50 48.25 34.50 27.00 19.75

3-Sep-10 66.75 58.00 52.50 46.50 37.00 28.00

10-Sep-10 23.50 16.75 14.50 7.00 5.75 1.50

17-Sep-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24-Sep-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1-Oct-10 30.50 24.50 8.50 4.50 2.00 0.00

8-Oct-10 67.50 43.25 28.25 17.00 7.75 0.00

15-Oct-10 80.50 62.25 40.25 20.00 8.75 0.00

TOTALS 1,649.50 1,323.25 1,058.00 659.75 465.25 252.50

Barrier net installation began on Sunday, March 28 and was completed on Tuesday, April 6.

Barrier net removal began on Saturday, October 16 and was completed on Monday, November 1.

2010 Number of Units Generating (hours)
Week Ending 1 or more 2 or more 3 or more 4 or more 5 or more 6

9-Apr-10 17.75 16.00 14.25 12.50 11.00 0.00

16-Apr-10 55.00 51.25 47.00 40.75 37.00 11.50

23-Apr-10 58.50 53.25 48.00 41.00 33.00 21.25

30-Apr-10 50.00 40.25 32.75 20.25 8.00 0.00

7-May-10 50.00 46.75 42.00 29.50 19.75 2.75

14-May-10 50.00 44.25 38.00 25.50 6.50 0.50

21-May-10 47.75 40.50 29.75 5.00 0.75 0.00

28-May-10 64.25 59.25 53.00 33.50 21.75 2.00

4-Jun-10 68.50 65.00 60.75 40.00 15.00 0.00

11-Jun-10 58.50 56.25 51.00 36.75 25.25 0.00

18-Jun-10 68.75 63.75 55.75 46.00 33.75 9.50

25-Jun-10 75.50 70.25 64.00 38.25 30.00 11.75

2-Jul-10 69.75 63.25 57.50 37.50 21.50 6.25

9-Jul-10 74.25 70.00 66.00 43.75 37.00 13.75

16-Jul-10 74.00 68.50 61.50 42.00 35.00 15.25

23-Jul-10 77.25 72.75 65.25 47.75 36.75 0.00

30-Jul-10 74.75 69.75 65.50 48.25 38.25 0.00

6-Aug-10 70.50 68.25 62.75 42.25 38.75 18.50

13-Aug-10 74.25 69.75 63.50 42.25 37.25 10.75

20-Aug-10 68.75 64.50 59.00 46.75 42.50 22.50

27-Aug-10 70.50 62.50 58.25 41.00 34.50 24.50

3-Sep-10 72.00 66.50 57.75 48.75 43.25 32.75

10-Sep-10 23.00 15.00 10.00 2.75 0.00 0.00

17-Sep-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

24-Sep-10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1-Oct-10 44.50 33.25 19.75 8.25 6.25 0.00

8-Oct-10 51.00 47.75 37.50 24.50 11.50 0.00

15-Oct-10 55.00 51.75 47.25 29.50 22.75 2.75

TOTALS 1,564.00 1,430.25 1,267.75 874.25 647.00 206.25

Barrier net installation began on Sunday, March 28 and was completed on Tuesday, April 6.

Barrier net removal began on Saturday, October 16 and was completed on Monday, November 1.

2010 Number of Units Pumping (hours)
K:\ENV\SFD\LPSP\Annual Reports\2010\EXHIBIT C cover letter.doc 

EXHIBIT C

On November 17, 2010 members of the Ludington Scientific 

Advisory Team were provided a draft 2010 Annual Ludington 

Project Barrier Net Report for review and comment. 

No comments were received. 
2010 LPSP Annual Report of Barrier Net Operations - Draft for SAT review and 

comment.

Scott F DeBoe to: SAT-3 11/17/2010 03:53 PM

Cc: KALISHT, Robert M Neustifter

Bcc: Nancy A Popa, David S Battige, William A Schoenlein

Ludington Scientific Advisory Team,

Attached for your review and comment is the draft 2010 Ludington Pumped Storage Project

Annual Report of Barrier Net Operations. The report is being delivered via email as a

compressed zip file containing several pdf documents which enable simultaneous document

viewing (e.g. you can have open windows for both the text document and the figures

document). The viewing order of the documents in the conventional report form is:

1.) LPSP_BNM_Report10.pdf (report)

2.) LPSP_BNM_Report10_figs.pdf (report figures)

3.) Exhibit_A_text10.pdf (consultant’s detailed report)

4.) Exhibit_A_Tables10.pdf (consultants detailed report tables)

5.) Exhibit_A_Figures10.pdf (consultants detailed report figures)

6.) Exhibit_A_Appendices10.pdf (consultant’s detailed report Appendices)

7.) Exhibit_B_10.pdf (summary of 2009 pumping and generating)

Please let me know if you have any difficulties extracting or viewing the report documents.

As you know, we are required to provide this report to the FERC by year‐end, including your

comments and our response to them.  I would, therefore, appreciate receiving your comments

no later than December 3, 2010.  For your convenience, you may submit comments in either

hard copy or electronically. In order to adhere to the December 31, 2010 report submittal due

date, comments received after December 3, 2009 will not be incorporated into the final report.  

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott DeBoe

Sr Environmental Planner

Environmental Dept.

Consumers Energy

P22-520

1945 W. Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201

(517) 788-0538 office

(517) 740-6442 cell
errata - 2010 LPSP Draft report for SAT Review and Comment

Scott F DeBoe to: SAT-3 11/17/2010 04:01 PM

Cc: Robert M Neustifter, KALISHT

Bcc: Nancy A Popa, William A Schoenlein, David S Battige

SAT members,

The previous email text contained dates in 2009 that should read 2010:

7.) Exhibit_B_10.pdf (summary of 200910 pumping and generating)

........comments received after December 3, 200910 will not be incorporated into the final report.

Sorry

Scott DeBoe

Sr Environmental Planner

Environmental Dept.

Consumers Energy

(517) 788-0538
K:\ENV\SFD\LPSP\Annual Reports\2010\EXHIBIT D cover.doc 

EXHIBIT D

Licensee’s response to the Scientific Advisory Team 

Comments on the 2010 Annual Barrier Net Report 
K:\ENV\SFD\LPSP\Annual Reports\2010\EXHIBIT D cover.doc 

EXHIBIT D

No comments were received.